Too many brain cells being wasted on this particular subject.
Again, are you saying semi auto open bolt pistols like RPB Mac 10s and KG9s are no longer grandfathered?
In the jurisdiction of the 6th Court, yes. In the 7th and 10th, most likely. In all others probably. Here is the logic of the 6th:
The effect of the retroactivity of Ruling 81-4, therefore, is that pre-1981 manufacturers are exempt from the $200 making tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5821; pre-1981 sales are exempt from the $200 transfer tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5811; pre-1981 dealers are exempt from the $500 special occupational tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5801; and pre-1981 owners are exempt from criminal prosecution for past possession of an unregistered machinegun, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). But post-1981 transfers and possessions—even of previously manufactured auto sears—must be subject to the tax and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. Dodson mistakes an exemption limited to past time periods for an absolute exemption for a class of items. All taxes and requirements prior to the date of the regulation are excused, but the activity underlying those taxes is subject to the law on a prospective basis.
While defendant was in possession of pre-81 DIAS, the logic of grandfather of OpenBolts is the same. What the court is saying is no ex-post facto, but you should have filed a form 1. Anyone who lived during that time knows that was not the guidance anyone was giving back then.
Oh, I didn’t realize you were talking about on the state level. Not the same as Streetweepers becoming DDs for all.
I am talking about the US Court of Appeals. One level below SCOTUS.
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/CourtofAppeals.aspx
OK, so how come those selling open bolt MACs and KG9s on Gunbroker aren’t getting the ATF treatment?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=407384433
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=411907905
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=411084707
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=411552846
How come there are plenty of sales on Uzitalk, Subguns and Sturmgewehr with no issues?
The pre81 DIAS is sorta a different animal. It becomes legal or not legal depending upon if you own a host gun or not. RPB Macs and KG9s were considered Title I firearms up to a specific date and any manufactured after that were considered NFA weapons. Sorta like pre89 imports and post 89 imports.
How come Dodson was allowed to advertise in Shotgun News and openly sell illegal machine guns for 30 years with no issues?
Read what he wrote that I responded to. ATF made a “ruling” (playing “court”) and an actual Appeals court made their own ruling on it. It wasn’t that hard.
Gunsnob much?
The the M201A1 fuse utilized in M-18 Smoke “Grenades” have been “ruled” by the BATFE to be a DD. :suicide:
Again, if you are referring to DIAS that is a little different. For a long time possession of a pre 81 manufactured but unregistered DIAS was lawful so long as you didn’t own a host firearm.
I understand your train of thought, that ATF declared a “gun part” which was lawful to sell so long as you didn’t own a host firearm to be legal for decades and then suddenly considered a machine gun now (I’m assuming that is the case).
But I think the difference is a DIAS makes a host gun readily converted to a machine gun. It is unlike other machine gun sears which require some kind of modification to the host weapon to make it function as a machine gun.
By the same token, open bolt RPBs and KG9s require some kind of modification to function as a machine gun. Unmodified they are Title I firearms, same as with shoe string conversions. Everything is legal until you set up a shoestring in such a way that it allows the host weapon to function as a machine gun.
So unless there is a specific ruling showing a reversal of the status of Title I open bold semi autos, I don’t think a DIAS ruling applies “by extension.” Granted this is another area of ATF inconsistency, similar to how some AR-15s were legally manufactured with M-16 bolts but putting a M-16 bolt in other manufactured AR-15s can be declared constructive possession even though the firearm will not function as a machine gun.
I am not going to argue what the Court said, it stands on its own.
But I will point out what you posted above is technically incorrect. You can get it to fire F/A with zero modification. I owned one back in the day before I bought a real MAC10.
It’s not ironic at all that an appeals court ruled on what another court did. That’s actually their entire purpose in life. It’s expected behavior. That’s what I was referring to. It wasn’t that hard.
Well that’s sorta the problem, I haven’t seen what the court said regarding open bolt semi’s. The only thing you provided was a ruling pertaining to auto sears. Just because you believe it should apply to open bolt semi’s doesn’t mean it does.
I’ve also owned a lot of RPBs and with the exception of a sole .45 where the disconnector failed I haven’t had one become a FA. And the .45 in question wasn’t a true FA, it simply failed and ran regardless of if your finger was on the trigger. Bolt fell when I inserted a magazine, thankfully I had it pointed downrange.
Returned it to RPB for a replacement disconnector and then sold it. Wasn’t the most cozy experience.
Must’ve gone right over your head. ATF makes rulings like they are a “court”, when in fact they are not. Their arbitrary BS has gone on for decades and they actually have no Constitutional standing to “interpret” laws but they do so anyway.
Unfortunately, in the case mentioned the REAL court nixxed an ATF decision to allow grandfathering of certain devices (i.e. the ATF was actually doing something in favor of gun owners for a change and the court shot it down).
The court made a ruling far broader than a specific type of NFA firearm. They stated any NFA firearm, regardless of when it is made, is subject to NFA tax/registration. Does not matter if sear, machine pistol, SBR, DD, whatever.
“All taxes and requirements prior to the date of the regulation are excused, but the activity underlying those taxes is subject to the law on a prospective basis.”
That means you cannot be prosecuted for unregistered ownership possession prior to the ruling, but you can from this point forward. Folks mistakenly interpreted those rulings to mean you could continue to own an unregistered NFA item if it was made before the date. They were wrong.
More people will probably be convicted.
Exactly. And the court made the ruling after 1986, so folks cannot go out and register them now.
So that would mean everyone with a G series FAL or a early 62 pushpin G3 semi auto now has an NFA weapon right?
Hell…I still have not figured out whether it is legal for me to keep the bayonet on my Chinese SKS or is it only legal to have a Chinese SKS with it removed.
When I got it…the bayonet was on it and I have left it there. The 922r rules are kind of silly if you ask me.
-brickboy240
Same as what happened when the Mayan calendar ran out, I suppose. Nothing.