Thread: Can a Semi Auto be legally made Full Auto?

Can a Semi Auto be legally made Full Auto?

I know I am being lazy, and I am sure if I searched enough I could find the answer. I am wondering if a guy gets the proper tax stamps, if you can get the parts to make an AR15 full auto? My guess is no, because it would be listed with the ATF as a semi, and that’s a cradle to grave listing. I only asking because a full auto anything is so expensive.

Thanks!

No, that is why the FA is so expensive. Unless the gun was made and registered prior to 1986 then there is no legal way for a private guy to do it. If you are an SOT there are times you can but they are not for private use or transfer.

Yes, in any state where machine gun ownership my normal citizens is allowed you could do it. Purchase a DIAS---Drop In Auto Sear---that was registered pre 86. Once you have that, the rest of the bits are readily available. Not even sure what that little scrap of registered metal is going for these days, but I'll guess that by the time you are ready to Rock-n-Roll your bank account will be close to $10,000 lighter.


ETA: Did a little looking and found a DIAS listed for sale. $15,000. Someone REALLY needs to
work at repealing the Hughes ammendment to the FOPA of '86!!!!

Only machineguns registered prior to May 19 1986 are transferrable. The supply is fixed - the demand goes up - therefore the price goes up. Some sears were registered as machineguns (which I believe is what Bill refers to above), and they have gone up just as fast, if not a little faster than receivers which were registered.

go to www.nfatalk.com or AR15.Com - Your Firearm Resource. (AR-15, AR-10, M4 Carbine, M16, H&K, SIG, FNH, FAL, AK-47, 50 Cal, M1/M1A, Handgun, Pistol, Training, Hunting, and More!) (under 'armory' there is an nfa section) and read all the FAQs.

Nate

Originally Posted by Warthog

Can a Semi Auto be legally made Full Auto?

I know I am being lazy, and I am sure if I searched enough I could find the answer. I am wondering if a guy gets the proper tax stamps, if you can get the parts to make an AR15 full auto? My guess is no, because it would be listed with the ATF as a semi, and that’s a cradle to grave listing. I only asking because a full auto anything is so expensive.

Thanks!

If you own a registered DIAS then yes you can as the DIAS becomes the gun.

Otherwise, no.

You can thank Ronald Reagan for signing that piece of un-Constitutional garbage

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

You can thank Ronald Reagan for signing that piece of un-Constitutional garbage

Don't forget the NRA who wrote it............

Originally Posted by Nwcid

Don't forget the NRA who wrote it............

I never will

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg

I never will

Originally Posted by Nwcid

Don't forget the NRA who wrote it............

Actually, the '86 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) wasn't too bad a piece of legislation. It's intent was to address some shortcomings in the '68 GCA.

But the Hughes ammendment---snuck in through the backdoor --now there is a nasty bit of work. That one little part--added at the last minute, is why the price of machine guns is totally nuts.

Personally, I would like to see NFA'34 repealed, along with most of GCA '68 and FOPA
'86. But I would settle for a repeal of the Hughes Ammendment!!

BillM,
Your reply prompted me to do some research and I found an interesting article on Gun Law News - Home

"The Hughes Amendment
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986."

This looks like a good project to repeal. I wonder who we can get to sponsor this?

If I'm not mistaken there have been law suits relating to the laws only applying to interstate commerce and if a firearm were to be manufactured in one state and it never left the state the feds would have no say in it. There was pending legislation in Montana and a few other places to recognize/legalize such a build in their state. I don't believe that there have been any test cases and don't know if I would want the legal fees associated with defending your rights against the BATFE/(insert federal agency here)... might be more costly than buying a few transferable machine guns.
If I were going to buy a transferable and wanted my $ to go as far as possible I'd look for an American180 or some other full auto 22LR. the cost to feed your full auto adds up quick...

Originally Posted by BillM

Actually, the '86 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) wasn't too bad a piece of legislation. It's intent was to address some shortcomings in the '68 GCA.

But the Hughes ammendment---snuck in through the backdoor --now there is a nasty bit of work. That one little part--added at the last minute, is why the price of machine guns is totally nuts.

Personally, I would like to see NFA'34 repealed, along with most of GCA '68 and FOPA
'86. But I would settle for a repeal of the Hughes Ammendment!!

That's why I blame Reagan.. he should have vetoed it with an explanation to return it without the Hughes amendment. If he were really on our side he would have signaled in advance so it could be removed before the bill came to his desk

Originally Posted by Swedish K

If I'm not mistaken there have been law suits relating to the laws only applying to interstate commerce and if a firearm were to be manufactured in one state and it never left the state the feds would have no say in it. There was pending legislation in Montana and a few other places to recognize/legalize such a build in their state. I don't believe that there have been any test cases and don't know if I would want the legal fees associated with defending your rights against the BATFE/(insert federal agency here)... might be more costly than buying a few transferable machine guns.
If I were going to buy a transferable and wanted my $ to go as far as possible I'd look for an American180 or some other full auto 22LR. the cost to feed your full auto adds up quick...

The feds have threatened in legal letters anyone who tries this. The end game has yet to be played out to discover whether they want to play hardball

Originally Posted by davidgpo

BillM,
Your reply prompted me to do some research and I found an interesting article on Gun Law News - Home

"The Hughes Amendment
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986."

This looks like a good project to repeal. I wonder who we can get to sponsor this?

Unfortunately some machine gun owners and dealers will sit on their hands in this attempt because they have big $$$ to lose. Regardless it is a worthy project

Here's a clip of that vote, see what you think:

Vote on Hughes Ammendment

Would not the same thing as mentioned above apply to an M1 Carbine converted to an M2 if the M2 conversion kit had been registered? In my travels I have see 2-3 original conversion kits still in their military packaging. 2 of which were registered as machine guns (same deal as an Auto Sear I assume). Sadly I never had the funds to buy one back when you could find them for a couple hundred bucks.

Yes but that is not registered parts are legal.

The question was converting guns. The REGISTERED part is consider "the gun" by the ATF so there is technically no "conversion". The host gun is still a semi auto gun when the REGISTERED part is removed.

Thanks Nwcid I think I knew that back in the corner of my brain.