Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Can a Semi Auto be legally made Full Auto?

Discussion in 'NFA Weapon Discussion' started by Warthog, Apr 11, 2011.

  1. Warthog

    Warthog Turner, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    31
    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!
     
  2. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    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.
     
  3. BillM

    BillM Amity OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    498
    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!!!!
     
  4. nrc

    nrc Oregon Member

    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    19
    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
     
  5. NoEcm

    NoEcm Seattle Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2


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

    Otherwise, no.
     
  6. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    You can thank Ronald Reagan for signing that piece of un-Constitutional garbage
     
  7. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Don't forget the NRA who wrote it............
     
  8. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    I never will
     
  9. BillM

    BillM Amity OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    498
    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!!
     
  10. davidgpo

    davidgpo Seattle Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    9
    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?
     
  11. Swedish K

    Swedish K SW Washington Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    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...
     
  12. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    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
     
  13. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    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
     
  14. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    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
     
  15. davidgpo

    davidgpo Seattle Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    9
  16. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    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.
     
  17. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    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.
     
  18. Mark W.

    Mark W. Silverton, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    5,778
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Thanks Nwcid I think I knew that back in the corner of my brain.