FA legalities -- Can one build a FA and register it?

[gdmoore28]

I'm sure this is probably a question that has been addressed hundreds of times on this board, but I've not been able to find the answer to this question. Excuse my ignorance, I'm new to this aspect of the firearms hobby.

Is it legal to build a full auto MG from a parts kit and then legally register it with the feds IF one has a FA license? I've read that no more FAs were allowed to be manufactured post 1968, but what about rebuilds?

I'm not building a FA or SA -- my friend and I are building a couple of gas guns for reenacting. But I'm just curious as to the legal issues surrounding restoring demilled FA kits to their former FA operation.

My friend and I originally intended to build a FA M53 for BLANK FIRE ONLY. But the research I've done so far indicates even that is illegal. (We need a new license catagory for FA blank fire guns. Surely there is some way to modify a FA so that it CANNOT fire live ammo.)

If one were to fabricate a FA receiver that WOULD NOT accomodate live rounds, would that be legal? This whole legalities issue has me afraid to even experiment with possible designs!

I ran across an article that indicates that at least one fellow in Arizona convinced the 9th Circuit Court that his home-made machine guns were legal because they were never part of interstate commerce. Here's the link:

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archive ... D=43494265

Nonetheless, I won't be taking any chances with the Feds. I like being free.

GDM

[striker754]

I'm sure this is probably a question that has been addressed hundreds of times on this board, but I've not been able to find the answer to this question. Excuse my ignorance, I'm new to this aspect of the firearms hobby.

Is it legal to build a full auto MG from a parts kit and then legally register it with the feds IF one has a FA license? I've read that no more FAs were allowed to be manufactured post 1968, but what about rebuilds?

No. Rebuilds is the same as manufacturing. And its 1986 for no new auto weapons to be made for civilians. You can make it auto if you possess a manufacturing FFL and are a class 2 SOT

My friend and I originally intended to build a FA M53 for BLANK FIRE ONLY. But the research I've done so far indicates even that is illegal. (We need a new license catagory for FA blank fire guns. Surely there is some way to modify a FA so that it CANNOT fire live ammo.)

Figure out a way for it not to accept live rounds and submit to the ATF and see what they say. Better be good or they'll take your gun

If one were to fabricate a FA receiver that WOULD NOT accomodate live rounds, would that be legal? This whole legalities issue has me afraid to even experiment with possible designs!

yes, but it involves extensive redesign

I ran across an article that indicates that at least one fellow in Arizona convinced the 9th Circuit Court that his home-made machine guns were legal because they were never part of interstate commerce. Here's the link:

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archive ... D=43494265

Nonetheless, I won't be taking any chances with the Feds. I like being free.

Remanded based on similar rulings with weed. Doesn't apply. Illegal to build machineguns unless you have an 02 SOT PERIOD

GDM

It sucks but thats the law

[JBaum]

There is no such thing as a "Full Auto" license. There is paperwork that states that you are allowed to own a particular registered MG (Form 4), there is a manufacturing license, and there is a dealer license that allows you to own MGs called (post-samples) which were made for demonstration purposes, but they're not legal to be owned by a non-dealer. The whole thing is a bit confusing to people new to the MG world.

It doesn't make any difference if you make a new MG from new parts or old parts. You can't register it, so it is an illegal MG.

Gas guns can be made so that they aren't guns in any manner except looks. If they don't accomodate a bolt or shootable barrel and can't be readily converted to accept them, then what you build is not a gun. An MG42 parts kit could be made so that a real barrel won't fit, a bolt won't go in it, and a cartridge has no place to fit, and it's not a gun, it's just an assemblage of steel. Blank firing MGs are harder to make legally because of the possibility to convert them to shooting live rounds.

The guy in Arizona has a very special set of circumstances surrounding his particular case, and it was only one judge who agreed with him. The next judge may not agree. Play the game, take your chances. I don't like the odds, so I don't play that game.

[striker754]

Sorry, but the guy in AZ does not have special circumstances. Any machinegun built after may 86 is illegal for a civilian to possess. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case under a similar case about marijuana. Apparently Congress has the power to regulate these homemade items. (Try a different word.)? Yes. But thats the law

[gdmoore28]

I knew it would happen: not ten minutes after posting my queries I accidently stumbled across some postings that addressed the questions in great detail. Thanks for the imput, nontheless. I was unaware that the Arizona man's case was reversed by the Supremes.

John, I went to your website after reading one of your posts. I'll probably purchase one of your manuals a little later. I'll only have a gas gun, but I'd still like to read the manuals. I've just finished the Pimsleur six CD "Conversational German" course and am currently trying to find a good deal on the big 24 DVD course. I mention this because of your mention of the references you use to translate your manuals prompted me to survey the various German-English translation sites. There are some really good sites available. I've needed some translation in the last week because I bought a WWII German cigarette rolling device that could be carried in the pocket. But I can't read the instruction manual. So the translation sites will be helpful in rolling some fags.

But back to the subject--you are all correct about the fickle nature of the courts, the regulators, and, especially, government regulations. The law means whatever THEY want it to mean, and the only way to challenge them is to purchase justice the American way -- hire a sharp (read: expensive) lawyer and donate to both political parties. The financially-challenged among us are just SOL. You get what you pay for -- justice included.

Garry

[JBaum]

I have a $400 computer program for translating German to English.... it's not completely worthless for modern German, but for the old stuff, it is not only worthless, it actually reverses the statement. "You can go to the bathroom, but not outside" would translate to "You can not go to the bathroom, however outside"

While this example may be a little oversimplified, you can see how the two statements are 180 degrees off. The program does the same thing with other sentences, reversing the meaning. It's just not acceptible. BTW, if you can speak German, you're doing a lot better than I am. I don't speak it at all, other than Ja! and Schnell! (which I learned from Hogan's Heros). I just taught myself to read it so I could work on these books. Someday maybe I'll get a course for speaking it, but for now, speaking German doesn't help to read it.

[drooling idiot]

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case under a similar case about marijuana.

last i heard they sent the case back to the ninth circuit court to revue without ever hearing the case. so technically they never reversed it , they just dodged tackling the tough questions like they always do.
As far as i know the 9ths courts decision still stands as law in the ninth courts district, but how you can own a MG when in the same decision they state you have no 2nd amendment rights is beyond me

[JBaum]

Actually, the guy in AZ did have special circumstances regards his MG manufacture. It was not made from parts from any other gun, they were all self-manufactured. Therefore there was no interestate commerce involved. Also, he made a gun which was unlike anything else - it was his own design. The lack of involvement in interstate commerce is why it was decided that no federal laws were violated. That's not to say that state laws weren't violated, or that the next judge tomorrow will rule differently, or that he hasn't spent a fortune on attorneys trying to keep his butt out of jail. While you can't say he "won" his case, he didn't LOSE it yet.

Is it worth it? Again, not to me. I'd rather spend the money on something with a license, than spend even more for something without one (counting attorney fees and lost wages from being in jail).

[striker754]

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case under a similar case about marijuana.

last i heard they sent the case back to the ninth circuit court to revue without ever hearing the case. so technically they never reversed it , they just dodged tackling the tough questions like they always do.
As far as i know the 9ths courts decision still stands as law in the ninth courts district, but how you can own a MG when in the same decision they state you have no 2nd amendment rights is beyond me

Nope. Case remanded with the Reich case which basically reverses the ruling under the Reich marijuana decision.

Actually, the guy in AZ did have special circumstances regards his MG manufacture. It was not made from parts from any other gun, they were all self-manufactured. Therefore there was no interestate commerce involved. Also, he made a gun which was unlike anything else - it was his own design. The lack of involvement in interstate commerce is why it was decided that no federal laws were violated. That's not to say that state laws weren't violated, or that the next judge tomorrow will rule differently, or that he hasn't spent a fortune on attorneys trying to keep his butt out of jail. While you can't say he "won" his case, he didn't LOSE it yet.

Is it worth it? Again, not to me. I'd rather spend the money on something with a license, than spend even more for something without one (counting attorney fees and lost wages from being in jail).

NO.

The case was remanded under the Reich (I believe) case regarding marijuana. Home grown marijuana is still subject to the commerce clause. Same as machineguns are.

[JBaum]

I see what the trouble is - we're talking about two different people. The exact details of the two cases aren't important anyway, just the overall fact that you can't build and register an MG.

[striker754]

Its really all the same based on the Stewart case. This Arizona man's only defense was the Stewart case, and unfortunately that decision is no longer applicable.

[joshk98k]

Hmmmmmm.... A BRP MG42SA goes for $6000. I wonder what all the FFL's and licenses would cost to be able to legaly build your own full auto??????

[macgyver6868]

so far as i've read,he nly got in trouble for the mg's,not the regular guns,which he wasnt suppposed to have due to a prior conviction.isnt that kind of odd?

[MGW LLC]

So lemme get this straight. If you scratchbuilt a working MG and are "clean" on all other counts.....you MIGHT be able to get away with it?

[striker754]

So lemme get this straight. If you scratchbuilt a working MG and are "clean" on all other counts.....you MIGHT be able to get away with it?

no.

[smoggle]

If you have about 500 acres of land and don't shoot it with anyone else or tell anyone else about it. Yes. Otherwise it will be pillow talk with Bubba in cel block C and your hips will be like the grips on a 50 cal for his love gun.

The BATFE prosecutes silencer and automatic weapon violations with a VENGANCE.

Sorry to be so graphic but you need to know the penalties.

Oh yeah, you will NEVER EVER be allowed to own a gun legally again. That is one right you never get back. You can vote after you serve out a felony convictin but your second ammendment right is GONE.

Don't do it.