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!
  • Hkindiana

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Sep 19, 2010
    3,186
    149
    Southern Hills
    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.

    Trump IS responsible for pushing the bump stock ban, but he is in NO WAY responsible for the actions in this thread. He did not pass the regs that were violated, and the BATFE is following rules that were passed under DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS. Who here thinks (realistically) that if the dem's had controlled both congress and the senate during either of obama's terms, that we would have had some MAJOR assaults on out 2A rights?
     

    Ggreen

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

    The way he handled Bumpstocks, and the precedent he set moving forward, basically made him the most dangerous man in the world to the 2a. Maybe in history. Just a swipe of his pen and he turned an accessory a machine gun and forced forfeiture of legally owned and constitutionally protected property. He actively speaks out against suppressors, actively supports any gun control measures that make it to his desk.

    And the most dangerous part, gun owners still worship him, make excuses for him, and turn against fellow gun owners as soon as he tells them too.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    Trump IS responsible for pushing the bump stock ban, but he is in NO WAY responsible for the actions in this thread. He did not pass the regs that were violated, and the BATFE is following rules that were passed under DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS. Who here thinks (realistically) that if the dem's had controlled both congress and the senate during either of obama's terms, that we would have had some MAJOR assaults on out 2A rights?

    His administration is actively pushing the technical branch to review and close" loopholes " and reclassify accessories. It's not a secret.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,230
    77
    Porter County
    Trump IS responsible for pushing the bump stock ban, but he is in NO WAY responsible for the actions in this thread. He did not pass the regs that were violated, and the BATFE is following rules that were passed under DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS. Who here thinks (realistically) that if the dem's had controlled both congress and the senate during either of obama's terms, that we would have had some MAJOR assaults on out 2A rights?
    He did have both Senate and House when he was elected. They didn't do anything with guns, just gave us Obamacare.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    The "post-sample" (I'm pretty sure) refers to a post-86 manufacture FA gun, which is made for LEO/Military sampling. That is, it can only be held by the appropriate level of licensed dealer as a sample to try to sell to those agencies that can have FA.

    Either one of those ended up getting marketed as semi-auto or the same line that manufactured the FA also did semi, but they didn't change the tooling or serial numbers or something.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,868
    113
    .
    I'm surprised that california hasn't just outlawed semi auto guns and told all their citizens to just turn them in of face prosecution if caught with them. I'm sure law suits would follow such an edict, but the law would probably not give people time to get an injunction or whatever against the it before the police came calling.

    All the arguments over this would generate many billable hours for well connected law firms representing the state.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Which do you think takes longer, throwing away a watermelon or slicing it up over time?

    ;)
     

    tcecil88

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 18, 2013
    1,932
    113
    @ the corner of IN, KY & OH.
    So, I'm confused. Please excuse my ignorance on NFA law.
    Joe Civilian buys an OEM Semi Auto AA12 back in the day from a licensed FFL dealer. Years later, the ATF determines that the manufacturer screwed up and reclassifies the legally bought and possessed semi-auto shotgun to a full auto. They send out a letter to the owner (which tells me they know exactly what we have in our possession) demanding surrender of said weapon without so much as an opportunity to register it with the NFA and pay the $200 tax stamp that he would pay had he bought it from a dealer and it was built before 1986.
    It's the OEM that screwed up, not Joe Civilian, yet ATF is just gonna take his ridiculously expensive shotgun without so much as a reach around? How is that even legal? Why treat Joe Civilian like a criminal instead of giving the owner the chance to surrender his shotgun to a Class 3 dealer, pony up $200 for the tax stamp, and get it back in 12 months or however long it takes?
    I'm sorry, but that's outright theft in my book.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    So, I'm confused. Please excuse my ignorance on NFA law.
    Joe Civilian buys an OEM Semi Auto AA12 back in the day from a licensed FFL dealer. Years later, the ATF determines that the manufacturer screwed up and reclassifies the legally bought and possessed semi-auto shotgun to a full auto. They send out a letter to the owner (which tells me they know exactly what we have in our possession) demanding surrender of said weapon without so much as an opportunity to register it with the NFA and pay the $200 tax stamp that he would pay had he bought it from a dealer and it was built before 1986.
    It's the OEM that screwed up, not Joe Civilian, yet ATF is just gonna take his ridiculously expensive shotgun without so much as a reach around? How is that even legal? Why treat Joe Civilian like a criminal instead of giving the owner the chance to surrender his shotgun to a Class 3 dealer, pony up $200 for the tax stamp, and get it back in 12 months or however long it takes?
    I'm sorry, but that's outright theft in my book.

    This is not legal advice to you or anyone else, but general observations.

    In your hypothetical, the OEM sold something to Joe Civilian that the OEM should have known was not appropriate. Joe can likely sue OEM for his money back.

    And, ATF isn't treating Joe like a criminal. Treating Joe like a criminal would be arresting him for possession of an unregistered NFA item.

    The ATF is treating Joe like a victim of fraud. "Heya, you got screwed. But, we can't let you keep that thing that you're not supposed to have. You need to give it to us." Ultimately, it would be a civil matter between Joe and the OEM.

    The ATF can't let him register it in your hypothetical, because the statutory time period for that has expired. Congress can allow for new registrations, but that's not really something the ATF can do on their own.
     

    Ggreen

    Person
    Rating - 100%
    49   0   0
    Sep 19, 2016
    3,686
    77
    SouthEast
    This is not legal advice to you or anyone else, but general observations.

    In your hypothetical, the OEM sold something to Joe Civilian that the OEM should have known was not appropriate. Joe can likely sue OEM for his money back.

    And, ATF isn't treating Joe like a criminal. Treating Joe like a criminal would be arresting him for possession of an unregistered NFA item.

    The ATF is treating Joe like a victim of fraud. "Heya, you got screwed. But, we can't let you keep that thing that you're not supposed to have. You need to give it to us." Ultimately, it would be a civil matter between Joe and the OEM.

    The ATF can't let him register it in your hypothetical, because the statutory time period for that has expired. Congress can allow for new registrations, but that's not really something the ATF can do on their own.

    Stockholm syndrome
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,868
    113
    .
    This is not legal advice to you or anyone else, but general observations.

    In your hypothetical, the OEM sold something to Joe Civilian that the OEM should have known was not appropriate. Joe can likely sue OEM for his money back.

    And, ATF isn't treating Joe like a criminal. Treating Joe like a criminal would be arresting him for possession of an unregistered NFA item.

    The ATF is treating Joe like a victim of fraud. "Heya, you got screwed. But, we can't let you keep that thing that you're not supposed to have. You need to give it to us." Ultimately, it would be a civil matter between Joe and the OEM.

    The ATF can't let him register it in your hypothetical, because the statutory time period for that has expired. Congress can allow for new registrations, but that's not really something the ATF can do on their own.

    It's a bad situation, but this is an accurate description.

    Word to the wise, I've known people over the years who took the ATF to court and it did not end well.
     

    courier6

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 26, 2016
    171
    43
    Indiana
    Ruby ridge boys finally got paid.

    gtjjt32.png
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    Here it is in short:

    The BATFE changed it's mind on which part is the receiver of the AA12. The part that BATFE now says is the receiver is the same for both versions of the gun. That's why both semi autos (illegal MG) and post samples (improperly marked MG) are affected. The confiscation is an end run and sets a very dangerous precedent in its own right. In the past, situations like this have been handled by grandfathering (MAC open bolt semi autos), authorized marking variance, or remarking of the item after returning it to the manufacturer. Instead of those reasonable options, BATFE pursued the most extreme: door to door confiscation.

    This is one of a series of chess moves before going after ARs in a couple of years.

    So far this is how it has gone:
    1. Bolt action 50 BMG upper for AR receivers: reclassified the upper as a firearm on it's own (re: Safety Harbor upper https://safetyharborfirearms.com/product/shtf-50-single-shot-upper-conversion/)
    2. Bump stock: illegal MG, despite TWO letters from BATFE saying otherwise and several years of legal production and sale (500,000+ owners must turn in or destroy)
    3. AA12: After several decades, BATFE changes what is the receiver and can confiscate (BATFE sends agents to the door of both homes and businesses)

    BATFE has set the table for unilaterally redefining what constitutes a receiver, what constitutes a MG, and what they can do about it. Guess what? An M-16 MG upper receiver is identical to an AR-15 semi auto upper receiver. People have gotten good at making lower receivers at home and BATFE doesn't like that either. Redefining which part is the upper kills two birds with one stone from their point of view.
     
    Top Bottom