User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:59:32 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Initially, but those who formed a trust, and were denied, will then sue under equal protection and the same grounds as this case. And the .gov loses the we never approved post '86 MGs as a defense right off the bat. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:59:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fla556guy]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
We sue for equal protection because the Gov is letting some have new MG's but not others. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Wouldn't equal protection be assumed, considering that NOLO argued on that basis.....court precedent and all? I'm no lawyer, but it would be logical that would be the case. (although legal stuff doesn't always make logical sense to me). In other words, will a lawyer type please fix me if I'm wrong? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:26:08 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Xepho: Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? But as stated; equal protection suite |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:28:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
It's waaayy too late for them to backpedal to that point. But as stated; equal protection suite Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? But as stated; equal protection suite That would be suite! 
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:29:22 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fla556guy:
Wouldn't equal protection be assumed, considering that NOLO argued on that basis.....court precedent and all? I'm no lawyer, but it would be logical that would be the case. (although legal stuff doesn't always make logical sense to me). In other words, will a lawyer type please fix me if I'm wrong? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fla556guy:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Wouldn't equal protection be assumed, considering that NOLO argued on that basis.....court precedent and all? I'm no lawyer, but it would be logical that would be the case. (although legal stuff doesn't always make logical sense to me). In other words, will a lawyer type please fix me if I'm wrong? "Equal protection" requires that the government treat everyone who is similarly situated in the same way. The argument would be: Are people who applied for and who were denied tax stamps to make a machine gun similarly situated with those who applied for and whose applications were approved to make a machine gun? It's an interesting hypothetical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:29:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlshady: That would be suite! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlshady: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By Xepho: Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? But as stated; equal protection suite That would be suite! |
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 11:22:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
"Equal protection" requires that the government treat everyone who is similarly situated in the same way. The argument would be: Are people who applied for and who were denied tax stamps to make a machine gun similarly situated with those who applied for and whose applications were approved to make a machine gun? It's an interesting hypothetical. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By fla556guy:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Wouldn't equal protection be assumed, considering that NOLO argued on that basis.....court precedent and all? I'm no lawyer, but it would be logical that would be the case. (although legal stuff doesn't always make logical sense to me). In other words, will a lawyer type please fix me if I'm wrong? "Equal protection" requires that the government treat everyone who is similarly situated in the same way. The argument would be: Are people who applied for and who were denied tax stamps to make a machine gun similarly situated with those who applied for and whose applications were approved to make a machine gun? It's an interesting hypothetical. Wouldn't all of the trusts that applied to form 1 MG's be equally situated? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 11:28:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bluewidow: Wouldn't all of the trusts that applied to form 1 MG's be equally situated? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bluewidow: Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM: Originally Posted By fla556guy: Originally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By Xepho: Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Wouldn't equal protection be assumed, considering that NOLO argued on that basis.....court precedent and all? I'm no lawyer, but it would be logical that would be the case. (although legal stuff doesn't always make logical sense to me). In other words, will a lawyer type please fix me if I'm wrong? "Equal protection" requires that the government treat everyone who is similarly situated in the same way. The argument would be: Are people who applied for and who were denied tax stamps to make a machine gun similarly situated with those who applied for and whose applications were approved to make a machine gun? It's an interesting hypothetical. Wouldn't all of the trusts that applied to form 1 MG's be equally situated? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 11:31:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Possibly, but the ruling to create that scenario would scare the shit out of me... Because it would leave a lot of room to have trust "fixed" with legislation Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 11:57:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bluewidow:
Wouldn't all of the trusts that applied to form 1 MG's be equally situated? Interesting argument. It adds an interesting twist to the hypothetical. First the argument is that trusts are not subject to 18 USC 922(o) because trusts are not persons within the definition of 18 USC 921. Then the argument becomes these trusts are entitled to equal protection because the trusts are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. This non-person/person which received a tax stamp and approval to make a machine gun is similarly situated to these other non-persons/persons which did not receive a tax stamp and which were denied approval to make a machine gun. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on the side you're on), logic does not always win the day when it comes to the law. But to answer your point, it is not necessarily the case that those who were approved are similarly situated with those who were denied. That is an issue which must be decided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 12:25:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bluewidow:
Wouldn't all of the trusts that applied to form 1 MG's be equally situated? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bluewidow:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By fla556guy:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Wouldn't equal protection be assumed, considering that NOLO argued on that basis.....court precedent and all? I'm no lawyer, but it would be logical that would be the case. (although legal stuff doesn't always make logical sense to me). In other words, will a lawyer type please fix me if I'm wrong? "Equal protection" requires that the government treat everyone who is similarly situated in the same way. The argument would be: Are people who applied for and who were denied tax stamps to make a machine gun similarly situated with those who applied for and whose applications were approved to make a machine gun? It's an interesting hypothetical. Wouldn't all of the trusts that applied to form 1 MG's be equally situated? I believe so I applied just in case that happened. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 12:51:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WorkDroid]
[#12]
Just hit my facebook feed. Looks like its gonna start getting attention. Fuck.
www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution ETA: link left cold |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 12:59:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Diesel_Maximus_2992]
[#13]
Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter)
If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:00:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Just hit my facebook feed. Looks like its gonna start getting attention. Fuck. www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution ETA: link left cold that was posted on March 5. Don't worry about the media attention. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:02:56 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:03:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Xepho:
Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Equal application under the color of law. I'll file a form 1 and sue based on this case. Takes a little longer but I guarandamntee you that it'll get to SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:06:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock: Equal application under the color of law. I'll file a form 1 and sue based on this case. Takes a little longer but I guarandamntee you that it'll get to SCOTUS. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock: Originally Posted By Xepho: Asked this before, never got an answer... What is your plan if this whole thing just ends up with the ATF giving up and letting you have this small victory. Two guys get guns, boo hoo. Without an appeal ruling or a supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean jack shit to anyone other than the two plaintiffs, correct? Equal application under the color of law. I'll file a form 1 and sue based on this case. Takes a little longer but I guarandamntee you that it'll get to SCOTUS. No one can guarantee SCOTUS. IIRC only 2% of cases appealed to SCOTUS actually go there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:08:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Just hit my facebook feed. Looks like its gonna start getting attention. Fuck. www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution ETA: link left cold That link has been posted in this thread. Why leave a link to a David Codrea article cold? He is on our side, as I recall. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:09:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:14:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Hmm ok. I guess my follow up would be, would it be legal for a shop to assist me in my manufacturing. They talk me through it and I "manufacture it" then they make it perfect/functional? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. I would suggest buying a cheap mini mill and practice milling out some 80% lowers. You can even do it with a drill press, but it doesn't look as pretty. Once you've done an 80 on a small mill I think you will be comfortable making a few passes to turn an AR15 into an M16. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:14:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Hmm ok. I guess my follow up would be, would it be legal for a shop to assist me in my manufacturing. They talk me through it and I "manufacture it" then they make it perfect/functional? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:15:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Subguns deletes a post that is not inflammatory in the least. I posted: "what would it take for you to believe? A national organization stepping in?" And they deleted it.  NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:19:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. Yes, an 07/02 could do the work and transfer on a form 4. But you can't do a form 1 and then have them make the gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:28:45 PM EDT
[#24]
I just saw this at the Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-and-doj-punt-on-response-machine-gun-case |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:42:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Diesel_Maximus_2992]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:43:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Subguns deletes a post that is not inflammatory in the least. I posted: "what would it take for you to believe? A national organization stepping in?" And they deleted it. NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!!   
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:45:32 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Forgive my newbness. I'm referring to a firearm I currently own (my franken15) converting it after a victory. So I think I'm out of luck Negative ghost rider, you would just register it on a Form 1 like you do an SBR. Once that's done, get yourself a drill press and <carefully> go to town. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:46:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Forgive my newbness. I'm referring to a firearm I currently own (my franken15) and having someone convert it after a victory. So I think I'm out of luck Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By fargo007: SNIP He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. Proper method for having someone else convert it would be to give the firearm to your 07/02 dealer/manufacturer. Then he will make the machinegun with it and start the paperwork to transfer it back to you on a form 4. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:46:48 PM EDT
[#29]
So far the Examiner article has been posted what, 3 times? Four?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:48:27 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARDestructo: So far the Examiner article has been posted what, 3 times? Four? I posted a new examiner article. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:48:44 PM EDT
[#31]
I am in eastern PA and I have a few SBRs on a trust already. I'm know I am a little late to the party but any reason I shouldn't send off a form 1 to an MG conversion using my existing (and previously accepted) trust?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:50:35 PM EDT
[#32]
I want to Form 1 a shoelace.
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:51:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Forgive my newbness. I'm referring to a firearm I currently own (my franken15) and having someone convert it after it becomes legal to do so. So I think I'm out of luck Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By fargo007:
Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. No. You're in luck, it's just done on a different form. Read as above. Any 07/02 can do that for you (he is a licensed manufacturer) and transfer it to you as a registered MG on an ATF form 4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:56:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! [ img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_smartass.gif[/img] Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Subguns deletes a post that is not inflammatory in the least. I posted: "what would it take for you to believe? A national organization stepping in?" And they deleted it. NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! [ img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_smartass.gif[/img] yup, mac10s and stens are going to be $350, M16s will be $700 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:59:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Diesel_Maximus_2992]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: No. You're in luck, it's just done on a different form. Read as above. Any 07/02 can do that for you (he is a licensed manufacturer) and transfer it to you as a registered MG on an ATF form 4. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By jaqufrost Looking at ATF's document concerning 80% lowers I don't believe that would work. You would need to do the initial work yourself, which thankfully isn't hard. You could have it repaired after you make it though. He's talking about an existing title 1 firearm, not an 80% lower. Easily solved a different way if you don't want to touch it at all. Just order a lower shipped to you 07/02, have him build and register it as a machinegun, then transfer it to you on a form 4, paying him what should be a pretty reasonable fee for the work and the transfer of course. No. You're in luck, it's just done on a different form. Read as above. Any 07/02 can do that for you (he is a licensed manufacturer) and transfer it to you as a registered MG on an ATF form 4. GIVE EM HELL NOLO! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:03:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
I posted a new examiner article. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
So far the Examiner article has been posted what, 3 times? Four? I posted a new examiner article. So you did. My apologies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:05:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BURN]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Every AR gets a third hole, new carrier and an auto sear....Every Glock gets a new back plate
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:08:38 PM EDT
[#38]
I tend to think ALOT of drop in auto sears will be made for use on current semi only AR's.
That, and Mr Geissele will sell out of his FA trigger groups rather quickly however people decide to add a happy switch... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:11:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BURN:
Every AR gets a third hole, new carrier and an auto sear....Every Glock gets a new back plate Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BURN:
Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Just as a proceedural question (for those of us without the means or machining skills to act of a SCOTUS victory in this matter) If we win, and form 1s become legitimate. Could I recieve approval and then have a gun smithing shop do the conversion? Namely because at that point there would be no reason NOT to have select fire on every weapon capable of supporting it IMHO. y Every AR gets a third hole, new carrier and an auto sear....Every Glock gets a new back plate Not so fast. I'd always want to have a few "Title I" weapons on hand... traveling over state lines/to states that aren't MG friendly and "rolling your own" 80%s are two reasons that come to mind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:17:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By yavorssj:
I tend to think ALOT of drop in auto sears will be made for use on current semi only AR's. That, and Mr Geissele will sell out of his FA trigger groups rather quickly however people decide to add a happy switch... Indeed
Slight tangent--- I understand that the John Noveske memorial triggers by Geissele were all select fire. I'm sure that not everyone using those has a pre-'86 M16, so...... (serious question) would a Geissele SSF in a semi lower, with a semi selector get you in hot water? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:22:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51: Indeed Slight tangent--- I understand that the John Noveske memorial triggers by Geissele were all select fire. I'm sure that not everyone using those has a pre-'86 M16, so...... (serious question) would a Geissele SSF in a semi lower, with a semi selector get you in hot water? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51: Originally Posted By yavorssj: I tend to think ALOT of drop in auto sears will be made for use on current semi only AR's. That, and Mr Geissele will sell out of his FA trigger groups rather quickly however people decide to add a happy switch... Indeed Slight tangent--- I understand that the John Noveske memorial triggers by Geissele were all select fire. I'm sure that not everyone using those has a pre-'86 M16, so...... (serious question) would a Geissele SSF in a semi lower, with a semi selector get you in hot water? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:27:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Indeed
Slight tangent--- I understand that the John Noveske memorial triggers by Geissele were all select fire. I'm sure that not everyone using those has a pre-'86 M16, so...... (serious question) would a Geissele SSF in a semi lower, with a semi selector get you in hot water? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By yavorssj:
I tend to think ALOT of drop in auto sears will be made for use on current semi only AR's. That, and Mr Geissele will sell out of his FA trigger groups rather quickly however people decide to add a happy switch... Indeed
Slight tangent--- I understand that the John Noveske memorial triggers by Geissele were all select fire. I'm sure that not everyone using those has a pre-'86 M16, so...... (serious question) would a Geissele SSF in a semi lower, with a semi selector get you in hot water? Not alone, but it's one part. No one part alone gets you in trouble. Unless it's an auto sear. But combine a few "no one part" parts and you might inadvertently find yourself in hot water. I'd play it safe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:45:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARDestructo:
Not alone, but it's one part. No one part alone gets you in trouble. Unless it's an auto sear. But combine a few "no one part" parts and you might inadvertently find yourself in hot water. I'd play it safe. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By yavorssj:
I tend to think ALOT of drop in auto sears will be made for use on current semi only AR's. That, and Mr Geissele will sell out of his FA trigger groups rather quickly however people decide to add a happy switch... Indeed
Slight tangent--- I understand that the John Noveske memorial triggers by Geissele were all select fire. I'm sure that not everyone using those has a pre-'86 M16, so...... (serious question) would a Geissele SSF in a semi lower, with a semi selector get you in hot water? Not alone, but it's one part. No one part alone gets you in trouble. Unless it's an auto sear. But combine a few "no one part" parts and you might inadvertently find yourself in hot water. I'd play it safe. So if someone were to put in one of those DPMS M16 LPKs in the blister packs that you see at gunshows sometimes, that wouldn't fly? I've thought about buying one, but didn't think it would be worth it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:50:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARDestructo: Not alone, but it's one part. No one part alone gets you in trouble. Unless it's an auto sear. But combine a few "no one part" parts and you might inadvertently find yourself in hot water. I'd play it safe. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARDestructo: Originally Posted By orpheus762x51: SNIP Technically it's 3 parts. Olofson was convicted with four. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:00:27 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Technically it's 3 parts. Olofson was convicted with four. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
SNIP Technically it's 3 parts. Olofson was convicted with four. not familiar with that rule, is it statutory or just some of atf's made up bullshit? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:00:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
I would not do it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
I would not do it. Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
Not alone, but it's one part. No one part alone gets you in trouble. Unless it's an auto sear. But combine a few "no one part" parts and you might inadvertently find yourself in hot water. I'd play it safe. Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Technically it's 3 parts. Olofson was convicted with four. Interesting. I'm not planning on throwing an SSF in any semi guns, I was just curious. /thread derail |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:18:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
traveling over state lines/to states that aren't MG friendly If MGs are a right, there won't be any "states that aren't MG friendly" anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:22:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TescoVee]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51: Interesting. I'm not planning on throwing an SSF in any semi guns, I was just curious. /thread derail Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: I would not do it. Originally Posted By ARDestructo: Not alone, but it's one part. No one part alone gets you in trouble. Unless it's an auto sear. But combine a few "no one part" parts and you might inadvertently find yourself in hot water. I'd play it safe. Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Technically it's 3 parts. Olofson was convicted with four. Interesting. I'm not planning on throwing an SSF in any semi guns, I was just curious. /thread derail |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:24:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
I cant remember his name but read on here that some guy with a with a rifle that came from the factory with full auto lpk sans the autosear had a double doubled at the range. The ATF jumped on him and got a conviction for an unregistered MG through some shenanigans. That was Olofson. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:26:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Top_Secret:
That was Olofson. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
I cant remember his name but read on here that some guy with a with a rifle that came from the factory with full auto lpk sans the autosear had a double doubled at the range. The ATF jumped on him and got a conviction for an unregistered MG through some shenanigans. That was Olofson. I'm familiar with that case. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
