Another semi auto machine gun. AA12 illegal now

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    If you have a bc AA12, it's now illegal and continued possession is a felony. No buy back, no amnesty.

    Screenshot2019083009.jpg
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Oh snap.

    Was that receiver ever determined to be non-NFA? I'm not familiar with this situation, but I know of several full auto receiver "types" that have very specifically engineered semi auto counterparts to avoid this problem.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    Oh snap.

    Was that receiver ever determined to be non-NFA? I'm not familiar with this situation, but I know of several full auto receiver "types" that have very specifically engineered semi auto counterparts to avoid this problem.

    They were factory built, were sold complete and legally. They were like 4k too.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    They were factory built, were sold complete and legally. They were like 4k too.


    That's the answer to a different question.

    If the "semi auto" receivers were built in a factory with the same specs as a "full auto" receiver, then the receivers are full auto under the NFA.

    Its really that simple. (Whether we like it or not.) Manufacturers can get a letter stating that a certain receiver manufactured a certain way to be semi auto, and not full auto, is ok. If that letter or decision was not obtained, then those buyers could be legitimately out of luck.

    Might be a lawsuit against the manufacturer, but if there was any disclaimer about, "Buyer is responsible for knowing whether this firearm is legal in his jurisdiction." then the manufacturer might be off the hook.

    If there was a letter, and this is a 180 degree about face by the BATFE, then there's a legal issue against the government.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I found a shotgunworld topic from 2010 that says the AA-12 was designated at that time as both a machine gun and a destructive device. (Not sure that makes any sense, either, but ok.)

    The full documentation history of this receiver type would be necessary to understand if this was a reversal by the BATFE.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    That's the answer to a different question.

    If the "semi auto" receivers were built in a factory with the same specs as a "full auto" receiver, then the receivers are full auto under the NFA.

    Its really that simple. (Whether we like it or not.) Manufacturers can get a letter stating that a certain receiver manufactured a certain way to be semi auto, and not full auto, is ok. If that letter or decision was not obtained, then those buyers could be legitimately out of luck.

    Might be a lawsuit against the manufacturer, but if there was any disclaimer about, "Buyer is responsible for knowing whether this firearm is legal in his jurisdiction." then the manufacturer might be off the hook.

    If there was a letter, and this is a 180 degree about face by the BATFE, then there's a legal issue against the government.

    These were built as semi auto from the factory not converted. No more a machine gun than a civy m249
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    ...Might be a lawsuit against the manufacturer, but if there was any disclaimer about, "Buyer is responsible for knowing whether this firearm is legal in his jurisdiction." then the manufacturer might be off the hook...

    If there's such a disclaimer and that's what they depend upon- I'll take that case all day long...and I don't do plaintiff's work.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,612
    149
    Valparaiso
    These were built as semi auto from the factory not converted. No more a machine gun than a civy m249

    That depends upon what the difference is between you civvy 249 and the FA version...different receiver to make the FA parts not work with it, closed bolt, hammer, moving firing pin...
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,686
    77
    Camby area
    If I'm reading this correctly, the only diff between the FA version and SA version is the guts. The receiver is the same for both, and can accept the FA parts kit. But I could have read that incorrectly.

    If so, I presume that is no different than possessing that AR-15 lower that has been modified (3rd hole, etc) , even if you dont have FA parts in it.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    Why the language and enforcement of this is dangerous... These are new production semi auto recievers that are being confiscated. Conversion is supposedly as involved if not more so than an AR to full auto. Language and precident matter in this climate.

    Screenshot2019083014.jpg
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Commercial semi auto AR-15 lowers have engineered differences from full auto that make it almost impossible to convert to full auto (without trying REALLY hard).

    If the AA-12 didn't have differences from the full auto, then it is the same as full auto.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    Commercial semi auto AR-15 lowers have engineered differences from full auto that make it almost impossible to convert to full auto (without trying REALLY hard).

    If the AA-12 didn't have differences from the full auto, then it is the same as full auto.

    1 hole? Similar difficulty in trading with the aa12
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    1 hole? Similar difficulty in trading with the aa12

    I would really prefer NOT to discuss what needs doing to an AR receiver. (I went to gun shows in the 90s.) Nor really how to convert an AA-12, for that matter.

    Is there a site or something that has the differences between the non NFA receivers and prohibited receivers (for the military, I presume)? I did some googling, but couldn't find anything.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    I would really prefer NOT to discuss what needs doing to an AR receiver. (I went to gun shows in the 90s.) Nor really how to convert an AA-12, for that matter.

    Is there a site or something that has the differences between the non NFA receivers and prohibited receivers (for the military, I presume)? I did some googling, but couldn't find anything.

    Point being. The fully auto aa12 is an open bolt machine gun with different machining and fire control groups. Same as an AR. The semi auto aa12 would take machine work fire control group to work. They are not building these on demil recievers, they are machining them on license.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    I remember the original Atchisson from the 70s or early 80s as being a gun made up with a fair amount of surplus parts. It was a slow rate of fire full auto 12 gauge. Box mag and a drum with a winding key if I recall. Difference in receiver construction when you have a SA version to go with the FA version has always been an issue with ATF. A smart manufacturer makes the difference pretty big like the AO 1927A1 Thompson. SA MACs and TEC-9 guns failed this test eventually and manufacturing stopped, but I don't remember surrender letters for owners.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    A bit more digging on this pre-holiday Friday.

    This is the 2001 letter in which the ATF acknowledged changing the designation of the USAS-12 (which I guess is related to the AA-12) to Destructive Device and allowing a period of registration:
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/o...tration-period-streetsweeper-striker/download

    Looking at the letter in the OP, it doesn't reference any BATFE guidance - just the statutes. I'm beginning to think this BC Engineering didn't get the BATFE approval on what they were manufacturing.

    Oops.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    That may be the reason people are getting surrender letters rather than registration ones.
     
    Top Bottom