Who here is the resident NFA "expert"- atleast dangerously knowledgable. RE: staying out of trouble

[USMC88-93]

Question specific to the M16 trigger with the open rear for the rear tab on the disconnector. Is this part in and of itself when used with the correct semi disconnector, semi selector, and semi hammer, legally usable in a semi auto AR. In the same manner that a M16 bolt carrier is legal. I am speaking to the use of the trigger (and only the trigger) and all other accompanying items in the trigger assembly being the semi auto parts. Is that cut out in the rear a feature that kills it for legal semi auto use.

[Great-Kazoo]

Part of that depends (for use only ) is your receiver lower shelf open to accommodate the longer tail of the trigger. The real question is how would a Federal agent interpret said firearm?

IMO as cheap as a stock USGI trigger and the availability of them, why bother? All my receivers do not have a low shelf to allow the M16 trigger to fit.

[Lurch]

Not sure why you would run one as it is not going to enhance performance. Legally I believe you can own the parts what comes into play is intent. It could be looked as intent to make an illegal firearm by installing said trigger.

[USMC88-93]

Not sure why you would run one as it is not going to enhance performance. Legally I believe you can own the parts what comes into play is intent. It could be looked as intent to make an illegal firearm by installing said trigger.

Its nothing more than, I have it in hand not any innate desire to do so.

[Wulf202]

Like most things with the atf this is unknown and it could cost dearly to learn. People who have the auto sear and a semi auto lower have been found guilty of constructive intent before.

[asmo]

Like most things with the atf this is unknown and it could cost dearly to learn. People who have the auto sear and a semi auto lower have been found guilty of constructive intent before.

Please find me a case of someone being convicted of constructive intent.

[asmo]

Question specific to the M16 trigger with the open rear for the rear tab on the disconnector. Is this part in and of itself when used with the correct semi disconnector, semi selector, and semi hammer, legally usable in a semi auto AR. In the same manner that a M16 bolt carrier is legal. I am speaking to the use of the trigger (and only the trigger) and all other accompanying items in the trigger assembly being the semi auto parts. Is that cut out in the rear a feature that kills it for legal semi auto use.

In that configuration, does the device fire more than one round when you depress the trigger? We already know the answer; and so do you.

[USMC88-93]

In that configuration, does the device fire more than one round when you depress the trigger? We already know the answer; and so do you.

That is totally separate than the legal implications. Remaining within the law is the source of the question not if it will function properly in semi-auto.

[kidicarus13]

Please find me a case of someone being convicted of constructive intent.On August 27, 2009, Jesus Amador, Jr., was arrested by an undercover officer when he sought to sell his Heckler and Koch SP89 pistol. But, one can legally sell an H&K SP89, so what?s the twist?
Unfortunately for Mr. Amador, he was selling the H&K SP89 with the accessories that he collected for it, which included a vertical front grip and a shoulder stock. If Mr. Amador merely possessed the vertical grip, the pistol would have to be registered under the NFA as an AOW. However, because he also had a stock, the pistol would have to be registered as a short-barreled rifle, PRIOR to purchasing or possessing the shoulder stock and/or vertical grip.
Mr. Amador posted the following on the?FloridaGunTrader website,
Well folks my name is Jesus Amador, you out there might just know me as Digitalage03, i recently met up with a prospected buyer for my sp89 clone pistol, well turns out the guy was a undercover cop and the reason he wanted to meet up with me is because he saw that i was selling the pistol with a stock as one of the accessories, which by the way it was never on the gun and it is legal to own, you just cant install it without a tax stamp, well anyways once i met up with him not only did i get slammed to the ground and had about 7 armed cops (one of which) had a loaded 12ga to the back of my head while on the ground handcuffed they also illegally searched my car and even had the balls to drive off in my car from private property to a public place so they can tear thru it before the towtruck came and got , Well anyone here that know thier laws about this know they are in serious trouble, considering that the basis of all this is a misinformed sherriff called Mike Scott. Anyone out there that would like to help in this matter not because of me, but because if you are SICK and tired off all these power hungry cops screwing with your right feel free to contact me at (239)961-4208 if you want to read the liberal BS version on how it happend google Jesus Amador Lee County. Also just for the record i at all times stated it was a pistol, never had the stock or grip on the pistol, notified the person it was illegal to put on without a stamp and even was going to assist in LEGALLY getting a sbr stamp thru a FFL , and of course i asked about if they where a florida resident as well as if they can legally own a gun. So in short i will have thier ass, any suggestions out there?
Mr. Amador even posted pictures of his mugshot and more telling, a picture of the SP89 with all accessories in a case. Most damning for Mr. Amador, other than being caught in possession of the SP89 with the shoulder stock and vertical grip is the fact that the case has a cut out for the SP89 to be placed in the case WITH the vertical foregrip, which would seem to connote, contrary to his position, that the SP89 was fitted with the foregrip at one point. For a picture of the case with the SP89 and accessories,?see here.
Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott learned that the SP89 and accessories were apparently listed on Craig?s list, per?NaplesNews.com.

[asmo]

On August 27, 2009, Jesus Amador, Jr., was arrested by an undercover officer when he sought to sell his Heckler and Koch SP89 pistol. But, one can legally sell an H&K SP89, so what?s the twist?
Unfortunately for Mr. Amador, he was selling the H&K SP89 with the accessories that he collected for it, which included a vertical front grip and a shoulder stock. If Mr. Amador merely possessed the vertical grip, the pistol would have to be registered under the NFA as an AOW. However, because he also had a stock, the pistol would have to be registered as a short-barreled rifle, PRIOR to purchasing or possessing the shoulder stock and/or vertical grip.

Mr. Amador was *arrested* not convicted. Further, he was arrested under a state law (FL 790.221) not federal. The BATFE was never involved. Further, the law was dealing with constructive *possession* not *intent*.



Florida Statue 790.221
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.


Lastly, SCOTUS decided in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (91-0164), 504 U.S. 505 (1992) that having a bunch of parts together that make up an SBR (or other NFA item) do NOT violate the NFA.
"The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/thompson.txt


From BATF FFL Newsletter 1991 Vol. 1



SUPREME COURT RULES ON THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CASE
On June 8, 1992, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., that a pistol combined with a kit for converting the pistol into a rifle was not a weapon regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA). Thompson/Center manufactured the “Contender” pistol and a kit with a shoulder stock and a 21-inch barrel that could be used to convert the pistol into a rifle. The Federal Circuit had held that the pistol and lot were not subject to the Act because they had never been assembled as a regulated shortbarreled rifle. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, but on much narrower grounds. The Supreme Court Held that since all of the parts in the Contender pistol kit could be used in the assembly of either an unregulated pistol or unregulated rifle, the combined packaging of the pistol and kit did not result in the “making" of an NFA weapon. Therefore, such a combination of parts was not subject to the tax and registration provisions of the National Firearms Act.


...
...
As further examples, any rifle possessed together with parts that could only be used to convert the weapon into a machine gun would be covered by the NFA. A pistol with an attachable shoulder stock would be considered an NFA weapon. Also, a semiautomatic Uzi with a 16-inch barrel, together with a short barrel, would be covered by the NFA.

[bellavite1]

Mr. Amador was *arrested* not convicted. Further, he was arrested under a state law (FL 790.221) not federal. The BATFE was never involved. Further, the law was dealing with constructive *possession* not *intent*.



Lastly, SCOTUS decided in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (91-0164), 504 U.S. 505 (1992) that having a bunch of parts together that make up an SBR (or other NFA item) do NOT violate the NFA.
"The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel."

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/thompson.txt


From BATF FFL Newsletter 1991 Vol. 1

Soo, what was the outcome of this legal battle?
Inquisitive minds want to know...

[asmo]

Soo, what was the outcome of this legal battle?
Inquisitive minds want to know...

For the Amador case, if I remember right it was dismissed. But that was 10 years ago.

For the SCOTUS case that throws out any constructive intent (and most possession issues) I literally included the link to the SCOTUS opinion.

[Great-Kazoo]

For the Amador case, if I remember right it was dismissed. But that was 10 years ago.

For the SCOTUS case that throws out any constructive intent (and most possession issues) I literally included the link to the SCOTUS opinion.

The question, even though it was dismissed. How much money did it cost the defendant ?

[Hessian]

The question, even though it was dismissed. How much money did it cost the defendant ?

Much more than the price of his HK, good counsel is VERY expensive and by the hour.