PDA

View Full Version : Where did Century buy the Law Enforcement Only L1A1's From???


alnukem
September 13, 2017, 13:43
Hi.....first post! I am a FFL/SOT & always wanted a "Real" L1A1. I found a "Post Sample" one & committed to buy it. The company I purchased it from then offered thier last one for a really good deal & I committed to it also. They are both BSA's, one 1962 & one 1963, I assumed that they were RTF'd because of the synthetic furniture & the misc dates on the parts. Did Century buy these directly off the UK DOD? When did they go into reserve status & when did they sell them off? Thanks!

alnukem
September 13, 2017, 16:27
Here's the photos they sent me.

SAFN49
September 13, 2017, 16:53
CAI bought every L1A1 & 1A1 they could find, including all the parts they could find. They then screwed them together and sold them as LEO rifles. They could do that during the AWB because L1A1's were only ever made as semi automatics. There were some that are matching, but those are few and far between.

alnukem
September 13, 2017, 17:22
So, What you're saying is......these were not complete guns when imported to Canada?

The U.S. Government always considered L1A1 machineguns.

tdb59
September 13, 2017, 19:03
The U.S. Government always considered L1A1 machineguns.


http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e0/e0a9a3d82274827346dad8eea5339e6517244be9b44299fd6a 5d5da2372e2a96.jpg

alnukem
September 13, 2017, 19:17
Did I say something wrong? I was talking about sear cut Commonwealth guns. Sorry if I missed something, I haven't been on here since 04 or 05.

APEXgunparts
September 13, 2017, 19:29
Hi.....first post! I am a FFL/SOT & always wanted a "Real" L1A1. I found a "Post Sample" one & committed to buy it. The company I purchased it from then offered thier last one for a really good deal & I committed to it also. They are both BSA's, one 1962 & one 1963, I assumed that they were RTF'd because of the synthetic furniture & the misc dates on the parts. Did Century buy these directly off the UK DOD? When did they go into reserve status & when did they sell them off? Thanks!

For years Century published a "Law Enforcement only" sales catalog.
These were available to Police Departments, and some editions were available on-line.
I do not know if they still do this catalog.
I don't know when it changed, but they used to be able to sell imported machine guns from the C&R list directly to departments.
The old editions of the catalog had Browning 1919's, Browning M2HB's, all sorts of AK's, German MG34's & 42's, Yugo M53's, FAL's, L1A1's.. pretty much all the same guns that they thru the years offered to civilians as parts kits.
Now, there are no more C&R's to PD's just modern MG's.
The SLC PD armorer had told me they were offered select fire Chinese M14's about the same time as the British L1A1's.
That was in the 1990-1992 time frame (I think).
I have spoken to the (now retired) gent who for many years managed this L-E sales program for Century Arms.
PD's could also purchase ammo that could not be sold to civilians.
Everything (including the transfers) was done in accordance with the ATF regulations that control the sales of this material to Police Departments.

Richard

the gman
September 13, 2017, 19:44
Hi.....first post! I am a FFL/SOT & always wanted a "Real" L1A1. I found a "Post Sample" one & committed to buy it. The company I purchased it from then offered thier last one for a really good deal & I committed to it also. They are both BSA's, one 1962 & one 1963, I assumed that they were RTF'd because of the synthetic furniture & the misc dates on the parts. Did Century buy these directly off the UK DOD? When did they go into reserve status & when did they sell them off? Thanks!

I'm also an 07FFL/SOT and I would be very interested in purchasing one of them from you if you would consider it? I can easily get the law letter so no worries there. You can reach me at thegman1763@gmail.com if you'd like to discuss it further, thanks.

alnukem
September 13, 2017, 20:42
I'm also an 07FFL/SOT and I would be very interested in purchasing one of them from you if you would consider it? I can easily get the law letter so no worries there. You can reach me at thegman1763@gmail.com if you'd like to discuss it further, thanks.

I will keep it in mind, but I am probably inclined to keep both of them....we'll see. I also have an interest in pre or post G3, M14, AK74, HK33 & MP5 at the right price. I'll PM some stuff to you.

slag
September 18, 2017, 09:11
What makes these particular Century LEO rifles "post sample"? Century L1A1 LEO rifles were transferred directly to individual police officers, and are and always have been semi-auto only rifles.

plinker
September 18, 2017, 19:50
Likely because they would be sear cut receivers. Doesnt matter if the selector is semi only or not. Sear cut is sear cut.

slag
September 18, 2017, 21:34
Likely because they would be sear cut receivers. Doesnt matter if the selector is semi only or not. Sear cut is sear cut.

Wrong. That topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. CAI LEO rifles were available to be sold and transferred directly to individual officers.

So my question remains, what makes these 2 rifles being discussed "post sample"?

Andy the Aussie
September 18, 2017, 23:55
Wrong. That topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. CAI LEO rifles were available to be sold and transferred directly to individual officers.

So my question remains, what makes these 2 rifles being discussed "post sample"? right or wrong, because someone registered them as such I would imagine. Links to the sale of CAIs as PSs have been posted here in years past as I recall

SAFN49
September 19, 2017, 08:54
Easiest way to make a full auto postie.

enbloc8
September 21, 2017, 15:48
right or wrong, because someone registered them as such I would imagine. Links to the sale of CAIs as PSs have been posted here in years past as I recall

I recall a fellow up in Wisconsin registered about 10-12 of them as posties with full auto parts for a "rent-a-machine-gun" venture that never quite went anywhere. He was trying to sell one or two of them on GB for a while.

kev
September 21, 2017, 19:16
Just because the topic has been discussed on this forum for years doesn't mean a correct solution was ever reached. I've just gotten tired of discussing it. I've offered a dozen 'proofs' that nobody will ever address so if y'all want to continue to be wrong about it you have my blessing.

Since when will ATF approve two of the same model posties to anyone? I thought they cut that chit out twenty yrs ago.

Welcome to the forum. You picked a righteous deep puddle to step into right out of the gate.

alnukem
September 21, 2017, 21:21
Just because the topic has been discussed on this forum for years doesn't mean a correct solution was ever reached. I've just gotten tired of discussing it. I've offered a dozen 'proofs' that nobody will ever address so if y'all want to continue to be wrong about it you have my blessing.

Since when will ATF approve two of the same model posties to anyone? I thought they cut that chit out twenty yrs ago.

Welcome to the forum. You picked a righteous deep puddle to step into right out of the gate.

Yes, I agree. And not even any correct answer to my question. Can I withdraw my question?????

stoicrabbit
September 21, 2017, 21:37
Just because the topic has been discussed on this forum for years doesn't mean a correct solution was ever reached. I've just gotten tired of discussing it. I've offered a dozen 'proofs' that nobody will ever address so if y'all want to continue to be wrong about it you have my blessing.


Unfortunately, it may take charges and a trial to make the final determination.
The outcome may depend heavily in the court venue/jurisdiction.
I always thought the trial transcript in this thread was enlightening,
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74104&highlight=Bar+Parker+trial

SAFN49
September 22, 2017, 00:19
Unfortunately, it may take charges and a trial to make the final determination.
The outcome may depend heavily in the court venue/jurisdiction.
I always thought the trial transcript in this thread was enlightening,
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74104&highlight=Bar+Parker+trial

No. During the AWB CAI was able to import these weapons, with the ATF's blessing, and sell them directly to LEO's. L1A1's and 1A1's were never made to fire automatically. They never were "machine guns".

stoicrabbit
September 22, 2017, 07:35
No. During the AWB CAI was able to import these weapons, with the ATF's blessing, and sell them directly to LEO's. L1A1's and 1A1's were never made to fire automatically. They never were "machine guns".

My post was too pithy.
I agree the Century L1A1s are semi-automatics and, unmodified, will always be semi-automatic, as the rifle was designed.
For those that disagree or question, they will never be satisfied until some poor soul in dragged into court.
I linked to the thread with the court transcript to illustrate that the presence of a cut for a safety sear on the receiver of a FAL does not always indicate the firearm is a machine gun; please note the FAL in the trial was not a G series or Steyr Import.

gunplumber
September 22, 2017, 09:08
I linked to the thread with the court transcript to illustrate that the presence of a cut for a safety sear on the receiver of a FAL does not always indicate the firearm is a machine gun; please note the FAL in the trial was not a G series or Steyr Import.

Guy had a good lawyer and ATF's expert witness flubbed the testimony.

Sounds like a G1 with the sear slot welded and selector removed. THAT, I would call a machinegun, even if it was a stripped receiver, based on my reading of the law and the long standing (although not supported in law) position of ATF of "once a machinegun, always a machinegun". This is why an M14 with the lug cut off is still a machinegun.

I would love to challenge that "policy" as it fails each point of the legal definition.

L1A1s were never a machineguns. There were (6?) L1A1s on which I have the MOD paperwork, assigned to the SAS in Vietnam, that were authorized for conversion to FA. That they had to be converted, is pretty good evidence that the manufacturer asserts they are not machineguns as-issued. It also states that they must be converted back to SA if they left the theater of operations.

kev
September 22, 2017, 15:25
Offhand I can think of about a dozen different models of firearms that have been wholesale confiscated by ATF that were never MGs,.....in fact I can think of a couple that were never even firearms. ATF still took 'em because in their opinion they met the current definition of MG.

Let's just talk G-series FAL and nothing else. Can we agree that there are a number of G's "on the list" that are grandfathered and that there are a number of G's NOT "on the list" that aren't grandfathered? Is there any difference whatsoever between the two? Are they physically identical? (yes) Are they functionally identical? (yes) Were any of them ever capable of auto fire? (no) Are they identical in history and design(other than one being on a list and the other not? (yes). Does ATF and everyone on THIS board agree that those rifles NOT "on the list" are NOT legal to own? I assume so.

Why aren't they legal to own? What is the logic ATF uses to confiscate and destroy them? *Hint*,.....it's not really the "list" but rather the reason the "list" exists. ATF considers them to be Machine Guns.

What about the grandfathered guns? They're semi,....right? No, they're not. That's why there's a list. If ATF considered them to be semis there'd be no need for a list. Something that is grandfathered is allowed to be kept even though by current definition it is not legal to own. Are DSA rifles grandfathered? Are Mod94 Winchesters grandfathered? No, of course not,.....those are legal to own. There's no need for grandfathering. There's no "list" for those rifles. You don't need a "list" for rifles that are not machine guns. Anybody following the logic here yet? Silly question, I know.

So if there wasn't a list grandfathering the G-series rifles they'd not be legal to own because of the fact that they are machine guns by current definition/regulation. Why? What's special about a G series? Well,.....I guess it has a sear-cut receiver. Maybe that's it.

But whoa,............what about all the other imported FALs with sear-cut receivers that currently trade openly as semis with no grandfathering or listing? Are you suggesting that the sear-cut Steyrs and others are machine guns too?!? (yes) I suppose you think the same thing about the LEO L1A1's that were never built as semis and were sold outside the NFA to individual LE officers? (you're catching on, but really it's not what I think and not even about what ATF is currently doing/not doing,......it's about what ATF may do in the future with the full weight of law behind them).

It's really just a matter of time and politics. ATF hasn't gone after any/most of the above listed rifles simply because it was ATF error that allowed them to exist in the first place. There's no political will to go after them at this point but sooner or later ATF is going to come to the realization that nobody there today was there when the problems arose and logically nobody there today can be held responsible. But those there today can make hay and headlines cleaning up the mess,......if they frame it right.

The courts have already ruled that a regulatory agency has NO authority to grandfather a damn thing and it's been a bunch of years since they have bothered to try. Now no matter what little thing gets their goat they go after it wholesale, whether it be improper demils, BB guns with a third hole, or an offensive spring. They no longer grandfather anything because the only legal option they have is "amnesty" and they really, really don't like to get anywhere near that topic.

Legally they can't grandfather the G-series rifles and they can't let you have the Steyrs, these LEO L1A1s or open-bolt MACs. There is some good/bad news though. The only thing they can do to clean up the mess is have an amnesty, but that's a win/lose situation. For those who own G-series rifles and open bolt MACs,........an amnesty should allow you to keep them AND convert to FA AND legally register them since they do meet the legal definition of machine gun and they were possessed prior to the MG manufacturing ban in 1986! The bad news is that if you own a sear-cut anything that wasn't here prior to the '86 ban you lose it since it too is a machine gun by definition but wasn't possessed prior to the ban. Can't convert/register it now due to FOPA. So maybe the important question to argue isn't whether or not any particular thing is legal to own but whether or not it was manufactured or imported prior to May 19, 1986.

Anybody remember a few years back when ATF re-interpreted the definition of Destructive Device and arbitrarily decided that what had previously been legal to buy/own shotguns suddenly became DD's? They didn't grandfather any of those, did they? No, they held a 'limited' amnesty(that lasted about seven years)that allowed you to register and keep the Streetsweepers and Strikers that had been redefined as DD's(didn't charge you a tax either btw). If you registered them they were yours but if you didn't they became contraband. There's no way to legally own one not registered.

kev
September 22, 2017, 15:27
Guy had a good lawyer and ATF's expert witness flubbed the testimony.



Guy had a good judge. I wouldn't count on finding one of those in modern day America.

VALMET
September 22, 2017, 15:35
Excellent post Kev. I've always steered clear of those L1A1s regardless of what anyone says, simply because of ATF's ever-changing "interpretations."

gunplumber
September 22, 2017, 16:44
That item A is specifically identified as ok, does not mean that anything not specifically identified, is not ok.

And yes, there are some win 94s that are "grandfathered", and some that are not. Trappers with barrels shorter than 16" - with Winchester paperwork, are good to go as C&R, and exempt. No paperwork, it's an SBR.

Riversidesports
September 22, 2017, 17:05
That item A is specifically identified as ok, does not mean that anything not specifically identified, is not ok.

And yes, there are some win 94s that are "grandfathered", and some that are not. Trappers with barrels shorter than 16" - with Winchester paperwork, are good to go as C&R, and exempt. No paperwork, it's an SBR.

Yeah more folks counting Angles dancing on the tip of a Pin.

What Kev ignores is that ATF has regulatory authority to remove & exempt

I keep trying to get across to folks that the NFA contained no Antique exemptions, that all the NFA law written in the mid 30s applied to even matchlock ignition systems. Cap and Ball Colt revolvers with shoulder stocks were regulated under the NFA :facepalm:

The Bureau began removing things from the NFA way back in the 50s

The Court ruling Kev brings up was a crazy deal
backstory it was due to a case where the defendant argued his select fire AR was legal as he had used a pre Nov 81' drop in auto sear which had been grandfathered as non NFA.
DOJ ended up having to argue ATF lacked authority to grandfather period
The Court agreed
that's the basis.

Problem was that opened up a huge can of worms as it meant to "fix" the problem they had to allow an amnesty on DIAS :facepalm:
It wasn't ATF that screwed the pooch, it was DOJ so everyone just acted as though it never happened. ATF has never stopped exempting certain guns in the years since.

The Street Sweeper deal was different
That was Bentsen & Clinton declaring they had no sporting purpose and as they were over .50 they became DDs
The Treasury Sec has that authority, any shotgun is at potential risk of politics. Particularly combat models.

Anyways when you run with ATF doesn't have authority it hits across the board, antiques, hell the old Civil war cannon in front of Courthouses become unlawful NFA subject to confiscation :facepalm:

SAFN49
September 22, 2017, 17:58
Well then I would steer clear of FN49's, M1 Carbines, AR15's and anything else that was designed as a fully automatic and can be converted to fire automatically in 10 min or less, or any semi automatic. The ATF could go Australia at any time.

I could build a PPSh41 from a ATF approved semi receiver into a full auto in less than 5 min. It's all about intent and how easy it takes Joe Blow in garage, with common hand tools.

To get approval of a design you have to submit a sample and if it passes the test it is ok. The metric and G series were originally select fire rifles with the safety sear removed, a longer trigger plunger installed and a change lever that had a beak. The L1A1 and 1A1's were never designed for automatic fire.

The later sear cut Steyrs also had a semi EB and a semi BC along with the above mods.

gunplumber
September 22, 2017, 18:14
The later sear cut Steyrs also had a semi EB and a semi BC along with the above mods.

Yes, which means it takes me an extra 15 minutes to covert them to full-auto, compared to any part-kit gun today.

SAFN49
September 22, 2017, 20:12
it takes me an extra 15 minutes to covert them to full-auto, compared to any part-kit gun today.

That long :confused: I guess you don't want to sacrifice an end mill to get it done sooner :biggrin:

gunplumber
September 23, 2017, 10:03
Weld in the missing trip on the bolt carrier (stainless for carbon migration)
let cool - do not quench!
machine square. and to dimension.

So yeah, about 15 minutes longer than say a DSA.

Rudolf
September 24, 2017, 05:06
This will continue until the sands of time are empty.


in the end, we are our worst enemy.

SPEEDGUNNER
September 24, 2017, 18:38
Century Arms imported FAL rifles BY THE PALLET back in the day. They bought them surplus by the pound and they were stacked like cordwood on pallets when they were delivered to their warehouse in Vermont. Rumor was they were detritus from the war in the Falkland Islands and they were comprised of surplus Argy FAL's (full auto capable) and Brit L1A1's (semi only). Century, being the enterprising bunch they are culled out a few of the semi L1A1 rifles and offered them to individual LEO's so as to not run the risk of raising the ire of the ATF and shutting down the entire Angry Beaver operation that has brought us all the wonderful rifles we see today (good and bad). The beavers, as we know, were busy disassembling functional surplus rifles and mixing the parts with receivers of dubious quality so as to make we collectors head spin as we try to make sense of it all. Hence, the L1A1's made it through as complete rifles and are the closest thing you can have to a genuine Commonwealth battle rifle here in the States.

the gman
September 24, 2017, 21:44
Century Arms imported FAL rifles BY THE PALLET back in the day. They bought them surplus by the pound and they were stacked like cordwood on pallets when they were delivered to their warehouse in Vermont. Rumor was they were detritus from the war in the Falkland Islands and they were comprised of surplus Argy FAL's (full auto capable) and Brit L1A1's (semi only). Century, being the enterprising bunch they are culled out a few of the semi L1A1 rifles and offered them to individual LEO's so as to not run the risk of raising the ire of the ATF and shutting down the entire Angry Beaver operation that has brought us all the wonderful rifles we see today (good and bad). The beavers, as we know, were busy disassembling functional surplus rifles and mixing the parts with receivers of dubious quality so as to make we collectors head spin as we try to make sense of it all. Hence, the L1A1's made it through as complete rifles and are the closest thing you can have to a genuine Commonwealth battle rifle here in the States.

Sigh. :facepalm: Nearly all the Argy FAL's were sea dumped off the coast of the Falklands. A few were brought back to the UK for trials prior to the dumping to see if they had attributes that were worth incorporating into the British Army's inventory, specifically the Para models but in the end, they were rejected. Instead of shipping all the weapons back to the UK, they were just sea dumped in containers. Never mind that one of my buddies was one of the largest arms dealers in the UK at the time and was practically begging the MOD to allow him to purchase them. Semi-auto rifles were perfectly legal in the UK back then, even ones converted from full auto... :cry::cry:

A few others made their way home in kit bags but many of them were also dumped over the side when the lads were told they would be searched by the Military Police before landing in the UK. The boys who dumped their rifles and pistols were pretty pissed off when no search ever took place...:sad:
NO L1A1's were ever surplus from the Falklands conflict. The Falkland Island Defence Force did choose the AUG over the SA80/L85 so their weapons were surplused out but I'm told they were returned to the UK as they were on loan from MOD rather than purchased by them.

The UK had hundreds of thousands of L1A1's in war stock after the L85 went on general issue. Being the pragmatic folks they were, the MOD wanted to get some coin for their weapons and sold them on the open market to the highest and best bidder. That was Century for the most part but the UK still retained plenty of them as long term war stock. When I went to my last posting in 1998 at 15 Field Workshops REME, one of the old and crusty armourers had just returned from Lebanon. He was one of the few master armourers for the L1A1 still serving and he had been sent there for 4 weeks to fix the 9,000 L1A1's the MOD sold to the Lebanese for 2 million pounds sterling. Apparently, the Lebanese couldn't get them to run and the group of armourers sent out there had some issues with them too. MOD eventually just refunded their money and told them to keep the rifles... :uhoh::uhoh:

When UK got involved in Sierra Leone, aid to the country involved sending them a shit load of L1A1's. A mate I served with recently retired after 36 years and told me he had seen some L1A1's being trialed for use as DMR rifles for Iraq and Afghanistan. They were found wanting which lead to the competition for the Sharpshooter rifle aka L129A1 which LMT won handily.

The ex LEO rifles are not the closest thing to the real thing: they ARE the real thing. The rifles that the OP is asking about were registered at some point by an SOT as post sample machineguns whether they are select fire or not. Now they are in the NFA registry as MG's, they ain't never coming out unless we have a revolution and repeal the NFA... :shades:

hagar
September 25, 2017, 09:36
I thought we all knew that CAI was a front for the CIA? :confused:

the gman
September 25, 2017, 11:51
I thought we all knew that CAI was a front for the CIA? :confused:

Well Sam Cummings of Interarms sure was. Brits sold a bunch of Lee-Enfields to him back in the time when the Soviets were in Afghanistan and instead of hitting American shores, they somehow ended up in the hands of the Mujaheddin... ;);)

gunplumber
September 25, 2017, 12:27
Well Sam Cummings of Interarms sure was. Brits sold a bunch of Lee-Enfields to him back in the time when the Soviets were in Afghanistan and instead of hitting American shores, they somehow ended up in the hands of the Mujaheddin... ;);)

Ahh, the whole Contra drugs for guns, replane in Mena AR (with Governor Clinton taking a cut of the drugs) then transshipment to Afghanistan to arm the Mujas and demoralize the Russians.

https://www.amazon.com/Compromised-Clinton-Bush-Terry-Reed/dp/1561712493

kev
September 26, 2017, 07:09
That item A is specifically identified as ok, does not mean that anything not specifically identified, is not ok.

And yes, there are some win 94s that are "grandfathered", and some that are not. Trappers with barrels shorter than 16" - with Winchester paperwork, are good to go as C&R, and exempt. No paperwork, it's an SBR.

OK, so some rifles meet the technical definition of SBR but are grandfathered by paperwork that exempts them? Which side of this are you arguing? Where's the paperwork that removes the L1A1 or any other sear-cut FAL from the NFA?

Nah, I swear,....I absolutely wasn't going to get drawn into this again but I just happened across this a minute ago while looking for something totally unrelated(How do you permanently attach an alloy barrel extension to a steel barrel?!?)

https://www.atf.gov/file/58196/download

Page ten and eleven should be studied.

Of all the different firearms defined as NFA weapons, machineguns are the only type where the receiver of the weapon by itself is an NFA firearm. As a result, it is important that the receiver of a machinegun be properly identified. Many machineguns incorporate a “split” or “hinged” receiver design so the main portion of the weapon can be easily separated into upper and lower sections. Additionally, some machineguns utilize a construction method where the receiver is composed of a number of subassemblies that are riveted together to form the complete receiver.

The following table lists specific models of machineguns incorporating the above designs and the portion of the weapon that has been held to be the receiver. This list is not all- inclusive. For information concerning a split or hinged receiver type machinegun not listed below, contact FTB at(304) 260-1699.

Model Receiver
Armalite AR10 lower
Armalite AR15 (all variations) lower
Armalite AR18 lower
Beretta AR70 lower
British L1A1 upper
Browning M1917 right side plate
Browning M1919 (all variations) right side plate
Browning M2 & M2HB right side plate
Colt M16 (all variations) lower
Czech Vz 61 lower
FN FNC lower
Model Receiver
FN CAL upper
FN FAL upper

Interesting,....both the FAL and L1A1 are specifically listed.

Then this,......

"The “designed to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger” portion of the definition relates to the characteristics of the weapon that permit full automatic fire. ATF has also held that the “designed” definition includes those weapons which have not
previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts. ATF has published rulings concerning specific firearms classified as machineguns based on this interpretation of the term “designed.”15"

I would think that any firearm that incorporates an auto sear would fall under this paragraph. Yes, I know that the Brits call it a "safety sear" but they also call a trunk a boot and a hood a bonnet but that doesn't mean a Bentley doesn't have a hood or a trunk,......it just means the Brits speak English in a weird manner.

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 07:53
The following table lists specific models of machineguns incorporating the above designs and the portion of the weapon that has been held to be the receiver. This list is not all- inclusive. For information concerning a split or hinged receiver type machinegun not listed below, contact FTB at(304) 260-1699.

Model Receiver
Armalite AR10 lower
Armalite AR15 (all variations) lower
Armalite AR18 lower
Beretta AR70 lower
British L1A1 upper
Browning M1917 right side plate
Browning M1919 (all variations) right side plate
Browning M2 & M2HB right side plate
Colt M16 (all variations) lower
Czech Vz 61 lower
FN FNC lower
Model Receiver
FN CAL upper
FN FAL upper

Interesting,....both the FAL and L1A1 are specifically listed.

Then this,......

"The “designed to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger” portion of the definition relates to the characteristics of the weapon that permit full automatic fire. ATF has also held that the “designed” definition includes those weapons which have not
previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts. ATF has published rulings concerning specific firearms classified as machineguns based on this interpretation of the term “designed.”15"



All AR-15's and AR-10's are then machine guns. They are simple to modify. Takes a jig and a drill bit and about 5 min of work.

So I would worry about the Govt coming and collecting all of them :tinfoilhat:

gunplumber
September 26, 2017, 08:07
they are telling you which part of the weapon is the firearm.

by the way, they also have reversed this on the FNC and another one (AR180?)

gunplumber
September 26, 2017, 08:10
OK, so some rifles meet the technical definition of SBR but are grandfathered by paperwork that exempts them? Which side of this are you arguing?

I was just pointing out that your example was incorrect.

I assert that

1. CAI import L1A1s are not machineguns
OR
2. Every one sold, and every one purchased by an LEO was a felony. All those cops need to be thrown in prison and their gun rights and voting rights revoked forever. Pensions lost. Etc.


Pick one. Can't be both.

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 09:32
2. Every one sold, and every one purchased by an LEO was a felony. All those cops need to be thrown in prison and their gun rights and voting rights revoked forever. Pensions lost. Etc.


Pick one. Can't be both.

You would also have to include the ATF agents that allowed the importation/selling/distribution of these "machine guns" and CAI for importing/selling/distributing said "machine guns".

That's a lot of people going to club fed for 10 years each "machine gun".
That would be what 20,000* years for every person involved in the importation/sales/distributing of them? (*if they imported 2000)

4markk
September 26, 2017, 09:36
I was just pointing out that your example was incorrect.

I assert that

1. CAI import L1A1s are not machineguns
OR
2. Every one sold, and every one purchased by an LEO was a felony. All those cops need to be thrown in prison and their gun rights and voting rights revoked forever. Pensions lost. Etc.


Pick one. Can't be both.

Unfortunately it is undefined, therefore it can be both upon definition. Which is always a risk with regulations under the color of law.

The good news is that should it later be "defined" as contraband, you cannot criminally be responsible. BUT the contraband can be confiscated. HOWEVER, if they are successful in proving that a "reasonable" person should have known it was forbidden, they may be able to prove malicious intent.

Which is always the risk of a "gray area" (aka unknown conditions skirting known restrictions).

The definitions are the key to turning back a lot of these gun-control measures. The anti's have been far more clever than us in this arena. We are stuck on absolutes, while they are inching us toward prohibition. The recent "gunsmithing" fiasco is a good case in point. They made a change in "import/export" restrictions than used regulations to expand definitions to restrict an entire class of unrelated activities.

kev
September 26, 2017, 09:52
they are telling you which part of the weapon is the firearm.

by the way, they also have reversed this on the FNC and another one (AR180?)

No, no they are not. The section deals with machine guns, not firearms. The entire file deals solely with NFA items. Not one word about anything else. And yes, ATF has waffled back and forth endlessly with the FNC and the AR18/180,...both semi and auto versions.

I was just pointing out that your example was incorrect.

I assert that

1. CAI import L1A1s are not machineguns
OR
2. Every one sold, and every one purchased by an LEO was a felony. All those cops need to be thrown in prison and their gun rights and voting rights revoked forever. Pensions lost. Etc.


Pick one. Can't be both.

The M94 was just a random model thrown out as "not a machine gun" and not requiring grandfathering. The SBR exemption is unrelated but if anything argues against the assumption that somehow the L1A1 is 'grandfathered' without any determination by ATF.

I pick 3. Neither.

The CAI import L1A1s are machine guns by current definition and were improperly imported/released to LEO and exist in limbo for now. That's probably very much part of the reason ATF has not moved on them. Nobody on the receiving end of one of them has done anything wrong but there will always be risk of confiscation. No prosecution will ever follow as long as the owner forfeits when confronted. Fail to forfeit and see what happens.

All AR-15's and AR-10's are then machine guns. They are simple to modify. Takes a jig and a drill bit and about 5 min of work.

So I would worry about the Govt coming and collecting all of them :tinfoilhat:

Yes, Armalite AR10 and Armalite AR15 lowers,......not aftermarket AR lowers referred to as AR10/AR15 nor anything made by the current Armalite company that is not Armalite in other than marketing copy. Seriously man, you're completely out of your depth in any intelligent discussion.

Once again, this is not what I want to do today.

kev
September 26, 2017, 10:01
Unfortunately it is undefined, therefore it can be both upon definition. Which is always a risk with regulations under the color of law.

The good news is that should it later be "defined" as contraband, you cannot criminally be responsible. BUT the contraband can be confiscated. HOWEVER, if they are successful in proving that a "reasonable" person should have known it was forbidden, they may be able to prove malicious intent.

Which is always the risk of a "gray area" (aka unknown conditions skirting known restrictions).

The definitions are the key to turning back a lot of these gun-control measures. The anti's have been far more clever than us in this arena. We are stuck on absolutes, while they are inching us toward prohibition. The recent "gunsmithing" fiasco is a good case in point. They made a change in "import/export" restrictions than used regulations to expand definitions to restrict an entire class of unrelated activities.

Thank you,...exactly. I type slow and didn't see this until after posting but yes, this is exactly what I'm saying and all that I'm saying. I don't want or have an interest in any particular outcome,.....I just have to jump in when a certain group of people throw out that these are all perfectly fine and legal to own because (endless stupid and illogical wrongness to follow).

It's gray. It's gray for a reason. Enter at your own risk. Be prepared to lose the item.

gunplumber
September 26, 2017, 10:22
I understand what you are saying, but there are several issues. Interpretations change and interpretation is not law. What you are citing is not law, it is a policy interpretation/commentary. As many of us are aware, ATF has published "policy letters" over the year that are in diametric opposition to previous policy letters.

Second, it is interesting that FN FAL is listed, as there are plenty of Belgian FN FALs (not on the amnesty list) that are not machineguns. So I again assert that, while the commentary is about machineguns, the point of the commentary is to establish which half of a hinged rifle is the "firearm" part. "Machinegun" is a further refinement of "firearm".

Of course, that's also a complicated can of worms. An M1 carbine receiver is not a machinegun. An M2 carbine receiver is. The only difference is one says "M1" and one says "M2". And then, although it is clearly established that the part the barrel screws into on the M1 is the receiver, it is the trigger pack that drops right in and makes it select fire. Therefore, the "not a firearm" complete trigger housing, is a machinegun, even in absence of a receiver. It is a conversion part. Throw away the trip, toggle, J spring, etc., and it's now an M1 trigger housing and is not a machinegun, despite the recess for the J spring.

Another thing that comes to mind, in using your assessment, is that British L1A1 is listed in the commentary, and Australian and Indian L1A1s are not.

I again bring up the MOD letter authorizing certain L1A1s inthe VN theater (I think it was 6) to be converted to full auto. That they have to convert them, strongly suggests to me that they previously were not.

"Readily convertible" is always an tough one. I can convert a 1911 to full auto in 5 minutes. Of course, I would be introducing a defect, not a design feature, but it remains readily convertible to a firearm that will do a mag dump with a single function of the trigger.

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 10:48
Yes, Armalite AR10 and Armalite AR15 lowers,......not aftermarket AR lowers referred to as AR10/AR15 nor anything made by the current Armalite company that is not Armalite in other than marketing copy. Seriously man, you're completely out of your depth in any intelligent discussion.

Once again, this is not what I want to do today.

Define simple modification.

"The “designed to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger” portion of the definition relates to the characteristics of the weapon that permit full automatic fire. ATF has also held that the “designed” definition includes those weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts. ATF has published rulings concerning specific firearms classified as machineguns based on this interpretation of the term “designed.”15"

the gman
September 26, 2017, 10:54
I would think that any firearm that incorporates an auto sear would fall under this paragraph. Yes, I know that the Brits call it a "safety sear" but they also call a trunk a boot and a hood a bonnet but that doesn't mean a Bentley doesn't have a hood or a trunk,......it just means the Brits speak English in a weird manner.

No it doesn't. :facepalm: I'm English and the "safety sear" is exactly that; it is intended to prevent the weapon from firing until the bolt and carrier are locked up because as we have seen numerous times, bad shit happens with the FAL/L1A1 when the weapon fires out of battery. It was never designed as a sear trip and even with the safety sear in place, the weapon CANNOT fire full auto, no matter how hard you try unless you modify the weapon. The L1A1 is a distinct and separate weapon from the FAL in as much as it was NEVER designed to be a fully automatic weapon. The ATF have mistakenly seized upon a single feature it shares with the FAL and determined that is what makes it a machinegun.

ATF is gonna get their ass handed to them if they try to prosecute someone for one of these IF the accused has money and access to good attorneys.

kev
September 26, 2017, 10:59
I hate even mentioning the M1/M2 because it is a snarl, but in my opinion(and ianal)ATF is as consistent on the issue as they can be. M1/M2 receivers are identical as during WWII the M2 conversion was just that,....a conversion that could be done in the field. Things are complicated due to the fact that so many 'M1' Carbines were released to citizens by the US Gov't so there's plenty of ground to be tip-toed around, but in effect, if it's marked M1 ATF OKs it because it is presumed to have been manufactured as a semi. If it's marked M2, regardless of current condition or parts, it gets confiscated because it was presumably manufactured as a machine gun. Seems reasonable from their perspective. The 'conversion parts' thing came about primarily because of the M1/M2 situation where just about everyone who owned an M1 also had a stash of previously unrestricted M2 parts. They cleaned up the situation as best they could by forcing registration of the 'complete' conversion set. You can still illegally assemble a complete kit by cherry picking parts from different vendors so it's still not an optimal solution, but it's the best they have.

I'm about 99% certain that if ATF found someone in possession of an M2 marked receiver and a huge-by-large pile of paperwork showing that they received the rifle directly from Uncle Sam in M1 configuration that the rifle would still be forfeit and destroyed and that the 'possessor' would face no consequences unless he made an effort to not turn it over. The proper response,...."Thank you, may I have your card? I will locate that item for you immediately and have my attorney turn it over to you directly. Would tomorrow be too soon?" Keep that in mind if you have one of these L1A1s. Enjoy it but be prepared to hand it over with the quickness if it ever comes down to that. The slightest hesitation or obfuscation will destroy you. No canoe accidents for you! That's how everybody gets three hots and a cot courtesy of ATF.

Bringing up the FN FAL listing, it's clear that they're referencing the auto version and not the FN manufactured sporting semi-auto version since they're not talking at all about semi-autos. Note that ATF no longer allows even FN to mark the rifles FAL, not that that's an issue any more. Also not at all strange that they list the British L1A1 and neglect the Aussie and Indian versions,......they state right up front that the list isn't all-inclusive.

The most common argument is that the L1A1 was never a semi and I understand your argument that the Brits needing authorization to 'convert' half a dozen of them would indicate that it's a fact, but I'd take it back further. The L1A1 is a variant of the original FN FAL and was designed as an automatic. The Brits redesigned it to preclude auto fire, did they not? Did they not make two very minor alterations that even a schoolboy could undo? Did they not leave the vital secondary sear intact? Notice that everyone else who redesigned the FAL to preclude auto fire was forced to do away with the sear(with some few exceptions which I suggest are errors in import).

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 11:05
I would also include the once a machine gun fallacy into this conversation. If I take my AR15 drop in a RDIAS, as I have done in the past, timed the bolt carrier to the RDIAS to get it to function as a full auto, then remove the RDIAS it is no longer a machine gun (same with HK's registered sears).

So dropping in a part, the registered "machine gun" and modifying part/s to make it work, it is no longer a "machine gun" when you remove a part.

kev
September 26, 2017, 11:08
Define simple modification.

"The “designed to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger” portion of the definition relates to the characteristics of the weapon that permit full automatic fire. ATF has also held that the “designed” definition includes those weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts. ATF has published rulings concerning specific firearms classified as machineguns based on this interpretation of the term “designed.”15"

Minor grinding or complete removal of two minor parts would qualify as 'simple modification' with no modification of the receiver being required. It's the auto sear that allows auto fire,.......two minor parts have been modified to prevent it. I don't need or want to get into the specifics, especially when I know that you already know. You cannot be reasoned with,........I am done trying. Squirrel!

kev
September 26, 2017, 11:25
No it doesn't. :facepalm: I'm English and the "safety sear" is exactly that; it is intended to prevent the weapon from firing until the bolt and carrier are locked up because as we have seen numerous times, bad shit happens with the FAL/L1A1 when the weapon fires out of battery. It was never designed as a sear trip and even with the safety sear in place, the weapon CANNOT fire full auto, no matter how hard you try unless you modify the weapon. The L1A1 is a distinct and separate weapon from the FAL in as much as it was NEVER designed to be a fully automatic weapon. The ATF have mistakenly seized upon a single feature it shares with the FAL and determined that is what makes it a machinegun.

ATF is gonna get their ass handed to them if they try to prosecute someone for one of these IF the accused has money and access to good attorneys.

Yes, it does, and it doesn't matter if you're English. I'm 6'-1". And it's Tuesday. I don't know how many stones but I assure you I do weigh something.

Every machine gun has a secondary sear that does two things(that are actually one thing). Well, I should say every machine gun that fires a cartridge from a locked breech,....subguns don't necessarily have it. That thing is the auto-sear(or safety sear if you prefer). Whether you say that it trips the hammer when the bolt locks or you say that it prevents firing until the bolt is locked is immaterial, it does both of those things and those two things are the same. It's the sole differentiating feature of a machine gun. Semis don't have that feature(except for the SKS,....wanna go there for awhile?).

The Brits didn't design the weapon so the Brits don't get to dictate what the parts do nor what they were meant to do. It's a silly argument not worth the time,......again.

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 14:45
http://i.imgur.com/j7kseDC.jpg (https://imgur.com/j7kseDC)

Riversidesports
September 26, 2017, 16:33
Yes, it does, and it doesn't matter if you're English. I'm 6'-1". And it's Tuesday. I don't know how many stones but I assure you I do weigh something.

Every machine gun has a secondary sear that does two things(that are actually one thing). Well, I should say every machine gun that fires a cartridge from a locked breech,....subguns don't necessarily have it. That thing is the auto-sear(or safety sear if you prefer). Whether you say that it trips the hammer when the bolt locks or you say that it prevents firing until the bolt is locked is immaterial, it does both of those things and those two things are the same. It's the sole differentiating feature of a machine gun. Semis don't have that feature(except for the SKS,....wanna go there for awhile?).

The Brits didn't design the weapon so the Brits don't get to dictate what the parts do nor what they were meant to do. It's a silly argument not worth the time,......again.

Or we could go into the differences between a Reising M50 SMG and a M60 semi carbine.

How about a legal Eagle .45 carbine and a NFA Spitfire ?
basically the same guns Kev

Beretta 1918/30 semi autos ?
Shit ATFE allowed ReconOrd to import a good number from Argentine Police stores...and they are SBRs

Seen one Hotchkiss Universal Police Carbine that was non NFA with an exemption letter.
remember, the Hotchkiss was originally designed as semi only.

Heck ATFE just allowed cans on muzzle loaders as NFA exempt and you fret over L1s sold to LEOs over twenty years ago :wink:

Here's one to ponder
what if Fulton Armory did a run of semi M1 carbines with a M2 marked barrel ring ? Do you actually believe that would be a winnable case for DOJ ?
That a simple numeral makes it a "machinegun" ?

Fordman52
September 26, 2017, 17:01
So whats the going price for these LEO l1a1 rifles .what other commonwealth rifle did cai import that they sold law enforcement. Are they supposed to rare as chickens teeth or what.I know they made thousands back in the day

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 17:12
So whats the going price for these LEO l1a1 rifles .what other commonwealth rifle did cai import that they sold law enforcement. Are they supposed to rare as chickens teeth or what.I know they made thousands back in the day

Well it depends on the model. The parts kits rifles were around $2700 - $2800.
The all numbers matching complete rifles were more ~$3500+ IIRC

4markk
September 26, 2017, 20:04
I understand what you are saying, but there are several issues. Interpretations change and interpretation is not law. What you are citing is not law, it is a policy interpretation/commentary. As many of us are aware, ATF has published "policy letters" over the year that are in diametric opposition to previous policy letters.

Exactly, we've given regulators and their regulations the power of law. Unfortunately, like most things in Washington, once you create it, it is near impossible to dismantle it.

Since their regulations (and policies) are backed by the color of law, does it really matter that is merely a regulation? The consequences are the same.


"Readily convertible" is always an tough one.

Hence the gray area. It is defined on a case by case, unfortunately some rulings defy logic.


No it doesn't. :facepalm: I'm English and the "safety sear" is exactly that; it is intended to prevent the weapon from firing until the bolt and carrier are locked up

NO it doesn't. It does only ONE thing. It trips the hammer when the carrier is far enough forward for the bolt to be in battery. As a mechanical device, it can only DO something, not "NOT DO" something.

It is stopped from doing something when the main sear resets.

The fact that is allows a safer operation of the rifle is an effect of the normal operation of the sear.


Here's one to ponder
what if Fulton Armory did a run of semi M1 carbines with a M2 marked barrel ring ? Do you actually believe that would be a winnable case for DOJ ?
That a simple numeral makes it a "machinegun" ?

You REALLY want to take that chance in today's courts????

Here's one for you to ponder:

Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of so-called "assault weapons" and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld on the 21st of Feb 2017 by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

In a 10-4 ruling, the court said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Yet no military in the world uses any of those 45 kinds of so-called "assault weapons".

the gman
September 26, 2017, 21:23
Yes, it does, and it doesn't matter if you're English. I'm 6'-1". And it's Tuesday. I don't know how many stones but I assure you I do weigh something.

Every machine gun has a secondary sear that does two things(that are actually one thing). Well, I should say every machine gun that fires a cartridge from a locked breech,....subguns don't necessarily have it. That thing is the auto-sear(or safety sear if you prefer). Whether you say that it trips the hammer when the bolt locks or you say that it prevents firing until the bolt is locked is immaterial, it does both of those things and those two things are the same. It's the sole differentiating feature of a machine gun. Semis don't have that feature(except for the SKS,....wanna go there for awhile?).

The Brits didn't design the weapon so the Brits don't get to dictate what the parts do nor what they were meant to do. It's a silly argument not worth the time,......again.

Sigh. Actually, the Brits, Aussies and Canadians DID redesign the FAL or it wouldn't look like it does now would it? The process took YEARS and many thousands of hours of testing. Its not like the Commonwealth just screwed with the grip angle or the select fire feature. The stock, the pistol grip, front and rear sights, the removal of the capability of the rifle to fire full auto, the flash hider, sling swivels, bolt and carrier, magazine, the design of the lower, the trigger mech, HTS, the safety, I mean, what's left?? :eek::eek:

If the UK decided to make M16 pattern rifles using low shelf lowers but without the wider pocket or the hole for the auto sear, did they make a machine gun or not? Is it "readily convertible" and what exactly does that phrase mean? Absolutely nothing that can be defined with any kind of consistency.

I understand your reluctance to fight the ATF but others don't lack your intestinal fortitude and some have plenty of treasure (or will be backed by those who have treasure) to stand up to the nonsense that the "readily convertible" BS truly is. :redface:

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 21:26
Ease of convertibility. Replacing one part for another, ie Glock 17, back plate makes it a Glock 18. Takes about 5 seconds. Therefore all G17's, 19's, ect are machine pistols and are subject to confiscation according to some members interpretation of the law.

4markk
September 26, 2017, 22:02
I understand your reluctance to fight the ATF but others don't lack your intestinal fortitude and some have plenty of treasure (or will be backed by those who have treasure) to stand up to the nonsense that the "readily convertible" BS truly is. :redface:

Oh REALLY!!!!! Where are these mythical beasts?????

Perhaps you will cite for us all their successes.

Perhaps you will cite for us YOUR successes in taking on the ATF.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

You do know that the standard "readily convertible" only applies to GCA, not NFA.


Ease of convertibility. Replacing one part for another, ie Glock 17, back plate makes it a Glock 18. Takes about 5 seconds. Therefore all G17's, 19's, ect are machine pistols and are subject to confiscation according to some members interpretation of the law.

Your absurd "what ifs" doesn't change the law.

The NFA, as codified in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machinegun as:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Despite determining elements of “readily” for consideration, no clear standard exists. Individual courts choose which elements to consider as well as how to weight each element’s importance. With varying interpretations from court to court and the absence of a clear standard defining “readily,” compliance with the law is difficult at best.

So before you choose to readily restore, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" :]

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 22:19
Despite determining elements of “readily” for consideration, no clear standard exists. Individual courts choose which elements to consider as well as how to weight each element’s importance. With varying interpretations from court to court and the absence of a clear standard defining “readily,” compliance with the law is difficult at best.

So before you choose to readily restore, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" :]

So with this approval letter, after getting approval for a semi UK59 the last iteration of the Bren/ZB machine gun, then re-engineering a post sample kit to fit the new approved semi, I have made it readily convertible?

http://i.imgur.com/yvkyzI4.jpg (https://imgur.com/yvkyzI4)
http://i.imgur.com/N26PqU1.jpg (https://imgur.com/N26PqU1)

Just want to make sure to get the internet lawyers advice of the ATF laws.

4markk
September 26, 2017, 22:36
So with this approval letter, after getting approval for a semi UK59 the last iteration of the Bren/ZB machine gun, then re-engineering a post sample kit to fit the new approved semi, I have made it readily convertible?

Just want to make sure to get the internet lawyers advice of the ATF laws.

What in the HELL does that letter have to do with ANYTHING I wrote above? I'll give you a hint, NOTHING!!!!!!!

Other than you know how to post an image of a letter about a DIFFERENT FIREARM than we are discussing. And you know how to get the ATF's PERMISSION to produce this DIFFERENT firearm.

Should I post an ATF letter about a Thompson M1928 to show you are wrong????

Also as I stated above, there is NO TERM "readily convertible" in NFA. Just want to make sure to get the internet idiots advice of American ENGLISH.

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 22:50
You do know that the standard "readily convertible" only applies to GCA, not NFA.

Your absurd "what ifs" doesn't change the law.

The NFA, as codified in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machinegun as:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Despite determining elements of “readily” for consideration, no clear standard exists. Individual courts choose which elements to consider as well as how to weight each element’s importance. With varying interpretations from court to court and the absence of a clear standard defining “readily,” compliance with the law is difficult at best.

So before you choose to readily restore, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" :]

I guess in American English readily restored means something different than readily converted.

Is a M16 with the sear holes welded up any less restorable than a AR15 receiver with no sear holes? Same receiver, same process for drilling the holes.

Is a Glock 18 with a 17 slide back plate more restorable than putting a 18 back plate on a 17?

Is a M2 carbine with a M1 trigger group more restorable than putting a M2 trigger group on a M1?

Is a FN49 with a full auto trigger group more restorable than putting a full auto trigger group on a FN49?

Semi UZI A & B models restored to full auto?

I guess by your, and certain others definitions of federal gun laws, all Glocks, FN49's, M1 carbines, UZI's, AR15's could be confiscated and all sear cut FAL's, L1A1's and 1A1's should be confiscated as they are all readily restored to full auto fire.

:facepalm:

4markk
September 26, 2017, 22:57
I guess in American English readily restored means something different than readily converted.

Is a M16 with the sear holes welded up any less restorable than a AR15 receiver with no sear holes? Same receiver, same process for drilling the holes.

Is a Glock 18 with a 17 slide back plate more restorable than putting a 18 back plate on a 17?

Is a M2 carbine with a M1 trigger group more restorable than putting a M2 trigger group on a M1?

Is a FN49 with a full auto trigger group more restorable than putting a full auto trigger group on a FN49?

I guess by your, and certain others definitions of federal gun laws, all Glocks, FN49's, M1 carbines, and AR15's could be confiscated and all sear cut FAL's, L1A1's and 1A1's should be confiscated as they are all readily restored to full auto fire.


Please cite where I made any statement referenced by your absurd ramblings above!!!!!

:homerdoh: I guess I should have taken Kev's hint, you really are that dense.

SAFN49
September 26, 2017, 23:08
Originally Posted by 4markk View Post

"You do know that the standard "readily convertible" only applies to GCA, not NFA.

Your absurd "what ifs" doesn't change the law.

The NFA, as codified in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machinegun as:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

Yeah, you didn't post that....

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 00:28
You REALLY want to take that chance in today's courts????

Here's one for you to ponder:

Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of so-called "assault weapons" and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld on the 21st of Feb 2017 by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

In a 10-4 ruling, the court said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment. "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Yet no military in the world uses any of those 45 kinds of so-called "assault weapons".

Honestly I wouldn't hesitate, I highly doubt it would even make it into Court
Remember we are talking a newly made receiver.

This is no different than having an M1A receiver marked M14 or an AR lower marked M16
People do that regularly
Hell folks have been remarking HK94s as MP5s since the 80s

btw King is an activist liberal democrat appointed by Clinton
Other Districts have ruled the other way on these matters problem is no one has bothered to advance the matter before SCOTUS so King's idiocy stands in the 4th Circuit.

Anyways Federal DAs decline as many or more cases as they take for prosecution. This would be a likely example
Imagine an ATFE expert attempting to justify a claim that a newly made semi receiver was NFA by virtue of mere markings.
Hell I wouldn't even retain council...this is an easy Pro Se' case just providing various exemplars

AKs marked with eastern block markings
ARs as M16s, etc
Galils with full Izzy markings
HKs
some folks even scrub FAL receivers and remark them as FNs

Kev's kinda right about the M1 Carbine situation
really the best ATF could do was declare MILITARY M2s as machineguns. Later some Plainfield made up select fire M2 carbines however it wasn't the "2" that made them NFA, it was the parts they were built with.

You want to get really obtuse most of the Carbines that came in from Korea through Blue Sky originally had M2 kits in them. The Koreans just swapped out parts and installed a M1 hammer. BATF was aware of all this but there was no real way to prove which ones had been altered back to semi only so they let them roll right in.
Oh, btw you could flip a few pages in Shotgun News and find the removed parts being sold as a package :facepalm:
yeah the parts the Koreans removed...

SAFN49
September 27, 2017, 01:28
Oh, btw you could flip a few pages in Shotgun News and find the removed parts being sold as a package :facepalm:

The same could be said about every metric FAL kit sold through SGN and screwed together on a non sear cut receiver. Takes only a min or 2 to sear cut a receiver on a drill press.

It is very apparent that even members of the files, ie Kev and 4mark, are fudds.

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 03:05
The same could be said about every metric FAL kit sold through SGN and screwed together on a non sear cut receiver. Takes only a min or 2 to sear cut a receiver on a drill press.

It is very apparent that even members of the files, ie Kev and 4mark, are fudds.

The Carbine deal gets a bit loony.
I believe it was Universal that built select fire Carbines on M1 marked registered receivers...yeah the stupid "2" is about meaningless. It all goes to BATF's efforts to recognize that Military contract marked M2 designated a NFA weapon. From there folks outside the bureau have just pulled flying monkeys out of their collective assholes making shit up as they go along

Another one to add to your list that comes to mind are the AVT conversion kits for the Tokarev Rifle. Those are more or less drop deals.
Years back when all the Finn guns first came in there was a mess of converted to semi AVTs among them. Southern Ohio Gun was selling them. Anyways some contend that post 42' all Tokarevs in Red Army service were select fire. The Finns converted their captures to semi only and they later ended up here in the 90s.

Dunno if I can go as far as to call em' elmers but there are just a ton of folks who see ATFE lurking under their beds & hiding in closets regarding things that are simply non issues. It's always a "what if" deal with them.

There is crap ATFE could easily do
big one would be to shut down manufacture of posties as range rentals, that could be done with a stroke of a pen but neither Clinton or Obama did that.

I figured for sure Obama would go after "non sporting" shotguns
really, in terms of what they are is there much of a difference between a Saiga 12 and a USAS ?
that never happened either

One thing they are not inclined to do is to go after rifles they themselves allowed to be sold to individual LE. Were they to do so not only would they look like idiots and further by necessity they would have to open a new Amnesty regarding those guns allowing them into the NFTR...since they are already cut the registered owners could lawfully convert them over to select fire. As long as no modifications had to be made to the bare receiver they would have to allow it :facepalm:

In effect what is currently a two or three thousand dollar semi rifle would become a ten thousand dollar, probably much more transferable select fire :shades:

Frankly it would be a huge win for owners
Sadly the Chicken Littles don't really understand the dynamics involved in the bureaucratic decision making process seeing it all as a monolithic obstruction to our treasured liberties.
It's not really like all that...

kev
September 27, 2017, 09:10
Sigh. Actually, the Brits, Aussies and Canadians DID redesign the FAL or it wouldn't look like it does now would it?..........

Yes, they redesigned the FAL,....that's what I said. They didn't 'invent' it. They converted it to semi-auto from a machine gun in a manner that doesn't pass muster here. They blocked the trigger and selector lever while leaving the basic machine gun 'feature' intact and calling it something else evidently with the intention to confuse and confound their own soldiery.


.............If the UK decided to make M16 pattern rifles using low shelf lowers but without the wider pocket or the hole for the auto sear, did they make a machine gun or not? Is it "readily convertible" and what exactly does that phrase mean? Absolutely nothing that can be defined with any kind of consistency...............

I've never addressed "readily convertible" and I'm not going to, but If the UK decided to make M16 pattern rifles using low shelf lowers but without the wider pocket or the hole for the auto sear then they made an AR15 semi, same as everybody else. But if the UK decided to make M16 pattern rifles using low shelf lowers with the wider pocket and the hole for the auto sear and installed the sear then they made an M16 even if they chose to block the selector to semi-only and call the auto sear a safety sear. That's what they did with the L1A1,.....they made it as a machine gun with the auto sear and blocked the trigger and selector. That may have flown back in merry old England and may have even sufficed here prior to 1968 but it's not an adequate semi conversion here today.

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 12:00
I've never addressed "readily convertible" and I'm not going to, but If the UK decided to make M16 pattern rifles using low shelf lowers but without the wider pocket or the hole for the auto sear then they made an AR15 semi, same as everybody else. But if the UK decided to make M16 pattern rifles using low shelf lowers with the wider pocket and the hole for the auto sear and installed the sear then they made an M16 even if they chose to block the selector to semi-only and call the auto sear a safety sear. That's what they did with the L1A1,.....they made it as a machine gun with the auto sear and blocked the trigger and selector. That may have flown back in merry old England and may have even sufficed here prior to 1968 but it's not an adequate semi conversion here today.

More Idiocracy Kev

ATF NEVER dictated internal demensions, just if it had a hole for the automatic sear it was NFA regulated. This has been beat to death by twinks on Subguns, etc thinking that because Colt did some weird shit that's the way it had to be.

Same situation with Semi vs Select fire UZI receivers. The main thing BATF wanted was the bolt block. The rest, the restrictor ring, the lug, etc were the product of IMI. You can build a semi UZI with all the full auto receiver features and it remains a semi so long as it has the semi bolt block
Of course there are hundreds of internet retards who claim otherwise.

Again, do you seriously actually think ATFE is going to ever go after LEO L1s ?
Again, even were they to it would require opening a registration Amnesty for them and as they are full auto spec receivers the guns would just blow up in value.

This is also why the Bureau never went after open bolts as the same situation existed. Ten minutes or less with a dremil results in a FA only conversion. This was less of a concern in 1982 but today ?
Shit it would jack in thousands of new MGs into the NFTR.

I discussed this back in the 90s with Tech branch when Owens was still in that cat bird seat shortly after that DOJ DIAS stupidity that's been brought up.
Make open bolts NFA you must do an Amnesty for registration, you know, just like they did with Street Sweepers and USAS12s
they can't just confiscate them outright
Same situation with these L1s

why are you unable to get your head around that Kev
The only other way they can do it is to admit they really screwed the poodle which opens the bureau up to some serious litigation if they tried outright seizures and no Federal Bureau or Agency likes to admit this kind of crap, particularly where it concerns guns transferred to LE.

Understand this shit had been going on way prior to Century's imports. ARMEX was doing it in the 80s and there were some C1s that came down from Canada in the late 70s, basically "gifts" from the RCMP & NWMP to LE stateside. Used to be one of those sitting in a display case in the State BCA offices in Bemidji MN, probably still there with a RCMP uniform and other crap.

Now there are some real messed up deals with LE guns
here's one:

Back in the 90s the MN State Police transitioned from M14s to M4 Carbines
All these guns were fitted with a selector lock out device to semi
still straight up M14s, all internals were intact.
So the SP offers these surplused M14s to LEOs in the State Police
back in the 90s they were regular things at midwestern gun shows for awhile.

BATF WAS aware of that situation after the fact
no recovery attempt was initiated
I steered a wide berth around those offerings. If you were the LEO who bought one you are probably Okay, kids might be fine too
Joe Six Pack citizen ?
uh uh...at the least you lose the rifle
Heard a few hundred were sold this way, maybe upwards of four hundred but not seen one in years at a show. Last one was maybe 2010 at a small sporting goods shop in central MN. Guy was pretty messed up about it. He bought it from some local fuzz. Fellow thought I was pulling some fast one on him until I convinced him to field strip it. Guy chopped the receiver, entered it as destroyed in the book and sold the parts kit online for more than he had on the store tag which was like 900 bones
seen these MN guns as far south as the big Tulsa show.

If they could come with some ruse like they were improperly imported or cataloged then they can outright seize them. No luck on that
This was a law enforcement courtesy program and a few still exist Kev.

For example I know one Officer that imported a Chinese NDM86 Dragonov variant down from Canada in like 07 or 08 under the law enforcement exemption. Sailed right in to the department. Not sure but recall he was into it for around a grand by the time he stacked it somewhere.

They watch that gimmick closer now after a few serious breeches of trust
most recently the SWATies that were pinched for buying up HK416s and parting them out for huge profits.
recall there were also scads of high output restricted infrared lasers involved in that one too.

Try this one:
There are a couple wholesalers sitting on millions of rounds of 5.45 7n6 Soviet ball they can't sell to the public.

PUBLIC

Thing is it can be sold to a Cop Shop or individual LEOs
or military
both those groups of folks could organize shooting "clubs" amongst themselves and qualify for the restricted ammo and probably stupid cheap.
Technically they could even give away or sell a smaller percentage of it. Just can't do profit.

an Agency can do a day at the range with officer friendly shooting cheap assed 5.45 ARs with ammo maybe cheaper than .22 rimfire.
If I was a County Sheriff I'd probably run community gun safety programs focused mostly on safe handling and at a Range, not a classroom.
but I'm blathering again :biggrin:

just saying LEOs are exempt from quite a number of gun laws, particularly regarding import.
that said they are still civilian, the same rules regarding what you can have
as your own property regardless of badge or not in most fly over States.

this was one way Euro spec guns came in after 1968 and still do.

4markk
September 27, 2017, 12:15
Honestly I wouldn't hesitate, I highly doubt it would even make it into Court
Remember we are talking a newly made receiver.

The point being you can't count on the courts to do the Right thing when it comes to firearms. They've proven that time and time again.

Even with Heller, no en banc appellate has yet ruled the 2nd embodies an individual right.

btw King is an activist liberal democrat appointed by Clinton
Other Districts have ruled the other way on these matters problem is no one has bothered to advance the matter before SCOTUS so King's idiocy stands in the 4th Circuit.

If it where just King, I'd shrug it off and charge back up the hill. But not only was he able to convince 9 others of his ilk, but he did serious damage. First it was an en banc decision, which is rare enough as it is, but it reversed a panel decision that returned the case to a lower court with the instructions that they HAD to employ the "strict scrutiny" test of the right (rightfully so).

The en banc decision goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Ruling not only that they don't need to use "strict scrutiny", but that ownership of the 45 different types of guns isn't even covered by the 2nd Amendment at all.

That was huge.

Now, only SCOTUS can reverse that lunacy. Unfortunately, with Kennedy, I don't have a lot of confidence they will even hear it little alone rule correctly.

Anyways Federal DAs decline as many or more cases as they take for prosecution. This would be a likely example
Imagine an ATFE expert attempting to justify a claim that a newly made semi receiver was NFA by virtue of mere markings.
Hell I wouldn't even retain council...this is an easy Pro Se' case just providing various exemplars


The problem is such a case would be an affirmative defense. In that the ATF would have had to deny you permission based on their set of "facts". You would then bear the burden to prove them wrong.

IF a "Federal DA" refused to take the case, the decision stands (Denied). If you defied such ruling, then again the burden of proof is on you.

That is why in legal circles they say, 'A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client'. That has nothing to do with skill, but rather emotion. Because emotion is what would have gotten you into that mess in the first place. Otherwise, WHY would a business consider such asspain? They could merely call it a M22, Badazz Semi, or even a ROSE for that matter .....

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 13:12
The point being you can't count on the courts to do the Right thing when it comes to firearms. They've proven that time and time again.

Even with Heller, no en banc appellate has yet ruled the 2nd embodies an individual right.

If it where just King, I'd shrug it off and charge back up the hill. But not only was he able to convince 9 others of his ilk, but he did serious damage. First it was an en banc decision, which is rare enough as it is, but it reversed a panel decision that returned the case to a lower court with the instructions that they HAD to employ the "strict scrutiny" test of the right (rightfully so).

The en banc decision goes 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Ruling not only that they don't need to use "strict scrutiny", but that ownership of the 45 different types of guns isn't even covered by the 2nd Amendment at all.

That was huge.

Now, only SCOTUS can reverse that lunacy. Unfortunately, with Kennedy, I don't have a lot of confidence they will even hear it little alone rule correctly.



The problem is such a case would be an affirmative defense. In that the ATF would have had to deny you permission based on their set of "facts". You would then bear the burden to prove them wrong.

IF a "Federal DA" refused to take the case, the decision stands (Denied). If you defied such ruling, then again the burden of proof is on you.

That is why in legal circles they say, 'A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client'. That has nothing to do with skill, but rather emotion. Because emotion is what would have gotten you into that mess in the first place. Otherwise, WHY would a business consider such asspain? They could merely call it a M22, Badazz Semi, or even a ROSE for that matter .....
meh' I can't imagine DOJ taking this on. Big reason they have such a high conviction rate is due to only taking on somewhat sure thing cases.

A prosecution on a newly made receiver marked M2 wouldn't occur in MY Opinion so long as it was new made.

Try this one on
You take a front chunk of demilled M2 receiver and tig it to a M1 back
what is that...

dunno, represented myself a few times over the years. Done good
helped other folks roo
one College town I resided in they were writing folks up for "disorderly house" violations. When they busted my girl for a kegger I went to the Court House, researched the books.

well you see that was a whore house ordinance.
Case dismissed Chicken Little

Impala_Guy
September 27, 2017, 13:19
They already tried to confiscate one of the thousands of legally imported and sold Steyr sear cuts, and lost in court. Somebody here has the case number.

G series, Steyrs, and Century imports were all built as semi autos, and legally imported and sold as such with the governments blessing. The letter issued on the G series specifically states that they are not machine guns as defined in the NFA. So how can any legally imported and legally sold sear cut semi auto FAL be a machine gun? M2 receivers were declared contraband for reasons of consistency with OAMGAAMG (the only area where there has been any consistency from them). Somebody realized that all their other double standards and fck ups from the past were going to come back to bite them forever.

"Readily convertible"? How is a legal sear cut semi auto FAL any different from an M1 carbine , AR15, or a G3 trigger pack? Smart lawyer could take this and make a case that most of this shit constitutes arbitrary and capricious standards designed to ensnare innocent men of good intent who only want to own and shoot their self loading rifles.

4markk
September 27, 2017, 13:29
Case dismissed Chicken Little

Well Chicken Little (odd handle, but who am I to challenge),

There is a BIG difference between an underage drinking misdemeanor in a district court and a federal firearms felony.

But if your client is that foolish, so be it.

meh' I can't imagine DOJ taking this on. Big reason they have such a high conviction rate is due to only taking on somewhat sure thing cases.

A prosecution on a newly made receiver marked M2 wouldn't occur in MY Opinion so long as it was new made.

So, what you are saying is, IF the ATF does not give you permission to produce a firearm as specified, you'd do it anyways AND think the DOJ would do nothing about it...... Yup, thank you for proving my point ..... better start researching lawyers.

gunplumber
September 27, 2017, 13:49
So, what you are saying is, IF the ATF does not give you permission to produce a firearm as specified, you'd do it anyways AND think the DOJ would do nothing about it...... Yup, thank you for proving my point ..... better start researching lawyers.

Actually, I think he has a valid point. A company makes an M1 carbine receiver and marks it "M1 carbine". It is identical in every respect to a USGI M1 carbine. No problem.

They take one of those receivers and decide to call it an "M2 carbine". Is it now a machinegun?


If my FAL lower says "A", is it a machinegun?

If I engrave 10cm plasma cannon on an Ruger 10/22, is it now a plasma cannon?

kev
September 27, 2017, 14:22
This hasn't got anything to do with anything,....nothing but sideways obfuscation. As I said, an ORIGINAL USGI M2 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as an automatic and an ORIGINAL USGI M1 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as a semi. :end of message:

That's where markings matter,....nowhere else.

The rest isn't even worth addressing because 90% of the argument against me appears to be exactly what I fug'n said thrown back with poorer grammar and spelling. Ain't got time fo dat!

gunplumber
September 27, 2017, 14:36
This hasn't got anything to do with anything,....nothing but sideways obfuscation.

perhaps, but it isn't all about you. Sometimes topics go on tangents.

As I said, an ORIGINAL USGI M2 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as an automatic and an ORIGINAL USGI M1 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as a semi. :end of message:
That's where markings matter,....nowhere else.

Yet they remain 100% identical, except for one says M1 and the other says M2.

4markk
September 27, 2017, 14:43
Actually, I think he has a valid point. A company makes an M1 carbine receiver and marks it "M1 carbine". It is identical in every respect to a USGI M1 carbine. No problem.

They take one of those receivers and decide to call it an "M2 carbine". Is it now a machinegun?


If my FAL lower says "A", is it a machinegun?

If I engrave 10cm plasma cannon on an Ruger 10/22, is it now a plasma cannon?

He totally has a good point as to does just markings make something forbidden. But the scenario HE stated was if the ATF denied him permission to produce a M1 Carbine marked as a M2, he'd simply take them to court. Then he goes on to say the DOJ probably wouldn't show AND the case would be so simple he'd do it pro se because he read a couple books. That is where I disagree.

tdb59
September 27, 2017, 14:44
perhaps, but it isn't all about you. Sometimes topics go on tangents.



Yet they remain 100% identical, except for one says M1 and the other says M2.

And many M1 carbines were overstamped as M2.

Apparently a set of
https://img0.etsystatic.com/202/0/14689421/il_340x270.1266906122_9wdm.jpg

is all that is required for a readily converted firearm.



just kidding.....

sort of.


:biggrin:

......

kev
September 27, 2017, 16:30
perhaps, but it isn't all about you. Sometimes topics go on tangents.


This I understand and it wasn't directed at you,.....hell, I like arguing with you. If I can make a point with you I feel like I've accomplished something. BTW, the whole thing's a tangent. I guess nobody knows for sure where Century got the rifles so can't answer the OP question. I'm not even sure exactly when all this transpired and I think that would be interesting to know.

I'd still like to know whether or not he's going to be successful transferring two identical posties to his license. I was under the impression that ATF didn't allow that anymore. Additionally, I wonder if the OP is even till following this thread.

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 16:50
He totally has a good point as to does just markings make something forbidden. But the scenario HE stated was if the ATF denied him permission to produce a M1 Carbine marked as a M2, he'd simply take them to court. Then he goes on to say the DOJ probably wouldn't show AND the case would be so simple he'd do it pro se because he read a couple books. That is where I disagree.

and I stand by that
to change means standing in the courts

myself, I wouldn't even ask...again, markings don't make MGs
it was simply a dermenative factor with USGI contracts

it's not simply "reading books"
ATFE isn't a Closet Monster

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 17:02
This hasn't got anything to do with anything,....nothing but sideways obfuscation. As I said, an ORIGINAL USGI M2 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as an automatic and an ORIGINAL USGI M1 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as a semi. :end of message:

That's where markings matter,....nowhere else.

The rest isn't even worth addressing because 90% of the argument against me appears to be exactly what I fug'n said thrown back with poorer grammar and spelling. Ain't got time fo dat!

ever the last refuge of losers in these online debates
start the grammar and spelling nazi horseshit
that's Ghey as hell, stay on topic Assclown

If you can't well do carry on ole' chappy'

kinda scary, it's a rare time when GP, SAFN and I are in total agreement.
will wonders never cease...

stoicrabbit
September 27, 2017, 18:16
They already tried to confiscate one of the thousands of legally imported and sold Steyr sear cuts, and lost in court. Somebody here has the case number.

I searched an could not locate the thread you referenced.
I would be very interested in reading that transcript.
Are you sure you are not thinking about the German G-1 from this transcript in this thread, http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74104&highlight=Bar+Parker+trial.

Not a G-series or a steyr import, yet determined to be semi-auto despite the sear cut receiver.

kev
September 27, 2017, 18:57
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................

I can't dumb it down enough for you. There's simply no way. I bring loaves of bread. I slice it for you. You fixate on crumbs.

If I were GP I would seriously reconsider my thoughts based on your observation alone.

Riversidesports
September 27, 2017, 20:10
I can't dumb it down enough for you. There's simply no way. I bring loaves of bread. I slice it for you. You fixate on crumbs.

If I were GP I would seriously reconsider my thoughts based on your observation alone.

Sadly it was GP who was largely responsible for my change of opinion which was once similar to your own regarding LEO L1s Kev
However I am open to things, I realized I was WRONG, Mark helped make me a believer.

All you offer is loaves of stale home bread nibbled asunder by rodents Kev
you make like no effort to carve out the rotting bits of your "slices" as our self annoited Priest just whine, bitch and moan away directing your silly insinuations at everyone who disagrees with your clinical overview of this situation.

Well dance for us little bitch.

So far all you have done is claim some day they might come for these guns oh and like EVERYTHING else that goes against your statist black and white read of bureau history.

typical internet hobgoblin all to common on gun forums.

nice try Jupiter...

APEXgunparts
September 27, 2017, 21:41
I looked thru my collection of old Century Arms catalogs.
Looks like the British L1A1 SL parts kits appear for sale in 1992.
Before that they advertised Ishapore L1A1 kits.

Unfortunately my Law Enforcement flyers that Century Arms printed for the IACP convention only go back to 2005.
Product code FA317 was a Thompson M1A1 in very good condition for $600 (comes without mag)

Product code FA1032 was an MG-42 in good to very good condition for $900

Richard

kev
September 27, 2017, 22:07
That sounds about right. I was actively buying the Brit kits in the early 90's(which is what got me started in both FALs and kit collecting)but I don't remember ever seeing the Ishapore kits so they probably pre-date that. And I do remember seeing the LEO ads, probably in SGN. All post '86,.....not good.

SAFN49
September 27, 2017, 22:28
This hasn't got anything to do with anything,....nothing but sideways obfuscation. As I said, an ORIGINAL USGI M2 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as an automatic and an ORIGINAL USGI M1 Carbine is assumed to have been manufactured as a semi. :end of message:



The original M2 carbines were field converted M1's by US Marines. The USGI approved versions didn't come until much later. Hence the Marines proved that all M1 Carbines are readily converted in the field to fully automatic fire.

You really should know your history.

arashi
September 27, 2017, 23:51
I got this flyer back in the day...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mutVNwVExwGNSkwQL8iGGS6kqCmCs6PtnobXgUq3n8AvQUHvSy ulg3e1nr4R5Sx3PTRP_KDHry0BOTG7AUNpSza5oI8lFsTunLRe 0PyT9DJyrJezc6HBwAGf-BIBkSPoyc1DLMZrPYA3tfYY91fMBW7bBFnJQRFpsFxeVumdsT4 ebxrljsOJhl2djS4m1pe30_1Yq7KmeuzAU1cVk8Yfbjpowt6jO Mut151oOr_L30CtIpcBqAFiuniT4XP9VxzfxCKGiZDCJ3MXxLE iQchF9bT4dAWt1bZb84CEQmPO4qUnBwXMP7fDc0xM87kyu9qe-tbvnBnB0MBE_ErHGcX0x78ZemI65XBdlyu6EdkoFuulWRoftS--iI-ZXMUMze7dvPZ3R4ZyPcQYmkSFZryPKT13K8QztGyzR2ZYQYx-h2fduXeKTyNgYAR28bD0LzBAT8be-GlFzlDpAgcfmueBpPNeVhU2XfA33SOSDoumvwws0i70v05p6Jh e4BEhAbhYBajGcoL4hpv3ctndHhPvsKwVAbRs3GVmbXHwU8DQB sPXGIzAFVUQRi2j_Pf38HE5XuL2UMaXLbSDKI95680k1Vi0N8g dvUMz3my0cmYm1Q=w1212-h1882-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hE9Oigsr9jdaAB0r6HGtDFBJnEMxiN2W8KryNsd7FTBJCMGv0y Znkp5L20TgonuXgvkfBvR6njcqrm_wH6pIFnkYWTreHtl4ntkU xijlPlwFpIpCUPmi8SvqKoh1YcwRym5jjqcHH2eSOYF_h8T8LR fJqzor2PqeCKSikILXyS5a-DKFNG6R-myOZvyfrs4y5ssslE_ww21cMPe20-_VM8ZKTxJhUbVA-YfO6_ry-01JxhWm8oFCAzeTzOSShlGp1ztPE9prz3yYf1ogeLSuiDFrLM6 ZEXoZ1iSFSWho31XbghmeE4byBqltHG9F6UqGqsBlYSo5TM1Gf 8YycS5JB6la09DvInVurslXcYtm8swI5MmCvlpiNXpclTu8jaC pamomoXVZx9lecB_j_00_Gf8HqCVX4KLCq0qdfw6CAy2Ubhdfp SbOSg71MkhurpEzsVd4qOODrn7HXGK1VBTBhTjzSbH2UMeCcfo RWuvRAyg4glIOec7dZwxyD9E719DR09zf7nXNoG8bNBJPyrsPf uz2fx60kyvrNarZmYDKd4BXlZWTchPlwUSjUWb_NbzbmwxItmt NUeJaasIKgDoCTDj9mhobD6p4naxmnvCUxA=w2436-h1882-no

APEXgunparts
September 28, 2017, 00:09
Hey!
There is the Chinese select fire M14's that SLC PD purchased instead of the L1A1's.
I mentioned that in post #7.
They didn't last very well in PD service and the armorer at "PRO Arms" was stuck with the task of keeping them going.
He wished they had bought the L1A1's.
I think that gent was who built my British L1A1 kit on an Eden Arms receiver.

Richard

gunplumber
September 28, 2017, 08:57
I'd still like to know whether or not he's going to be successful transferring two identical posties to his license. I was under the impression that ATF didn't allow that anymore. Additionally, I wonder if the OP is even till following this thread.

My understanding is that a Sheriff sued ATF and won. Something like "I'm the supreme Law Enforcement Official in this jurisdiction and if I want x many identical MP5s to T&E, you have no authority to say shit about it."

Otherwise you had
1 MP5A1
1 MP5A2
1 MP5A3

etc.

kev
September 28, 2017, 09:38
The original M2 carbines were field converted M1's by US Marines. The USGI approved versions didn't come until much later. Hence the Marines proved that all M1 Carbines are readily converted in the field to fully automatic fire.

You really should know your history.

You've found another crumb. Enjoy it.

https://media.giphy.com/media/z1bHcJUlFrjBC/giphy.gif

kev
September 28, 2017, 09:45
My understanding is that a Sheriff sued ATF and won. Something like "I'm the supreme Law Enforcement Official in this jurisdiction and if I want x many identical MP5s to T&E, you have no authority to say shit about it."

Otherwise you had
1 MP5A1
1 MP5A2
1 MP5A3

etc.

I can see a Sheriff getting away with that because he is in fact the supreme Law Enforcement Official in the jurisdiction, but an SOT making the same argument probably won't fly. Your license pretty firmly puts you under ATF authority since that's what you're requesting and accepting when you 'apply' a license to yourself.

If ATF has changed that would be good. Many dealers have lost out on many sales simply because they're not allowed to carry weapons in stock. Kinda restricts the business a little.

kev
September 28, 2017, 09:55
I got this flyer back in the day...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mutVNwVExwGNSkwQL8iGGS6kqCmCs6PtnobXgUq3n8AvQUHvSy ulg3e1nr4R5Sx3PTRP_KDHry0BOTG7AUNpSza5oI8lFsTunLRe 0PyT9DJyrJezc6HBwAGf-BIBkSPoyc1DLMZrPYA3tfYY91fMBW7bBFnJQRFpsFxeVumdsT4 ebxrljsOJhl2djS4m1pe30_1Yq7KmeuzAU1cVk8Yfbjpowt6jO Mut151oOr_L30CtIpcBqAFiuniT4XP9VxzfxCKGiZDCJ3MXxLE iQchF9bT4dAWt1bZb84CEQmPO4qUnBwXMP7fDc0xM87kyu9qe-tbvnBnB0MBE_ErHGcX0x78ZemI65XBdlyu6EdkoFuulWRoftS--iI-ZXMUMze7dvPZ3R4ZyPcQYmkSFZryPKT13K8QztGyzR2ZYQYx-h2fduXeKTyNgYAR28bD0LzBAT8be-GlFzlDpAgcfmueBpPNeVhU2XfA33SOSDoumvwws0i70v05p6Jh e4BEhAbhYBajGcoL4hpv3ctndHhPvsKwVAbRs3GVmbXHwU8DQB sPXGIzAFVUQRi2j_Pf38HE5XuL2UMaXLbSDKI95680k1Vi0N8g dvUMz3my0cmYm1Q=w1212-h1882-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hE9Oigsr9jdaAB0r6HGtDFBJnEMxiN2W8KryNsd7FTBJCMGv0y Znkp5L20TgonuXgvkfBvR6njcqrm_wH6pIFnkYWTreHtl4ntkU xijlPlwFpIpCUPmi8SvqKoh1YcwRym5jjqcHH2eSOYF_h8T8LR fJqzor2PqeCKSikILXyS5a-DKFNG6R-myOZvyfrs4y5ssslE_ww21cMPe20-_VM8ZKTxJhUbVA-YfO6_ry-01JxhWm8oFCAzeTzOSShlGp1ztPE9prz3yYf1ogeLSuiDFrLM6 ZEXoZ1iSFSWho31XbghmeE4byBqltHG9F6UqGqsBlYSo5TM1Gf 8YycS5JB6la09DvInVurslXcYtm8swI5MmCvlpiNXpclTu8jaC pamomoXVZx9lecB_j_00_Gf8HqCVX4KLCq0qdfw6CAy2Ubhdfp SbOSg71MkhurpEzsVd4qOODrn7HXGK1VBTBhTjzSbH2UMeCcfo RWuvRAyg4glIOec7dZwxyD9E719DR09zf7nXNoG8bNBJPyrsPf uz2fx60kyvrNarZmYDKd4BXlZWTchPlwUSjUWb_NbzbmwxItmt NUeJaasIKgDoCTDj9mhobD6p4naxmnvCUxA=w2436-h1882-no

Hmmmm,.....the L1A1, the A1A and the full auto M14 clone are all Non-Transferable*. Wonder what they mean by that? I see that both the L1A1 and A1A are also available on new commercial "S/A" receivers. "S/A"? Cryptic. Probably means something but whatever it is they don't seem to be listed as Non-Transferable* so maybe that's all related. Surely there's a difference between the original Non-Transferable* receiver and the commercial "S/A" receiver to make the "S/A" receiver gun worth twice as much, otherwise I think I'd just go for an original myself.

Seriously, I can understand the logic that the original rifles are in pre-import ban AW configuration and would be restricted to LE only whereas the neutered thumbhole stock rifle is not, but as far as I'm aware there was never a Non-Transferable* restriction on a firearm imported for LE use and then later sold out to the public unless it was an NFA restriction.

4markk
September 28, 2017, 11:30
I got this flyer back in the day...


I'm curious, do you have the page where Century defines what they mean by "non-transferable".

I see where they define the **, but not the *.

SAFN49
September 28, 2017, 11:35
I own a couple of these. These were not transferable to the general public during the AWB. Both mine are marked M4 on the left side of the receiver, but were semi auto only.

http://i.imgur.com/3nisCBn.jpg (https://imgur.com/3nisCBn)

Johnaski
September 28, 2017, 13:48
*So, ...where did Century buy the Law Enforcement Only L1A1's From???

MilsurpMonkey
September 28, 2017, 14:43
*So, ...where did Century buy the Law Enforcement Only L1A1's From???

Most of the century import marked guns that I have researched came out of India. I'm not an expert, but that's the best that I've come up with so far.

Riversidesports
September 28, 2017, 14:54
I'm curious, do you have the page where Century defines what they mean by "non-transferable".

I see where they define the **, but not the *.

because the flyer is dated 94'-95' at the start of the AW ban era.
They were not transferable to the general public at that point as they had AW features. When the ban went belly up a decade later they were no longer restricted.

Same deal as LEO ARs and LEO marked magazines.

.30-06
September 28, 2017, 16:25
http://memes.ucoz.com/_nw/50/73899779.jpg


They are semi-autos, as they were never configured for FA. The ATF went after them and the courts shut them down.

APEXgunparts
September 28, 2017, 16:35
It would be helpful if "ARASHI" could take a photo of the section of the L-E Catalog that explains the "Non-Transferable" * asterix.

The Chinese M-14 has no bayonet lug, no flash hider, no pistol grip but is select fire and has that same "Non-transferable" * notation.

Also, the newer catalogs I have do contain an explanation of what is required to make a purchase from the L-E product line.
If that 94/95 edition has a similar explanation that may also be enlightening.

Richard

4markk
September 28, 2017, 18:27
because the flyer is dated 94'-95' at the start of the AW ban era.
They were not transferable to the general public at that point as they had AW features. When the ban went belly up a decade later they were no longer restricted.

Same deal as LEO ARs and LEO marked magazines.

A possible explanation. However, as pointed out, the same notation is on obvious Class III weapons.

So, I'd like to see what the flyer says.


They are semi-autos, as they were never configured for FA. The ATF went after them and the courts shut them down.

Good information. What is the case/date? I'd like to read it.

slag
September 28, 2017, 18:58
A possible explanation. However, as pointed out, the same notation is on obvious Class III weapons.

The L1A1 rifles were sold and transferred to individual officers, not departments. If these rifles were Class III that would not be possible (legal). The same notation is on the M14 because the same restriction applies. Neither are transferable, however for completely different reasons.

As pointed out, during the AWB individual police officers could still purchase rifles with "evil features" and normal capacity magazines ( 10+ rounds ) but only by having their chiefs permission, which was typically provided via a department head letter. This included both domestic rifles like Colt LE6920's or imported guns like the Saiga 12"c" shotguns, or CIA L1A1 rifles.

Rifles that were individually sold to police officers could actually be legally transferred to "civilians" during the period of the AWB, but they had to be neutered of their evil features, and in the case of imported guns, additionally had to have the proper amount of domestically produced parts added to them.

After the AWB was not renewed, they could be transferred without any alterations. It is all actually pretty simple... but fuds gotta fud, thus this conversation.

4markk
September 28, 2017, 19:06
These rifles were sold and transferred to individual officers, not departments. If they were Class III that would not be possible (legal).

As pointed out, during the AWB individual police officers could purchase rifles with "evil features" or normal capacity magazines ( 10+ rounds ) by having there chiefs permission typically provided via a department head letter.

This included both domestic rifles like Colt LE6920's or imported guns like the Saiga 12"c" shotguns, or CIA L1A1 rifles.

These rifles that were individually sold to police officers could even be legally transferred to "civilians" if they were neutered of their evil features, and in the case of imported guns, also had the proper amount of domestically produced parts added to them.

After the AWB was not renewed, they could be transferred without any alterations. It is all actually pretty simple... but fuds gotta fud, thus this conversation.

I know all about the Clinton Assault on Weapons ban and restrictions on different classes of guns.

I am asking for the cite that is referenced so I may add it to my scholarship.

Riversidesports
September 28, 2017, 19:07
A possible explanation. However, as pointed out, the same notation is on obvious Class III weapons.

So, I'd like to see what the flyer says.

Well that NFA is on a form 10 so yeah, it's non transferable as well.

I too would like to see what the disclaimer is
Remember that even during the ban era a run of the mill 01 FFL could posses LE only firearms, just couldn't sell them to Joe Citizen.

Joe Citizen could possess even the LE only restricted mags so long as he was selling them only to LE. The problem was the AW act did not create a licensing scheme so ATF was left hamstrung to do much with it.
Same situation when the Viet Kongress banned interstate sales of automatic knives...there was nothing in the law that created a licensing standard for distribution to LE & Military.
Yeah a hot, wet mess.

Interesting side to all this is is as I noted these LE sales had been going on for years with L1s. The pre 94' issue was non compliance with 992r
Thing is LE is exempted from most things, 922r, all the import bans, etc.

slag
September 28, 2017, 19:26
From the same brochure... another "non-transferable" rifle... Chicom semi auto AK, one that was illegal for us "civilians" due to the Bush41 ban. Also a Romanian "Dragunov", non-transferable due to the intact bayo lug and U.S. parts count.

https://i.imgur.com/szLqhjz.jpg

4markk
September 28, 2017, 19:57
From the same brochure... another "non-transferable" rifle... Chicom semi auto AK, one that was illegal for us "civilians" due to the Bush41 ban. Also a Romanian "Dragunov", non-transferable due to the intact bayo lug and U.S. parts count.


Bush-41 had no ban on firearms sales to us "civilians". Which ban are you referring?

slag
September 28, 2017, 20:06
Bush-41 had no ban on firearms sales to us "civilians". Which ban are you referring?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html?mcubz=3

SAFN49
September 28, 2017, 20:13
[QUOTE=4markk;4483742]Bush-41 had no ban on firearms sales to us "civilians". Which ban are you referring?[/QUOTE

Yes he did in 1989. He banned these evil semi auto rifles

http://i.imgur.com/mHEMSaE.jpg (https://imgur.com/mHEMSaE)

http://i.imgur.com/B80O0AR.jpg (https://imgur.com/B80O0AR)

Since these were not transferable I wonder if I can own them? :rofl:

Riversidesports
September 28, 2017, 20:31
Bush-41 had no ban on firearms sales to us "civilians". Which ban are you referring?

HW was/is a serious piece of shit
The whole AW crap was started by him
it was made law by the Viet Kongress with 922r which in turn Feinstein argued that if they shouldn't be imported the should not be made domestically either.

The reason why Bush did this was payback primarily to Bill Ruger who was seeing sales of his Mini 14 series implode. Bill donated a huge wad of cash to the Bush 41' campaign, remember he refused to sell high cap mags to the public going back into the 70s.

of course the initial Bush ban exempted sales to LE :facepalm:

slag
September 28, 2017, 20:31
I remember fuds arguing over LEO marked magazines and guns after the AWB sunset. Took a few years before they finally gave up arguing on it and moved onto other things to fud about... like CAI LEO L1A1's :D

Riversidesports
September 28, 2017, 20:57
I remember fuds arguing over LEO marked magazines and guns after the AWB sunset. Took a few years before they finally gave up arguing on it and moved onto other things to fud about... like CAI LEO L1A1's :D

Oh that was classic
started well before the end of the ban. Some vendors were buying restricted Colt ARs and tearing them down into parts and selling the marked lowers just dirty cheap because so many were screwball crazy regarding the markings

slag
September 28, 2017, 21:08
Oh that was classic
started well before the end of the ban. Some vendors were buying restricted Colt ARs and tearing them down into parts and selling the marked lowers just dirty cheap because so many were screwball crazy regarding the markings

oh yeah... my local FFL refused to transfer a stripped LEO marked Colt lower during the AWB. Finally he called ATF, and they were like WTF? its a stripped lower, no evil features on a stripped lower... lol.

Then there were the 12 round unmarked H&K MK23 mags that appeared around 2002 that all the fud's had a boner over. They just HAD to be illegal because the MK23 was introduced after the AWB started. Gawd...

gunplumber
September 28, 2017, 21:24
The original M2 carbines were field converted M1's by US Marines. The USGI approved versions didn't come until much later. Hence the Marines proved that all M1 Carbines are readily converted in the field to fully automatic fire.

You really should know your history.

All the chest-thumping aside, I find this assertion dubious at best. You do not "field convert" without the necessary components. The heavier M2 bolt being one, but I'll allow a cyclic of 1200 rpm without it.

The critical component to the M2, is the trip, which prevents the hammer from closing until the bolt is locked. Without this, and with the free-floating firing pin, slamfires and an OOB detonation are not an if, but a when.

I've had a number of posty M2s, because with no modification to the host receiver, I could simply register trigger housings for $100 in parts and a $0.32 stamp.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/shooting-m2carbine-01.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/shooting-m2carbine-02.jpg

Riversidesports
September 28, 2017, 22:02
All the chest-thumping aside, I find this assertion dubious at best. You do not "field convert" without the necessary components. The heavier M2 bolt being one, but I'll allow a cyclic of 1200 rpm without it.

The critical component to the M2, is the trip, which prevents the hammer from closing until the bolt is locked. Without this, and with the free-floating firing pin, slamfires and an OOB detonation are not an if, but a when.

I've had a number of posty M2s, because with no modification to the host receiver, I could simply register trigger housings for $100 in parts and a $0.32 stamp.

Pretty certain what SAFN is referring to was the field expediant conversions.

Those came out of the European theater, just involved cutting the tail of the sear off. The guns then slam fire at crazy high RPM and of course there is danger of an OOB discharge.
Allegedly these were mods that were being done by resistance fighters that were later copied by GIs. It was being done enough that the result was DoD getting Inland to come up with a safe alternative to the combat mods which became what we know as the M2.

Actual M2s came out late, like 45' before the made it to the field
same with the T3/M3 Carbines
The first use of the T3 was at Okinawa if I remember correctly.

Both saw some limited use in the Pacific

Much of this info was related to me back in the 70s by a retired USMC armorer that was a Carbine fanatic

Another little sidebar is the T3/M3 carbines were nearly all select fire
due to the rather primitive nature of the Infared scope the standard engagement procedure was short bursts. They are rather a pain in the ass to hit anything with at anything but very close range.

ATFE however does not regard T3 marked Carbines as NFA even though they all were. A ton of M3s were assembled during Korea using the universal mounting kit. Mostly on select fire guns but some on standard semi M1s

SAFN49
September 28, 2017, 22:15
All the chest-thumping aside, I find this assertion dubious at best. You do not "field convert" without the necessary components. The heavier M2 bolt being one, but I'll allow a cyclic of 1200 rpm without it.

The critical component to the M2, is the trip, which prevents the hammer from closing until the bolt is locked. Without this, and with the free-floating firing pin, slamfires and an OOB detonation are not an if, but a when.

I've had a number of posty M2s, because with no modification to the host receiver, I could simply register trigger housings for $100 in parts and a $0.32 stamp.



IIRC the T17 and T18 kits to let soldiers easily field convert M1s into serviceable M2s in 1944 were based on what the Marines had done earlier but were select fire. I think the Marine conversion with the trip made them full auto only. I'll have to go try to find the War Baby books.

Also IIRC the biggest problem was there were no 30 round mags available for them at the time

4markk
September 28, 2017, 22:37
From the same brochure... another "non-transferable" rifle... Chicom semi auto AK, one that was illegal for us "civilians" due to the Bush41 ban. Also a Romanian "Dragunov", non-transferable due to the intact bayo lug and U.S. parts count.


http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html?mcubz=3

You claimed that Bush-41 made something "illegal" for "us civilians" to own THEN you post a story about his Import Ban of '89 which was the enforcement of GCA of '86. It didn't BAN the ownership of anything. Only the IMPORT of non-sporting semi-automatics (this is one definition we need to get codified, which would gut GCA '86 and '68).

This is the very reason why I ask for the cite. There is far too much internet rumor and misinformation. The truth will set you free.

Riversidesports
September 28, 2017, 23:00
You claimed that Bush-41 made something "illegal" for "us civilians" to own THEN you post a story about his Import Ban of '89 which was the enforcement of GCA of '86. It didn't BAN the ownership of anything. Only the IMPORT of non-sporting semi-automatics (this is one definition we need to get codified, which would gut GCA '86 and '68).

This is the very reason why I ask for the cite. There is far too much internet rumor and misinformation. The truth will set you free.

I and others here lived through this shit and it was well before the Internet

This was one of many reasons Clinton waxed HW
at the time Bill Ruger's involvement was well known. Hell he went on 60 minutes wailing about high capacity magazines

The 86' McClure Volkmer act had no bans other than the Hughes Amendment. 922r was a new deal pushed by domestic industry and the Booooosh administration
It was covered quite well in the gun press of the period

4markk
September 28, 2017, 23:27
I and others here lived through this shit and it was well before the Internet

I'm happy for you .... as did probably a majority of this forum. But that doesn't change facts.

FACT: Bush-41 instituted an Import Ban of non-sporting semi-automatic rifles. NOT a so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

The 86' McClure Volkmer act had no bans other than the Hughes Amendment.

Which in itself is ONE HELL of a BAN ..... but in addition to the BAN of private ownership of machineguns made after May 1986 .... it also:

Made it unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of a firearm which, if assembled, would be prohibited (expanding on GCA '68) which led to Bush's EXORD banning the import (that missing enforcement thing again). Ironically it took the ATF until 2003 to ban the barrels.

Amended NFA to include within the definition of "machinegun" any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon to a machinegun. (Previous law included only a "combination of parts" within such definition.)

Kinda sounds like BANs to me. What do you think?????

SAFN49
September 28, 2017, 23:49
You claimed that Bush-41 made something "illegal" for "us civilians" to own THEN you post a story about his Import Ban of '89 which was the enforcement of GCA of '86. It didn't BAN the ownership of anything. Only the IMPORT of non-sporting semi-automatics (this is one definition we need to get codified, which would gut GCA '86 and '68).

This is the very reason why I ask for the cite. There is far too much internet rumor and misinformation. The truth will set you free.

The 89 ban prohibited the importation of the LE style rifles. They only way CAI could import them, and sell them, was through the LE exemption.

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 00:51
I'm happy for you .... as did probably a majority of this forum. But that doesn't change facts.

FACT: Bush-41 instituted an Import Ban of non-sporting semi-automatic rifles. NOT a so-called Assault Weapons Ban.



Which in itself is ONE HELL of a BAN ..... but in addition to the BAN of private ownership of machineguns made after May 1986 .... it also:

Made it unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of a firearm which, if assembled, would be prohibited (expanding on GCA '68) which led to Bush's EXORD banning the import (that missing enforcement thing again). Ironically it took the ATF until 2003 to ban the barrels.

Amended NFA to include within the definition of "machinegun" any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon to a machinegun. (Previous law included only a "combination of parts" within such definition.)

Kinda sounds like BANs to me. What do you think?????

:facepalm:

Pretty much semantics dude

The Bush ban like it or not set a list of certain features as non sporting
That later became most of the list Feinstein used to define AWs

btw, the barrel ban didn't occur until 2005 and then it's still just barrels in parts sets. If the barrel has never been assembled to a non sporting firearm it can still be imported freely as a replacement item. Where do you think KVAR gets their Bulgarian barrels. Bob Bowman has been importing Yugo MG42 and Polish SG43 barrels

Receivers were imported WELL past 86'
Imbel FALs, various foreign AK receivers for instance were going strong into the 90s.
Truth is we can likely import more Imbel receivers even today.

The conversion part deal was to save BATF the hassle of having to do individual determinations but even that didn't mean much. You can still buy partial TEK kits for Ruger 1022s, 80% back plates for glock conversions, etc.
All they did was to federalize what ATF maintained which was conversion kits in and of themselves were NFA regulated and since Hughes shut off new civilian NFA this was just a component of that. Really, you are overthinking a bunch of things in my opinion.

Remember we are talking 1986, back then we were still importing even Chinese AKs...they were not prohibited, all this stuff was still "sporting" until HW's insanity. Of course the real stupidity of it all was the 89' import ban being based solely in features was immediately circumvented.
Abortions like MAK 90s...model AK 1990
Maddi RMLs
There were versions of FALs, the SAR 4800 as well as Galils and HKs. Thing was not even the 94' AW act affected the import of them :biggrin:

For their part BATF really didn't go crazy with enforcement of 922r or the 94' act. Most folks just ignored the stupid laws and freely converted MAK 90s and Maddis back to proper military stocks. DOJ wasn't even interested in prosecuting violations...try to find anyone charged for 922r violations or under the AW ban. I'm sure there may have been some but I have yet to see a documented case.

Again it's a great deal like switchblades
thousands are being sold today in clear, blatant violation of standing Federal law. Thing is DOJ just don't give a hoot about that stupid law either. Back in the 70s it was different, folks went to Club Fed over interstate sales of automatic knives.
Today it's all No Shits Given.

Recreational weed is spreading through the States like wildfire
note even crazed anti MJ Jeff Sessions has dropped the mic on enforcing those Federal laws.

What I'm driving at is times have radically changed and in many ways for the better
that said there will always be doom and gloom types like Kev
it isn't all Black and White, there are many shades of Grey in enforcement

the gman
September 29, 2017, 02:52
Oh REALLY!!!!! Where are these mythical beasts?????

Perhaps you will cite for us all their successes.

Perhaps you will cite for us YOUR successes in taking on the ATF.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

You do know that the standard "readily convertible" only applies to GCA, not NFA.




Your absurd "what ifs" doesn't change the law.

The NFA, as codified in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machinegun as:

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Despite determining elements of “readily” for consideration, no clear standard exists. Individual courts choose which elements to consider as well as how to weight each element’s importance. With varying interpretations from court to court and the absence of a clear standard defining “readily,” compliance with the law is difficult at best.

So before you choose to readily restore, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" :]

Successes? No. Attempts? Google Watson v Lynch and Hollis v Lynch. The convoluted arguments made in these cases stretch the limits of common sense and could only be made in a court of law. The 2nd amendment which specifically mentions the militia is to be ignored in the first part and only applies to keeping and bearing of arms for self defense because it shouldn't be viewed in its entirety. Then they use Miller to determine that things like sawed off shotguns weren't in use by the militia so therefore they belong in the NFA and anything in the NFA isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment. WTF? They completely ignore the intent of the Founding Fathers as if those old dead guys never wrote a fcuking thing about the reasoning behind the amendment in the first place... :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

The HPA is attached to a larger bill and is making its way through the process. A big cheese at the ATF wrote a white paper arguing for removing cans from the NFA as well as redefining what constitutes an SBR that would have been almost unbelievable just 4 years ago.

Constitutional carry is on the rise, suppressors are legal in more states than ever before, and while there are undoubted reversals, we are gaining more than we are losing. Then there is Mance v Holder, challenging the constitutionality of the prohibition on restricting handgun sales to out of state residents so all told, there are some powerful forces lined up to work in challenging BS laws.

I don't get why you're so all fired up at trying to provide evidence to back the govt line? You may have altruistic ideals but if by posting this stuff you think you're going to deter others from buying these weapons, the prices they are currently bringing on Gunbroker et al belie your position. I remember when these rifles went for about the same as a kit built gun sold for, sometimes for a little less. Now they are up there with the prices of Belgian imports so obviously no one with the coin for them really gives a shit what you are so ardently pushing. :wink::wink:

4markk
September 29, 2017, 09:14
Pretty much semantics dude

[]

What I'm driving at is times have radically changed and in many ways for the better
that said there will always be doom and gloom types like Kev
it isn't all Black and White, there are many shades of Grey in enforcement

SEMANTICS are the KEY .... in the one case you cited that you had success, how did you win??? SEMANTICS!!!!

That is the lynch pin of the Anti's play book. The have turned semantics on us constantly with great success.

Unfortunate our side always likes to take the moral high ground instead of playing this legal jockeying. We need to change that.

We need to take that page out of their play book and push for "definitions", like:
1) Sporting
2) Readily
3) Machinegun (could even get rid of the May '86 BS)
4) Bear
5) etc ....

WE could gut some of the most prolific gun control measures without repealing them. THEN we can dismantle them.

BUT rest assured, even though our greatest successes of late have been in the courts, they are no friend to our cause.

PS - I stand corrected on the date of the barrel ban, it was 2005, the receiver ban was 2003. I also like how you used SEMANTICS to show how we can get around those bans.

Successes? No. Attempts? Google Watson v Lynch and Hollis v Lynch.

More on topic, read .....
US v one TRW Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle from William K. Alverson, 441 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006)
US v Woodlam, 527 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1976)
US v Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565 (D.D.C. 1980)
US v Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973)
US v Catanzaro, 368 F.Supp 450 (D.Conn 1973)

With these all over the map interpretations of “readily” and no set definition from the ATF, no one can confidently say exactly when something is “readily" restored or converted into a machinegun.

Interestingly, Smith set the definition of "readily" as at least 8 hours work in a machine shop. That ABSURD definition would make a block of steel a machine gun.

Unfortunately Catanzaro had that VERY STANDARD used against him. He lost his case and did real time when Smith was used as precedent against him.

Then there is Mance v Holder, challenging the constitutionality of the prohibition on restricting handgun sales to out of state residents so all told, there are some powerful forces lined up to work in challenging BS laws.


I hadn't realized Mance was decided. When did that happen?????

Mance is a clear example of an emotional wet dream.

For a better use of the courts, look to Wrenn v DC. We had a big win yesterday in Wrenn v DC, the en banc DC Cir refused to rehear the case. So the panel decision remains in that DC's requirement to show "good reason" to carry is unConstitutional.

In fact, if you want to make a REAL difference. Instead of chest thumping on how you are going to take on ATF in the courts, DONATE to the 2nd Amendment Foundation. They are making REAL progress in that arena.

You can add them to your Amazon Smiles and they get a percentage of everything you purchase .....

https://www.saf.org/

APEXgunparts
September 29, 2017, 11:12
From the same brochure... another "non-transferable" rifle... Chicom semi auto AK, one that was illegal for us "civilians" due to the Bush41 ban. Also a Romanian "Dragunov", non-transferable due to the intact bayo lug and U.S. parts count.

https://i.imgur.com/szLqhjz.jpg

About the Romanian manufactured PSL / FPK / Model 74 rifle, there is an important detail about the issued surplus guns that isn't mentioned here.
They have a "safety sear" installed which means the receivers were drilled for the third pin.
They were not select fire weapons.
Those rifles were not approved for import for domestic sales, but could be sold to Police and Military uses / contracts.
Century had to recall the PSL's that were Romanian built that had the third hole welded over at the factory and had been finished on the outside so it wasn't visible, since these were NFA firearms.
Later guns had new manufactured semi-auto receivers, some US made, some Romanian made.
Those were commonly sold over a period of years.
The Romanian issue guns were taken apart for kits, some of which Century later built on US receivers.

APEX received a lot of Romanian Model 74 (PSL) kits from another importer who had lost a bid to fill a US Gov't contract for those rifles.
They had sat in a FTZ located here in the USA until time came that they had to be sold/shipped back overseas or demilled into kits, cleared thru US Customs and allowed to enter commerce.
Those were the last of those type of kits we ever received.

Richard

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 11:22
SEMANTICS are the KEY .... in the one case you cited that you had success, how did you win??? SEMANTICS!!!!

That is the lynch pin of the Anti's play book. The have turned semantics on us constantly with great success.

Unfortunate our side always likes to take the moral high ground instead of playing this legal jockeying. We need to change that.

We need to take that page out of their play book and push for "definitions", like:
1) Sporting
2) Readily
3) Machinegun (could even get rid of the May '86 BS)
4) Bear
5) etc ....

WE could gut some of the most prolific gun control measures without repealing them. THEN we can dismantle them.

BUT rest assured, even though our greatest successes of late have been in the courts, they are no friend to our cause.

PS - I stand corrected on the date of the barrel ban, it was 2005, the receiver ban was 2003. I also like how you used SEMANTICS to show how we can get around those bans.



More on topic, read .....
US v one TRW Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle from William K. Alverson, 441 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006)
US v Woodlam, 527 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1976)
US v Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565 (D.D.C. 1980)
US v Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973)
US v Catanzaro, 368 F.Supp 450 (D.Conn 1973)

With these all over the map interpretations of “readily” and no set definition from the ATF, no one can confidently say exactly when something is “readily" restored or converted into a machinegun.

Interestingly, Smith set the definition of "readily" as at least 8 hours work in a machine shop. That ABSURD definition would make a block of steel a machine gun.

Unfortunately Catanzaro had that VERY STANDARD used against him. He lost his case and did real time when Smith was used as precedent against him.



I hadn't realized Mance was decided. When did that happen?????

Mance is a clear example of an emotional wet dream.

For a better use of the courts, look to Wrenn v DC. We had a big win yesterday in Wrenn v DC, the en banc DC Cir refused to rehear the case. So the panel decision remains in that DC's requirement to show "good reason" to carry is unConstitutional.

In fact, if you want to make a REAL difference. Instead of chest thumping on how you are going to take on ATF in the courts, DONATE to the 2nd Amendment Foundation. They are making REAL progress in that arena.

You can add them to your Amazon Smiles and they get a percentage of everything you purchase .....

https://www.saf.org/

It's not really the "antis" as much as has been the poorly written products of our Viet Kongress.

To me, these fights are a huge waste of effort
There is a much broader sword at our disposal
The moment SCOTUS ruled that indeed the 2nd represented an individual's RKBA the game changed dramatically
See the problem for the wannabe takers is nearly ALL Federal firearms law is based in Tax Code, the FETs that were unlawfully applied toward firearms and ammunition under Woodrow Wilson.

Thing was until somewhat recently the takers claimed the the 2nd represented a State's right to have a militia. Like I said, that changed leaving asstards like Schumer and Feinstein forced to recognize it as no different then say the Right to Vote :facepalm:

Well guess what, the Feds and the Supremes killed Poll Taxes decades ago didn't they, it was found unconstitutional to use ANY tax to restrict ANY Free Citizens access to the Vote.

Want to destroy all Federal Gun Control ?
Compel the 2nd to be treated the same as other basic rights and liberties and strip the unlawful taxation off that liberty
Those are the feet of clay here.

No FETs, no regulation or power to enforce...it all goes away like so much dust in the wind, the NFA, the GCA, all of it.

Problem is finding Standing
the obvious cases concern classes of prohibited persons
well not a one of the great Gun Rights Orgs have much of an interest in supporting those cases
Perhaps the perfect storm would be someone who was dishonorably discharged for faggotry and are denied RKBA under the GCA of 68' however it must be fought on whether the taxation basis is lawful.

I've been debating this since High School with folks, none of them including my Law Professors were ever able to overcome my basic points except to argue the 2nd wasn't a right of the individual. My return foil was if you do maintain that then every right enumerated after the 2nd becomes a States right as well.
Known several US Attornies who were finally compelled to agree my arguments were indeed valid but it's scary stuff even to most pro RKBA peoples who favor restrictions on just who can lawfully possess, vote, whatever under our Constitutional Republic.
I simply posit that it is All Free Citizens regardless of past conditions of servitude just as is plainly stated in Amendment 13 and 14

The Smith definition is insanity
yeah eight hours in the ATFE machineshop with a crew of highly talented Men at play on millions of dollars worth of machinery :facepalm:
In eight hours a crew like that can turn out likely a hundred STEN MkII tubes can't they.
How many UZI bolts could they slot in eight short hours
How many DIAS or SWD pattern auto connectors...

With open bolts you don't even have to modify the firearms in many cases, simply use lower impulse ammunition to short cycle the weapon
Remember the Shoe String MG deal ?
Blame me for that one, I was the one who put it out on early MG boards back in the 90s as an exemplar of the fallicies involved. That was a combat mod being done in WWII, my Vet neighbor as a kid schooled me on it with my first Garand in the early 70s, bump fire with the M1 was another. Just rest the Garand butt up against your flexed abdomen and blaze away.

Anyways nearly all of us here are somewhat on the same side to one degree or another.

Yeah the barrel deal is goofy. What was banned from import under GW were parts kit barrels. This was an effort to make it more difficult to build illicit tube based SMgs but all it did was to create a new Cottage Industry in producing domestic clone barrels :tongue:

The deal is since the sunset of the AW act military pattern rifles are again sporting arms so brand new foreign barrels can be imported under a sporting use statement. That's how both KVAR and Bowman among others are importing their offerings.
It's not semantics or a loophole, words mean things friend :biggrin:

4markk
September 29, 2017, 11:51
To me, these fights are a huge waste of effort
There is a much broader sword at our disposal
The moment SCOTUS ruled that indeed the 2nd represented an individual's RKBA the game changed dramatically
See the problem for the wannabe takers is nearly ALL Federal firearms law is based in Tax Code, the FETs that were unlawfully applied toward firearms and ammunition under Woodrow Wilson.


See I am a combined arms guy, going up the middle with no supporting action rarely succeeds. I believe in the tactics we used to defeat the insurgency, you keep cutting the heads off, rip the guts out and knock down the foundation. Any two should succeed in destroying gun control for generations to come.

You concentrate on the foundation and I will continue to rip the guts out. In my opinion, Heller and MacDonald should have done that. BUT there seems to be wholesale ignorance of those on the grounds of semantics. Wrenn could be the next Heller.

NFA is a whole other matter as you pointed out. It is more solid and another SCOTUS ruling as to the individual right won't affect NFA. That is THE big problem with Hollis and Watson, they are going for the throat of NFA. Ain't going to happen. GCA '68 and its little pain in the ass cousin FOPA (aka GCA '86) are far more vulnerable.

Mance is fanatic masturbation. The courts would have to uproot the interstate commerce clause to have a chance with Mance.

Lastly, I agree the Militia preamble is dead six ways to Sunday. If Heller and MacDonald didn't kill it, the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause sure did. No "right" can be reserved to only those based on membership in a group. Again, we refuse to take such tactics because it is seen as turning our backs on that higher moral argument, YET the results would be the same.

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 11:51
About the Romanian manufactured PSL / FPK / Model 74 rifle, there is an important detail about the issued surplus guns that isn't mentioned here.
They have a "safety sear" installed which means the receivers were drilled for the third pin.
They were not select fire weapons.
Those rifles were not approved for import for domestic sales, but could be sold to Police and Military uses / contracts.
Century had to recall the PSL's that were Romanian built that had the third hole welded over at the factory and had been finished on the outside so it wasn't visible, since these were NFA firearms.
Later guns had new manufactured semi-auto receivers, some US made, some Romanian made.
Those were commonly sold over a period of years.
The Romanian issue guns were taken apart for kits, some of which Century built on US receivers.

Richard

Do you recall the huge but rather quiet drama over the Zastava Yugo M76 rifles SOG was selling ?

those all had the bad third pin as well, SOG sold a few hundred before ATFE crapped the universal diaper forcing SOG to do a huge recall cutting the rifles up for sale as parts kits.

Not sure how successful the recall was as I have seen a couple crop up at shows.
I know back in the late 90s an ATF officer confided to me that they had only managed to trace less than 30% of the Street Sweepers...plenty of folks just were not and are not aware they became NFA under Clinton.

Not certain of status of 3 pin FPKs, like the L1s they were sold to individual LE as well and were NEVER select fire weapons. The main difference I suspect is that the Bureau had NEVER allowed 3 pin AK pattern rifles to be sold as anything but NFA while many sear cut FAL/inch guns had already came in.
Well unless they were being transferred to individual coppers. Then the third pin didn't apply I guess.

Retired cop buddy had a 3 pin FPK. He was ready to cut it up, instead I convinced him to sell it to a young Deputy who craved it with his old paperwork and a bill of sale as well as a fully briefed understanding of the potential liabilities in selling it to the public particularly in this era of fuddly types.

APEXgunparts
September 29, 2017, 12:07
Do you recall the huge but rather quiet drama over the Zastava Yugo M76 rifles SOG was selling ?

those all had the bad third pin as well, SOG sold a few hundred before ATFE crapped the universal diaper forcing SOG to do a huge recall cutting the rifles up for sale as parts kits.

Not sure how successful the recall was as I have seen a couple crop up at shows.
I know back in the late 90s an ATF officer confided to me that they had only managed to trace less than 30% of the Street Sweepers...plenty of folks just were not and are not aware they became NFA under Clinton.

Not certain of status of 3 pin FPKs, like the L1s they were sold to individual LE as well and were NEVER select fire weapons. The main difference I suspect is that the Bureau had NEVER allowed 3 pin AK pattern rifles to be sold as anything but NFA while many sear cut FAL/inch guns had already came in.
Well unless they were being transferred to individual coppers. Then the third pin didn't apply I guess.

Retired cop buddy had a 3 pin FPK. He was ready to cut it up, instead I convinced him to sell it to a young Deputy who craved it with his old paperwork and a bill of sale as well as a fully briefed understanding of the potential liabilities in selling it to the public particularly in this era of fuddly types.

I remember when that business of the SOG supplied M76's happened.
They were advertised in SGN and then shortly after came the recall notices.
I believe a similar event just ran its course with the Galil ACE.
I didn't have any direct knowledge of those events, just what I saw posted publicly.
Century had no knowledge that the factory at CUGIR had welded up the third holes and then finished that work over, concealing the welds.
As soon as that discovery was posted on a firearms forum, along with pictures of the inside of the receiver (showing evidence of the work) Century acted.
They stopped sales, recovered guns from distributors, determined the serial numbers effected and published the recall notice. They also formally informed ATF and advised of their actions to remove these guns from commerce.
They had pallets of them stacked up in the warehouse in Vermont.
Those receivers were destroyed.

Richard

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 13:09
See I am a combined arms guy, going up the middle with no supporting action rarely succeeds. I believe in the tactics we used to defeat the insurgency, you keep cutting the heads off, rip the guts out and knock down the foundation. Any two should succeed in destroying gun control for generations to come.

You concentrate on the foundation and I will continue to rip the guts out. In my opinion, Heller and MacDonald should have done that. BUT there seems to be wholesale ignorance of those on the grounds of semantics. Wrenn could be the next Heller.

NFA is a whole other matter as you pointed out. It is more solid and another SCOTUS ruling as to the individual right won't affect NFA. That is THE big problem with Hollis and Watson, they are going for the throat of NFA. Ain't going to happen. GCA '68 and its little pain in the ass cousin FOPA (aka GCA '86) are far more vulnerable.

Mance is fanatic masturbation. The courts would have to uproot the interstate commerce clause to have a chance with Mance.

Lastly, I agree the Militia preamble is dead six ways to Sunday. If Heller and MacDonald didn't kill it, the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause sure did. No "right" can be reserved to only those based on membership in a group. Again, we refuse to take such tactics because it is seen as turning our backs on that higher moral argument, YET the results would be the same.

Guilty as Charged.
I see this as a very basic Tax Code argument
others want to maintain a front, a holding action rather than to end the actual War...just a constant series of little battles to maintain a certain staus quo'
Me ?
I want to burn it all down.

As I have told antis many times if you want Gun Control then move to strip the 2nd from the Constitution, workarounds affect the entire Bill of Rights which to me has always been of a bit greater import than the ability of retards to blaze away.

You present it like that most intelligent liberals start to get it. Anything less could damage the 13ths prohibition on Slavery for example. Trust me, that one really messes up the left in general.

Liberal gal I have agued with for many years recently asked me how I felt about AntiFA gunning up. Told her I supported all that so long as they didn't use their arms against other citizens whose value system differed from theirs.
She was rather messed up with my view, just figured I would oppose their RKBA...I was a bit insulted.
I don't care if you claim to be Communist and Wiccan
If you are a Free Citizen you share certain universal rights with other citizens PERIOD !!!

Define Free Citizen ?
Anyone who is not under any condition of Custody
Prison, Parole or Probation negate Freedom and are allowed as a condition of lawful involuntary servidtude under the 13th as does incompetency.
This isn't Rocket Science. Were you such a loon that someone has guardianship of your affairs as an adult ?
No, you don't get to Vote, own guns, etc
it's all lawful if it's adjudcated through the public court system

Conversely you can't just snip away ones right in an in servanti viti manner under our system of constitutional law.

A great part of the problem with the LE only shit was created in the chambers of Kongress...weapons regulation, etc has for decades incorporated cop exceptions which ATF is forced to comply under.
Back in the day this was seen as basic inter agency/bureau law enforcement courtesy. Still rather is.

Cop lobbies managed to get LE placed high
For example retired coppers can carry even in New York City without permit...Federal Law
Cops are not bound by import bans or restrictions
look at the armor piercing projectile ban...
Then there is the business of LE lives having a higher standard. You will do more time for killing a police K9 than homeless in many States. Sorry, that's really messed up. My pops was really torn years ago. Under Federal Law even my own life was protected as he was Federal LE. He never did and still does not like this status, he's in his mid 80s now.

btw...the NFA IS A TAX ACT pure and simple and was designed to prevent all but the uber Rich from certain weapons
in 1935 two hundred bucks bought a small farm afterall.

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 13:39
I remember when that business of the SOG supplied M76's happened.
They were advertised in SGN and then shortly after came the recall notices.
I believe a similar event just ran its course with the Galil ACE.
I didn't have any direct knowledge of those events, just what I saw posted publicly.
Century had no knowledge that the factory at CUGIR had welded up the third holes and then finished that work over, concealing the welds.
As soon as that discovery was posted on a firearms forum, along with pictures of the inside of the receiver (showing evidence of the work) Century acted.
They stopped sales, recovered guns from distributors, determined the serial numbers effected and published the recall notice. They also formally informed ATF and advised of their actions to remove these guns from commerce.
They had pallets of them stacked up in the warehouse in Vermont.
Those receivers were destroyed.

Richard

Yeah...

Most of these event came to fruition due to fuddly types going into tantrum mode on the Web. That's the backstory to the SOG M76 rifles at least and the same is true of the welded up 3 pin recievers on not just Romanians but Chinese and guns out of Egypt.

There are idiots trolling the web looking for all sketchy buys posting up links on forums asking "is this legal"
I just don't see LEO L1s as all that sketchy

APEXgunparts
September 29, 2017, 14:37
Yeah...

Most of these event came to fruition due to fuddly types going into tantrum mode on the Web. That's the backstory to the SOG M76 rifles at least and the same is true of the welded up 3 pin receivers on not just Romanians but Chinese and guns out of Egypt.

There are idiots trolling the web looking for all sketchy buys posting up links on forums asking "is this legal"
I just don't see LEO L1s as all that sketchy

Remember what happened with the Akins accelerator?
I was SO CLOSE to buying one (for the M1919) when they were shut down.
The company received approval for the product from the ATF, and had gone into full production with many products already delivered to the consumer.
ONE guy set about to prove it wasn't legal.
Went to every forum and caused a whole bunch of people to submit the units they owned to ATF Tech Division (for approval letters) or make phone calls / write ins with questions regarding the legality.
The ATF withdrew approval and made the manufacturing company contact and recall one part from the Akins accelerator device owners.
I believe the investors in Akins sued that ONE individual for their losses.
I don't know how that turned out.

Richard

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 17:15
Remember what happened with the Akins accelerator?
I was SO CLOSE to buying one (for the M1919) when they were shut down.
The company received approval for the product from the ATF, and had gone into full production with many products already delivered to the consumer.
ONE guy set about to prove it wasn't legal.
Went to every forum and caused a whole bunch of people to submit the units they owned to ATF Tech Division (for approval letters) or make phone calls / write ins with questions regarding the legality.
The ATF withdrew approval and made the manufacturing company contact and recall one part from the Akins accelerator device owners.
I believe the investors in Akins sued that ONE individual for their losses.
I don't know how that turned out.

Richard

More to it...

Bowers and clan had ATFE clearance for the 1022 version when they started tooling up for a SKS rendition without ATFE sanction.

Flip side you had serious dicks back then, Eric Lawson wasn't the only lawyer doing this horseshit, Jim Bardwell was huge into it to
Lawson requested a similar letter to what the Bowers Boys were sent

well Bowers chickenshitted, he split from the company and screwed a whole bunch of folks in the process.

Lawson was a great deal like Kev

Do you know why Accelerator stocks became NFA ?
A stupid reset coil spring
That led to the slidefire stocks currently on the market.
Under Booooosh a damn spring was seen as a conversion part.

Think about that...
Slidefires came out in what, during the Obama era ?

Yeah I detest Obama, that said his administration was rather light handed regarding RKBA contrasted to draft dodging GW and other wimpish elites.

SAFN49
September 29, 2017, 22:09
Most of the century import marked guns that I have researched came out of India. I'm not an expert, but that's the best that I've come up with so far.

Back on topic. Yes "some" of them came out of India. The Indian 1A1's and the 1A1 receivers with British parts kits screwed on to them did come from India. It appears that CAI did import Brit kits into India to have them screwed on to Indian receivers so they could be imported into the US through the LE exemption and be legally resold afterwards.

Just an observation.

Andy the Aussie
September 29, 2017, 22:27
[QUOTE=4markk;4483742]Bush-41 had no ban on firearms sales to us "civilians". Which ban are you referring?[/QUOTE

Yes he did in 1989. He banned these evil semi auto rifles

Since these were not transferable I wonder if I can own them? :rofl: .......wasn't the 1989 "ban" on imports of "evil assault weapons" not on ownership/sale etc. I believe (and this is from a great distance) that it was the 1994 Clinton AWB that resulted in the restrictions on the sale/transfer of "assault weapons" ? Hence the Post 94 Pre 2004 versions of the AR15s you picture ? If I am not mistaken the 1989 legislation did not at all effect firearms manufactured in the US but only those imported.

Riversidesports
September 29, 2017, 23:15
[QUOTE=SAFN49;4483745] .......wasn't the 1989 "ban" on imports of "evil assault weapons" not on ownership/sale etc. I believe (and this is from a great distance) that it was the 1994 Clinton AWB that resulted in the restrictions on the sale/transfer of "assault weapons" ? Hence the Post 94 Pre 2004 versions of the AR15s you picture ? If I am not mistaken the 1989 legislation did not at all effect firearms manufactured in the US but only those imported.

correct
until 94' all of the BS was on Imports
post 89 anything for public sales had to be defeatured if imported.

Rudolf
September 30, 2017, 13:13
I don't agree with you on what Bowers did. Tom Bowers is a straight up guy and he did everything he could to salvage the deal.

MilsurpMonkey
September 30, 2017, 14:59
Back on topic. Yes "some" of them came out of India. The Indian 1A1's and the 1A1 receivers with British parts kits screwed on to them did come from India. It appears that CAI did import Brit kits into India to have them screwed on to Indian receivers so they could be imported into the US through the LE exemption and be legally resold afterwards.

Just an observation.
My observations concur, with the addition of some Aussie rifles that serial numbers suggest Indian contract.

APEXgunparts
September 30, 2017, 17:07
*So, ...where did Century buy the Law Enforcement Only L1A1's From???

Anyone here have an account at "Canadian Gun Nutz":
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/

I believe there is a couple of "regulars" on that forum who know the details of that L1A1 deal that Century imported.
I even believe that some of the L1A1 kits were built up on Imbel receivers by Century Arms of Canada.
They were imported as sporting rifles with no flash hider and the thumbhole stock, lower stamped "Made in Canada"

Richard

Riversidesports
September 30, 2017, 17:38
Anyone here have an account at "Canadian Gun Nutz":
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/

I believe there is a couple of "regulars" on that forum who know the details of that L1A1 deal that Century imported.
I even believe that some of the L1A1 kits were built up on Imbel receivers by Century Arms of Canada.
They were imported as sporting rifles with no flash hider and the thumbhole stock, lower stamped "Made in Canada"

Richard

Ones I have seen were stamped very lightly on the lower right side of the magazine well "made in Canada" with "L1A1 Cal .308 CAI-St. Alb VT on the right rear of the upper. No Imbel markings but Imbel receivers

These to the best of my knowledge were the first L1A1 sporters brought in by Century, early 90s vintage.

The Canadian assembled L1s were much better builds than anything they assembled Stateside.
Rumor was the Canadian crew was largely ex Canadian armorers & retired arsenal employees working out of the Montreal warehouse.

lysanderxiii
September 30, 2017, 18:56
.......wasn't the 1989 "ban" on imports of "evil assault weapons" not on ownership/sale etc. I believe (and this is from a great distance) that it was the 1994 Clinton AWB that resulted in the restrictions on the sale/transfer of "assault weapons" ? Hence the Post 94 Pre 2004 versions of the AR15s you picture ? If I am not mistaken the 1989 legislation did not at all effect firearms manufactured in the US but only those imported.
The 1994 AWB was a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

No restriction on the sale or transfer of pre-1994 "assault weapons" or magazines.

The 1989 ban was an executive order declaring a permanent ban on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic "assault rifles", it had no effect on sales and transfer on existing firearms nor did it "outlaw" any features, as it was not a law. It is still in force today.

lysanderxiii
September 30, 2017, 19:05
deleted

sturmgrenadiere
October 04, 2017, 07:20
I realize after a reread that Kev and GP already addressed what I posted last night. So cleaning this up in the interest of dead horses.

alnukem
November 17, 2017, 19:08
I am the OP & just wanted to finish this thread. I received my 2 Post Sample L1a1's today. They are pretty nice, but one was cruddy. They are both BSA's & were not cobbled together as some have suggested. They are marked "BSA RASF Made in England" on the barrels with Century's Import Marks. I am very pleased. I have Metric Safety Sears that I believe will fit, but I think I have to remove the Ejector Block to install them. Thanks!

alnukem
November 17, 2017, 19:24
Century Arms imported FAL rifles BY THE PALLET back in the day. They bought them surplus by the pound and they were stacked like cordwood on pallets when they were delivered to their warehouse in Vermont. Rumor was they were detritus from the war in the Falkland Islands and they were comprised of surplus Argy FAL's (full auto capable) and Brit L1A1's (semi only). Century, being the enterprising bunch they are culled out a few of the semi L1A1 rifles and offered them to individual LEO's so as to not run the risk of raising the ire of the ATF and shutting down the entire Angry Beaver operation that has brought us all the wonderful rifles we see today (good and bad). The beavers, as we know, were busy disassembling functional surplus rifles and mixing the parts with receivers of dubious quality so as to make we collectors head spin as we try to make sense of it all. Hence, the L1A1's made it through as complete rifles and are the closest thing you can have to a genuine Commonwealth battle rifle here in the States.

Actually, these "are" the real thing!

gunplumber
November 18, 2017, 10:30
I am the OP & just wanted to finish this thread. I received my 2 Post Sample L1a1's today. They are pretty nice, but one was cruddy. They are both BSA's & were not cobbled together as some have suggested. They are marked "BSA RASF Made in England" on the barrels with Century's Import Marks. I am very pleased. I have Metric Safety Sears that I believe will fit, but I think I have to remove the Ejector Block to install them. Thanks!

You do not need to remove the e-block to install the sear. If you need broad-arrow marked sears, I have plenty.