Another semi auto machine gun. AA12 illegal now

[T.Lex]

Other than the fact it is too late to register them?

 

[indykid]

Man I wish we had a supreme law of the land that mandated the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If we had a law guaranteeing our right not to be infringed, we wouldn't have these laws.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Had to use my google fu to find it.
That isn't anything I would ever be interested in. If someone else wants to own one, they should be able to.

I had to google it too. It has a serious case of the fuglies.

 

[HoughMade]

You can't register anything full auto manufactured after 1986.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm confused, but I'm not up on NFA stuff, so forgive my ignorance. How is this any different than when people talk about "this rifle would make a great sear host" (presumably meaning it would just take a different fire control group/sear to convert it to full auto?).

 

[T.Lex]

I'm confused, but I'm not up on NFA stuff, so forgive my ignorance. How is this any different than when people talk about "this rifle would make a great sear host" (presumably meaning it would just take a different fire control group/sear to convert it to full auto?).

The vagaries of ATF rule interpretation.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm confused, but I'm not up on NFA stuff, so forgive my ignorance. How is this any different than when people talk about "this rifle would make a great sear host" (presumably meaning it would just take a different fire control group/sear to convert it to full auto?).

All the FA specific stuff had to be manufactured prior to May 19, 1986 and be registered.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

All the FA specific stuff had to be manufactured prior to May 19, 1986 and be registered.

So that would be the "sear" (and whatever that entails), not the gun or receiver itself, no? So if this AA-12 doesn't have any FA parts, how is it a machine gun?

 

[HoughMade]

So that would be the "sear" (and whatever that entails), not the gun or receiver itself, no? So if this AA-12 doesn't have any FA parts, how is it a machine gun?

There are different ways to convert an AR to full auto. Without getting into too much detail, there were pre-'86 pieces that required no modification of the receiver. However, a true M-16 has a different receiver which accepts the parts to make it full auto. A receiver that is not modified to accept the full auto parts is not a machine gun unless you have the parts in it to make it full auto. However, be assured that if you possess unregistered FA parts that can drop in an unmodified AR and an AR, you are breaking the law. If the receiver is modified (or a true M-16 receiver), that in and of itself, even without the internal FA parts is considered a machine gun. That appears to be the situation with the AA-12. Whether something is a machine gun or not isn't just whether it can presently be fired FA, it is also how easily it is converted to FA.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There are different ways to convert an AR to full auto. Without getting into too much detail, there were pre-'86 pieces that required no modification of the receiver. However, a true M-16 has a different receiver which accepts the parts to make it full auto. A receiver that is not modified to accept the full auto parts is not a machine gun unless you have the parts in it to make it full auto. However, be assured that if you possess unregistered FA parts that can drop in an unmodified AR and an AR, you are breaking the law. If the receiver is modified (or a true M-16 receiver), that in and of itself, even without the internal FA parts is considered a machine gun. That appears to be the situation with the AA-12. Whether something is a machine gun or not isn't just whether it can presently be fired FA, it is also how easily it is converted to FA.

Thanks, that clears it up some. Still stupid IMHO, but at least that's an explanation I can (sort of) understand. Sure does seem to leave a wide berth for interpretation.

 

[Gabriel]

I had to google it too. It has a serious case of the fuglies.

Yeah, but it has a great personality.

 

[Big Hank]

Edit: I just read more posts and they keep referring to this guys gun as a "post sample." I am not in the loop enough to fully understand and maybe it's not related but involves the same gun model and the gov is really out for these.

I follow an NFA page on Facebook and a guy, I believe a dealer, lost his AA-12 because the investigator (letter writer) stated the serial numbering was not correct by the manufacturer. It's almost like they want them so bad they are willing to come up with multiple ways to make it happen. This was yesterday when he brought it to the attention of the private Facebook page.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, but it has a great personality.

 

[Leadeye]

Street Sweepers etc. were allowed to be registered as DD (destructive device) not machine guns. The receiver or another part gets the serial number that identifies the gun, but it's usually what's required for FA. An M-16 lower reciever can be attached to a variety of upper receivers to produce different guns, HK stuff is similar. Back in the late 70s and early 80s many transferable guns were manufactured by importing non transferable guns from the overseas surplus market and attaching all the parts on a US made receiver. Original guns sold at a price premium over these, but some places did very high quality work and you really couldn't tell the new from the old.

 

[ditcherman]

Man I wish we had a supreme law of the land that mandated the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If we had a law guaranteeing our right not to be infringed, we wouldn't have these laws.

That would be weird. Why would our kings and rulers ever be so kind to us?
Also, proving that laws, even guaranteeing a right, don’t work.

 

[DadSmith]

Isn't this considered ex post facto law? The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.

 

[Tombs]

ATF could go after the company for "selling machine guns to civilians."

But no, instead they'll steal a $4000 item from a citizen for no reason other than enforcing an arbitrary and ever changing rule.

 

[Leadeye]

Isn't this considered ex post facto law? The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.

Bah! Everything about the RCRA/CERCLA law was ex post facto. When the government wants to violate the constitution all it needs is a group that's demonized by big media and it's off they go.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Isn't this considered ex post facto law? The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law.

No.

If a law is passed banning possession plastic straws starting July 1st and you are arrested and tried for possessing plastic straws on June 30th, that's ex post facto. If you continue to possess plastic straws on July 2nd and are arrested and tried that's how every new law works.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is who is willing to admit that the Trump BATFE is worse than Obama's? A show of hands (even if begrudgingly)?

They're confiscating people's firearms.....scratch that.... their expensive as hell firearms, because of the way they were marked? What the hell.