FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
If I am remembering correctly, its legal to own as long as you do not own the firearm that it fits in (AR Lower). AK parts kits come with the full auto fire control group, but they cannot be installed, and should be destroyed/sold/put in a place far far away. I cannot find the ruling to back it up so take it for what its worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
The answer to your question is yes. You can own Full auto/Select auto parts. They are just parts. BUT! If you own a gun that would accept those parts the BATF would consider that intent to manufacture a illegal machine gun. I know it's stupid....if you were going to manufacture you would have but that's the ATF. My best advice is to not buy the parts since it seems like the ATF has been changing rules weekly. If you decide to purchase the parts I defiantly wouldn't purchase them online or with credit card, check, bank card, etc. I also would make sure I purchased them legally but anonymously and use cash. But I'm a paranoid person and don't want to be added to some secret watch list. I know I'm probably already on some list with the amount of guns and NFA items I own coupled with the chemicals and electronic components I purchase. Nothing weird I just have lots of science hobbies. So I am super anal about keeping records and making sure I don't even come questionably close to breaking a law. I really don't want to wake up to a flash bang grenade and some juiced up officer shooting me since I am hooked up to a CPAP machine and shoots me because (make plausible excuse).

So basically I'm saying you shouldn't buy the parts. I know it's stupid because criminals convert semi-auto's to full auto all day long and the only one's punished is lawful gun owners. The best thing to do is sign a petition to repeal of the hughes amendment. Maybe someday the government will limit spending on government agencies like the ATF and they will have to get smart find ways to generate revenue. Like allowing post 1986 select fire firearms to be added back as regular NFA items.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,024 Posts
Yes, you can own it. But you can not own a receiver that it fits into at the same time otherwise it is considered constructive intent. Why else do you have machine gun parts unless you want to make a machine gun? BS is what it is and constructive intent is a scary term that has yet to be defined. No part there is against the law to own, not even the GIAS or the trigger components. As a matter of fact, you can put most of the fire control parts into the AR15 style receiver but with manipulation of the dis-connector, you can make your AR15 go bang, very fast.....

FTB says stay away from these parts unless you have a registered MG that needs them. Now if you do have a registered machine gun that uses them and you have them as spares, you can not own another AR15 along with these parts (constructive intent again), so the boys in blue claim. More BS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Okay, I get it, I think.

Hypothetically, I own an AR15 lower. But it's an AR15 lower, that will not accept the auto sear. So if I was to instal all of the parts in the lower, minus the sear, it's still semi auto, right? It can't fire more than one round at a time. But it's still a violation, because I could hypothetically machine the lower to instal the sear.

Now, what happens if I own a AR15 lower, and machine it to accept the auto sear, but don't own any of the parts? In other words can a non FFL legally own a stripped M16 lower?

Again, I have no intention of doing any of this, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the rules. I had been previously told that owning ANY of the parts in the kit was no different than having a complete full auto in the eyes of the BATF, and was shocked when I saw the parts kit for sale.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,024 Posts
Okay, I get it, I think.

Hypothetically, I own an AR15 lower. But it's an AR15 lower, that will not accept the auto sear. So if I was to instal all of the parts in the lower, minus the sear, it's still semi auto, right? It can't fire more than one round at a time. But it's still a violation, because I could hypothetically machine the lower to instal the sear.

Now, what happens if I own a AR15 lower, and machine it to accept the auto sear, but don't own any of the parts? In other words can a non FFL legally own a stripped M16 lower?

Again, I have no intention of doing any of this, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the rules. I had been previously told that owning ANY of the parts in the kit was no different than having a complete full auto in the eyes of the BATF, and was shocked when I saw the parts kit for sale.
Lot of questions here.

If you have an AR15 lower, yes you can install all the other parts except the GIAS into the firearm. However, FTB says not to do this because if the dis connector is manipulated correctly, it can be made to fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger. Hence, with the manipulation, it can be made into a machine gun. It is not a violation and machining the AR15 lower is really inconsequential as there are lowers out there that are already machined to M16 specs, most notably the polymer lowers.

You can machine a AR15 lower to M16 specs with no issues. Owning an AR15 lower machined to M16 specs is nothing. Thousands of people have them. Some machine them themselves with 80% lowers. It becomes a machine gun if you mark or drill the holes for the pin for the GIAS. All you have to do is mark or drill the holes, not own any of the parts and it is a machine gun according to the FTB.

Let me emphasis this again, if you mark where the holes for the GIAS pin goes, you have a machine gun. If you drill the holes, you have a machine gun.

Lot of people are shocked with what they see online. There is no law preventing you from owning these parts. Constructive intents is what prevents you from owning the parts and a AR15 lower. It is very complicated if you want it to be. Again, whatever constructive intent means for the day pretty much rules here.

Can I own an AR15 lower that has been machined to M16 specs WITHOUT the GIAS pin holes or marking for the pin holes? Yes.
Can I own the internals of a M16 including the GIAS without having an AR15 lower? Yes.
Can I own and install the internals of the fire control group of the M16 lower into an AR15 lower without the GIAS? Yes, but not recommended because the dis-connector can be manipulated to fire more than one shot at a time.
Can I own the M16 fire control parts including the GIAS and an AR15 or AR15 lower? Maybe. However FTB will claim constructive intent, whatever that means. So that would be ??????
Can I install the M16 fire control components into an AR15 lower including the GIAS. No, this is a machine gun.
Can I mark where the GIAS pin or drill the holes where the GIAS pin goes in the AR15 lower? No, this is a machine gun.
Can I own a registered M16 machine gun, have the fire control group parts as spares and own an AR15 as well? Maybe, but FTB will claim constructive intent, whatever that means. So this would be ??????

Not a lawyer, just an interpretation of what I have read and heard about this subject. For a real answer, write a letter to the FTB and ask them however I am sure that there is a copy of such a letter posted somewhere on line at this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
I know it's stupid because criminals convert semi-auto's to full auto all day long and the only one's punished is lawful gun owners.
Is this true? because I hardly ever here of FA being used in a crime or by criminals. The only one I can even think of right now is the two guys in Hollywood with AK's.

Thanks for posting all that HK. I have wondered many times when I see FA trigger groups on Gunbroker how that stuff worked. I figured you needed a number or something proving you had NFA stuff in order to buy it. If the purpose of the ATF is to confuse as many people as possible into committing a felony, they do a bang up job!

Just to clarify, I have never, and never intend to buy anything like that. I was just curious how it worked. I learn a lot on here! :)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,024 Posts
Is this true? because I hardly ever here of FA being used in a crime or by criminals. The only one I can even think of right now is the two guys in Hollywood with AK's.

Thanks for posting all that HK. I have wondered many times when I see FA trigger groups on Gunbroker how that stuff worked. I figured you needed a number or something proving you had NFA stuff in order to buy it. If the purpose of the ATF is to confuse as many people as possible into committing a felony, they do a bang up job!

Just to clarify, I have never, and never intend to buy anything like that. I was just curious how it worked. I learn a lot on here! :)
The only recovered registered machine guns used in a crime were used by police officers. You can not say about the unrecovered ones, but machine guns to my knowledge are seldomly used in crimes and civilian owners have a 100% track record of lawful use of registered machine guns.

It is made to be complicated because they have squeezed every interpretation of what the law means to what they want it to mean any your only recourse is the courts. However, there is precedence out there on M16 AR15 cases that support what is said here and how constructive intent is a very real ambiguous term that is subject to interpretation by who ever sits on the bench and how it was presented. They use it like "conspiracy". You know, if you do not intend this, they why do you have that. They have made it a crime based on what they believe your intent is even if there was never any action to prove that their assumption of the intent can even be quantified. You do not have to overtly do something to be charged with the crime. Mere possession of two parts is sufficient to to violate the NFA. They can claim that it is a sole use item therefore the presumption is that you intended to do it.

I strongly disagree and there are many other like me out there that feel the same way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
Let me emphasis this again, if you mark where the holes for the GIAS pin goes, you have a machine gun. If you drill the holes, you have a machine gun.
:th_4_17_2: this is what everyone needs to walk away with. It is OK to own the parts you just can't have a machine gun lower, 100% spot on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
:th_4_17_2: this is what everyone needs to walk away with. It is OK to own the parts you just can't have a machine gun lower, 100% spot on.
what I got out of it was it is better to not even own the parts. "constructive intent" could be applied if you own a lower. Even if your lower is not machined to be a MG.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
Honestly that is taking a very conservative approach bordering on paranoid. What you need to remember about "constructive intent" is that they have to be searching your home to even see that you have the parts to begin with. So if the police are searching my house I probably have other things to worry about. No one have been arrested under constructive intent unless they had parts that could be put together without modification. Example would be having an AR upper that is under 16" without a SBR or pistol for it to attach to. Since there is no modification needed to attach it to a standard lower it could be considered constructive intent.

I'm not saying to take the ATF lightly, all my point is if the ATF isn't going to get you on those charges unless you have a machine gun lower and even then they would go with illegal possession of a machine gun instead of the lesser charge of constructive intent.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,024 Posts
what I got out of it was it is better to not even own the parts. "constructive intent" could be applied if you own a lower. Even if your lower is not machined to be a MG.
That is pretty much it. I doubt that the FTB sends out agents looking for this type of activity. What they do do is use it for situations where they are called into and tack on as many crimes as possible, hoping a few will stick.

I do not know of any test case where someone actually was tried on constructive intent without something else being levied against them. So is there any court cases where someone was tried solely on a constructive intent issue? I do not know. You can go through the ATF cases on firearms where they charged someone with a crime and what the outcome was. I do not recall a single case where the only issue was constructive intent because you had parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
I'm ok with paranoid if it keeps them from ruining my life. :smile: which is pretty much what would happen if they went after you for something.

I understand what you are saying though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
I've seen that but you have to look at the whole picture there. He was basically selling a ready to go AOW because of the forward grip and even had a spot in the case cut out for the grip. Had he been selling the AR pistol and an AR rifle things would have been different because it could be argued that it was for the rifle.

I'm not trying to argue a point or anything just pointing out that in the example that the OP presented it is legal to own the AR parts as long as you don't have the machine gun lower.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,024 Posts
I just put that out there to show the op how wacky some of this can be at times. Constructive possession vs constructive intent. Here, it shows that the individual had the parts therefore his intent was to have a AOW or SBR. On the other side, if you have the M16 fire control parts and the AR15 lower, it could be constructive possession (you have them to build) and constructive intent (why else would you possess them except to build).

You don't have to do any thing to be charged with the crime and because he had the parts, they said he was guilty. Not even assembled but only the possibility of being assembled.

Again, this case was solely based on "what we think you are going to do, not did you do it or not". So I have an AR15 pistol case that has a cut out for a verticle grip because I can also use my AR15 SBR with the vertical grip on it when I go shooting. So because I have a case cut out that has the room for a stock and a vertical grip, if I sell the case with the pistol, am I going to go to jail because "the cut outs were there, why else would he have them except to make a SBR?"

So according to this, I can not have a fore grip and a butt stock for an AR15 because I have a AR15 pistol and under constructive intent and constructive possession, I have the parts to make a AOW/SBR out of my pistol constructive possession) and can do it (constructive intent) even if I never will.

Pretty freaking stupid in my book but it is the law on the books that the FTB will charge you with.

I wonder what would have happened if he sold the parts as a separate transaction. You know, just the pistol, then just the butt stock, then just the vertical grip, then just the case, like the FFLs do on gunbroker all the time. Bet they would have charged him anyways when there was no intent to break the law, even an intent to stay within the law by making them all separate transactions.

So any FFL at any gun show who sells AR15 pistols and AR15 stocks and AR15 vertical fore grips can be charged with trying to sell an AOW or SBR under this court ruling because the FFL has the possession of the parts and what other intent could he have (according to them who want to charge him).

EDITED TO ADD:
Got to say it, all this is just a hypothetical discussion and in no way should be utilized to construe my intents of who or whom or whenever or even whatever and ifs ands or buts of anything that you might or might not think or otherwise try to comprehend in the stupidity of all these laws that make no sense what-so-ever. I think that many of the interpretations by the FTB are from outer space and disagree with the entirety of the NFA including the Hughes Act as well as the FTB determinations because they change their mind faster that the average American toilet is flushed, but further, that any action by them to enforce these unlawful acts of government is illegal in its entirety as the Constitution is absolute on this matter that no branch of the government can change and or modify the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by placing unlawful restrictions upon it to prevent the people from the free exercise of this most important article in the Bill of Rights. All gun laws, both pro gun and anti gun, are all infringements on the 2nd Amendment which codifies what we have had since the beginning of time, that is a right to defend ourselves with whatever means and what we deem best not what some government says we can or can not have. I disagree with EVERY gun law on the books in the US as they are all unconstitutional and ONLY under Article V of the Constitution can any limits be placed on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, BY THE PEOPLE and not by the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of any government, federal or state. You call for a Constitutional Convention or else you keep your GD hands off of my right. IT IS NOT YOUR GRANTED PERMISSION TO ME!

Had to say that to protect myself in court should any one at any time try to use these discussions to codify their inherently defective opinions of what my intent is or is not. Free speech is not so free anymore, and has not been for a long time.........
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
I get it and agree that it is stupid. Really the point is that they will get you for something if they want to. But I go back to they have to be looking for something and trying to charge you with something to begin with.

I understand the position of "better safe than sorry so I won't even have the parts to begin with". I'm just saying what your rights are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
So according to this, I can not have a fore grip and a butt stock for an AR15 because I have a AR15 pistol and under constructive intent and constructive possession, I have the parts to make a AOW/SBR out of my pistol constructive possession) and can do it (constructive intent) even if I never will.
This is exactly what I don't understand. Because an AR pistol, and an AR rifle have interchangeable parts....(easy as pie interchangeable parts to boot) which makes the hole thing something out of cuckoo land.:?:

I would love to know the number of crimes committed with an illegal SBR, SBS since the NFA. I would bet it is incredibly small, if worth mentioning at all. Which tells me the whole thing is pointless, because a SBR is no more or less dangerous than a 16" or greater length. actually I guess you could make the point of the longer barrel being slightly more dangerous because of increased velocity. Who came up with 16" anyway, and what kind of crazy bassackwards logic did they use to come up with that number?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,109 Posts
You can own the parts, but not if you have a lower or rifle. This would be constructive intent.

Auto bolt carrier is ok.

Stay clear of fire control parts.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top