ATF seizes 30 toy guns

[CharlesAFerg]

I've looked at the $150 or so models, and they are no where near being "readily convertible". I've seen the videos of this model, and could easily see a Taiwan manufacturers production variance bring far enough "off" to warrant concern. Specially given the manufacturer's quest to produce the most realistic looking and feeling replica. Have you seen the confiscated airsoft guns?

Yes, and while it looks realistic, it lacks structure where structure is needed, including the ability to properly and even remotely support a barrel. The materials are so sub-par, you would be lucky to even be able to weld what would be needed inside the shell, which isn't possible to begin with.

 

[NWPilgrim]

This story has made national news and Gun Owners of America has submitted FOIA request for details.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127706

Excerpt:

Jason Jonah of Andy and Dax Surplus said, "it looks like a gun, but the insides are completely different, the design is different, and the material it's made of is just not strong enough to fire real ammunition."

If somebody tried to fire real ammunition, he said, it mostly likely would blow up the toy.

"The gun would come apart and the pieces fly at you," he said. "If it weren't the ATF making these accusations, I'd laugh, but they must be taking it seriously. In all my years, I've never had anyone talk – even laughingly – about changing these into weapons," he said.

He said it would be about as easy to convert an Airsoft into a real weapon as transforming "your Cuisinart or any other electrical appliance into a real gun.

"It's made of the same plastic or low-quality aluminum as any other appliance. So maybe you turn it into a firearm, but it would be like transforming any other electrical appliance – hiding a gun inside an electrical appliance," he said.

He noted that in an Airsoft, the trigger doesn't activate a firing mechanism, it sends "an electrical signal to the battery, which sends more signal to the motor, which is spinning and sending out those pellets."

Velleco accused the federal government, through its gun regulatory agency, of becoming "an arrogant and out-of-control bureaucracy with a history of trampling on people's gun rights."

 

[CharlesAFerg]

You guys who argued with me really need a reality check, and obviously have no idea what you're talking about or played airsoft when they were younger, dealing with these toys on a technical level.

Also, isn't it Andy and Bax..?

This story has made national news and Gun Owners of America has submitted FOIA request for details.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127706

Excerpt:

Jason Jonah of Andy and Dax Surplus said, "it looks like a gun, but the insides are completely different, the design is different, and the material it's made of is just not strong enough to fire real ammunition."

If somebody tried to fire real ammunition, he said, it mostly likely would blow up the toy.

"The gun would come apart and the pieces fly at you," he said. "If it weren't the ATF making these accusations, I'd laugh, but they must be taking it seriously. In all my years, I've never had anyone talk – even laughingly – about changing these into weapons," he said.

He said it would be about as easy to convert an Airsoft into a real weapon as transforming "your Cuisinart or any other electrical appliance into a real gun.

"It's made of the same plastic or low-quality aluminum as any other appliance. So maybe you turn it into a firearm, but it would be like transforming any other electrical appliance – hiding a gun inside an electrical appliance," he said.

He noted that in an Airsoft, the trigger doesn't activate a firing mechanism, it sends "an electrical signal to the battery, which sends more signal to the motor, which is spinning and sending out those pellets."

Velleco accused the federal government, through its gun regulatory agency, of becoming "an arrogant and out-of-control bureaucracy with a history of trampling on people's gun rights."

No. Not only are airsoft guns built out of sub-quality metal, but you'd have to attempt to mount a gas system in there, recoil tube that would actually handle the force, the bolt assembly and bolt key won't even remotly fit, and that's not even mentioning the pressures involved. No way could this even remotely work. The ATF is going to be eating their words for this one for a long time, mark my words.

The receiver "shell" is not even remotely the same ineternally, let alone strong enough to become a firearm, let alone a machine gun, and you'd have to basically fabricate an entire firearm with existing (real firearm) parts, and fabricate from scratch the entire inner reciever. It's like turning a paintball gun into a real firearm, have you ever looked inside and/or held an airsoft gun?

Yes, and while it looks realistic, it lacks structure where structure is needed, including the ability to properly and even remotely support a barrel. The materials are so sub-par, you would be lucky to even be able to weld what would be needed inside the shell, which isn't possible to begin with.

 

[scharmon]

I guess the best lesson learned here is "Buy American". The toy guns were probably covered in lead based paint anyway...

 

[cyclesarge]

Yes, and while it looks realistic, it lacks structure where structure is needed, including the ability to properly and even remotely support a barrel. The materials are so sub-par, you would be lucky to even be able to weld what would be needed inside the shell, which isn't possible to begin with.

You are saying you saw the actual "CONFISCATED" items?
I have to discount ANY report that challenges the confiscation based on being able to fire a live round in the airsoft upper. That is not what the ATF is concerned with. Any report that makes this challenge is obviously BIASED.

It is also obvious Jason Jonah of Andy and Dax Surplus, has NO IDEA of what HE is talking about since he says
"that in an Airsoft, the trigger doesn't activate a firing mechanism, it sends "an electrical signal to the battery, which sends more signal to the motor, which is spinning and sending out those pellets."
This model is a GAS OPERATED BLOW BACK DESIGN, which means its has no motor spinning and flinging B.B.s

 

[NWPilgrim]

I think we can all agree that the upper is irrelevant. It is not considered the "firearm" part so whether convertible or not is not of a concern.

Further, the fire control mechanism for airsoft is obviously not the same as for smokeless powder cartridges.

Let's assume that the lower is of sufficient strength and has all the pins in the right place for Ar15 fire control parts.

If you have to put in M16 fire controil parts to make it a machinegun, don't you have to do the same for an AR15 to be a machine gun? It is not illegal to own an AR15 just because it con be readily converted to a machine gun by swapping out parts. So why is an airsoft "gun" any different?

My understanding is it is not illegal to own an AR15 that has the correct receiver for M16 parts, it is just illegal to own the M16 full auto sear without a tax stamp.

Here is some more info I found about this toy:
http://www.airsplat.com/Items/GR-WE-M4-GBB.htm

Sounds like a very realistic toy that lots of law enforcement and military use for training, but I fail to see how this is any worse than an AR15, and most likely far less easy to convert than an AR15.

 

[cyclesarge]

I think we can all agree that the upper is irrelevant. It is not considered the "firearm" part so whether convertible or not is not of a concern.

Further, the fire control mechanism for airsoft is obviously not the same as for smokeless powder cartridges.

Let's assume that the lower is of sufficient strength and has all the pins in the right place for Ar15 fire control parts.

If you have to put in M16 fire controil parts to make it a machinegun, don't you have to do the same for an AR15 to be a machine gun? It is not illegal to own an AR15 just because it con be readily converted to a machine gun by swapping out parts. So why is an airsoft "gun" any different?

My understanding is it is not illegal to own an AR15 that has the correct receiver for M16 parts, it is just illegal to own the M16 full auto sear without a tax stamp.

Here is some more info I found about this toy:
http://www.airsplat.com/Items/GR-WE-M4-GBB.htm

Sounds like a very realistic toy that lots of law enforcement and military use for training, but I fail to see how this is any worse than an AR15, and most likely far less easy to convert than an AR15.

Then the issue would be that you are selling a FIREARM to anyone with $375.

 

[NWPilgrim]

Then the issue would be that you are selling a FIREARM to anyone with $375.

But that is not what BATFE alleged. They were alleging "machinegun". I am quite sure if they thought the airsoft toy was a firearm they would have added that too, Since they did not then even the BATFE must not consider the airsoft receiver a firearm.

The question remains, how is it that an AR15 can be converted to full auto with just replacement of the sear and yet is not considered a machinegun itself. BUT, a toy is determined to be a machinegun because if you swap enough parts and do whatever other conversion it could be a machine gun?

Feel free to duck the question again and try to poke at something irrelevant.

 

[gunnoob75]

Simple cleanup;

The WE M4 rifles that were seized can not, in their current condition, even with a real upper on top, fire a round.

The ATF says that the lower couple be converted. Which means they think you can put a real trigger in it.

But the pin holes for a real trigger don't line up. You would have to drill a second hole just to put the trigger group in. And then another hole to put a bolt-activated sear for the full auto. Or, put in a RDIAS.

Either way, it's less work to make an AR into full auto, than the Airsoft into full auto. And the ATF said "Machine Guns", not firearms.

End.

 

[cyclesarge]

Simple cleanup;

The WE M4 rifles that were seized can not, in their current condition, even with a real upper on top, fire a round.

I can't comment on this as I have not inspected the WE's that were confiscated.

The ATF says that the lower couple be converted. Which means they think you can put a real trigger in it.

The video I saw of the lowers that were LIKE the ones that were confiscated didn't look like they would need anything converted. Obviously, I couldn't tell if the hammer would line up with and actuate the firing pin. But this could be the "readily converted" reason for all this.

But the pin holes for a real trigger don't line up. You would have to drill a second hole just to put the trigger group in. And then another hole to put a bolt-activated sear for the full auto. Or, put in a RDIAS.

Either way, it's less work to make an AR into full auto, than the Airsoft into full auto. And the ATF said "Machine Guns", not firearms.

End.

The videos I have seen make me think they wouldn't need to add real AR parts, other than the upper. They already have a trigger that operates with a sear, selector switch, hammer etc. It would just be a matter of weather or not these would (or could easily be modified to) actually actuate the firing pin on an actual AR upper.

 

[cyclesarge]

But that is not what BATFE alleged. They were alleging "machinegun". I am quite sure if they thought the airsoft toy was a firearm they would have added that too, Since they did not then even the BATFE must not consider the airsoft receiver a firearm.

The question remains, how is it that an AR15 can be converted to full auto with just replacement of the sear and yet is not considered a machinegun itself. BUT, a toy is determined to be a machinegun because if you swap enough parts and do whatever other conversion it could be a machine gun?

Feel free to duck the question again and try to poke at something irrelevant.

See my post above.

I understand it's not popular (specially on a gun forum) to NOT slam the ATF without know all the facts. I am following this story on three different forums, it seems like 90% of the posters believe that this is a ridiculous case because airsofts are "those clear plastic toy guns that shoot little plastic BB's with an electric motor run off a small battery". Heck for all we know, the confiscated "toys" were thinly disguised FULL AUTO Taiwanese knock-offs of actual M4's.

 

[NWPilgrim]

See my post above. You are evading the core question.

Yes, you can ignore all past abuses by the BATFE and just assume they are being perfectly professional and would never try to overstep.

I am more skeptical of their motives and professional conduct. If you can actually answer my qyuestion then maybe their action would make sense. but without answering that seemingly double standard it smells fishy to me.

Believe as you wish. I don't see that you have any facts for trusting the BATFE other than the BATFE said so. Nothing objective about that, just a belief system.

 

[cyclesarge]

See my post above. You are evading the core question.

Yes, you can ignore all past abuses by the BATFE and just assume they are being perfectly professional and would never try to overstep.

I am more skeptical of their motives and professional conduct. If you can actually answer my qyuestion then maybe their action would make sense. but without answering that seemingly double standard it smells fishy to me.

Believe as you wish. I don't see that you have any facts for trusting the BATFE other than the BATFE said so. Nothing objective about that, just a belief system.

I guess I am missing your core question. Ask it and I will reply.

 

[raftman]

... Heck for all we know, the confiscated "toys" were thinly disguised FULL AUTO Taiwanese knock-offs of actual M4's.

I would think if that were the case, the proprietor of the shop in question would have been charged and arrested.

 

[cyclesarge]

I would think if that were the case, the proprietor of the shop in question would have been charged and arrested.

Why? He didn't make, order, or posses full autos. Hypothetically, a SLOPPY, Taiwanese factory shipped them to him.

This does bring up another matter. The port that these arrived in was the THIRD port the buyer received these from. Why? Because (according to the buyer) he was having trouble with the officials at the other ports delaying the shipments because of the manufacturers continuing NON-compliance.

 

[NWPilgrim]

Cyclesarge,

Here is the core question.

Why are the airsoft guns being treated as "easily converted to machinegun items" when the AR15 is not and it can be easily converted to "machinegun" simply by popping in an autosear?

Second question: What evidence do you have these airsoft guns are easily converted other than the BATFE alleges they are?

Appears you are just believing in the BATFE without any evidence their charges have merit.

 

[phathom]

Cyclesarge,

Here is the core question.

Why are the airsoft guns being treated as "easily converted to machinegun items" when the AR15 is not and it can be easily converted to "machinegun" simply by popping in an autosear?

Second question: What evidence do you have these airsoft guns are easily converted other than the BATFE alleges they are?

Appears you are just believing in the BATFE without any evidence their charges have merit.

I believe it's because at some point or another (except in the case of 80% stripped lowers) that there is some kind of papertrail to an extent of who bought what lower and at least the first person who has it has a background check on them (in a lot of states). Whereas with an airsoft that could be converted, there is no papertrail whatsoever. Someone could theoretically order a case of these, have some uppers and lower parts kits ready and with some machining make a semi or full auto firearm that has no serial number, no registration, no papertrail, and no way of knowing who had it first, and more importantly no tax being paid to the government on it!

 

[cyclesarge]

Cyclesarge,

Here is the core question.

Why are the airsoft guns being treated as "easily converted to machinegun items" when the AR15 is not and it can be easily converted to "machinegun" simply by popping in an autosear?

I assume because they don't need an auto sear added to be converted.
I haven't seen the airsofts in question either, so I can't give a definitive answer.

Second question: What evidence do you have these airsoft guns are easily converted other than the BATFE alleges they are?

None, other than the videos I've seen of them functioning on YouTube. What evidence that they aren't easily converted do you have?

Appears you are just believing in the BATFE without any evidence their charges have merit.

Not at all, I'm just not going to get myself into a hizzy that the ATF is stomping on the 2nd amendment without knowing all the facts. There is a mob mentality concerning this case. A vast majority of the mob are under the assumption that airsofts are plastic bodied toys, that use a small battery to power an electric motor that flings plastic BB's, and therefor they have no idea of what they are talking about. A mob that doesn't know what they are talking about doesn't make the ATF's decision right, but it doesn't make it wrong either.

I've a lot of people speculate that even if the lower was metal (and it is, according to WE Tech's sale literature the uppers and lowers are all aluminum alloy and steel) that it would be cheap quality and would explode if you tried to fire a .223 round in it. I wonder how it would hold up to a 9mm or .22lr round? Considering the number of pot-metal parts in the Colt and S&W .22lr M4 replicas, not to mention the fact that the S&W has plastic receivers.

 

[NWPilgrim]

I haven't seen the airsofts in question either, so I can't give a definitive answer.

As i suspected.

You criticize others for having reservations about the seizure without hands-on evidence, yet you do not hesitate to proclaim your opinion and beliefs with no supporting evidence either. There is a word for that ...

ETA: If this was any other law enforcement organization I believe most on the forums would extend them the benefit of the doubt based on positive performance records. However, the BATFE has so many times stubbornly pursued ridiculous cases to impose harsh consequences on mistaken, invented, or minor infractions (without apology) that as an organization they do not warrant credibility. you are entitled to your opinion in favor fo them, but don't be criticizing others for having equally unsubstantiated opinions either.

 

[cyclesarge]

As i suspected.

You criticize others for having reservations about the seizure without hands-on evidence, yet you do not hesitate to proclaim your opinion and beliefs with no supporting evidence either. There is a word for that ...

I only criticized those that come to a 100% judgement (that the ATF is wrong) based on only having 25% of the information in this case. Like I said before I am watching this subject on three different boards, I would say easily 75% (probably closer to 90%) of the anti ATF-ers are operating on the mistaken belief that the airsofts in this case are battery operated BB flingers, which clearly shows they have no idea of what they are talking about. I have said time and time again (on this thread) given the limited amount of info, the ATF could be right or wrong. Others, with the same or LESS information have declared the ATF WRONG, PERIOD.

I would also point out a substantial lack of knowledge from anyone claiming 100% without a doubt that the ATF is RIGHT, if that helps any.

ETA: I concur with anyone "having reservations about the seizure without hands-on evidence" I wholeheartedly disagree with any saying I am dead wrong or have no idea of what I am talking about when I express "reservations" the other way.