History Hunter Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 I have come across an STG 44, all numbers matching, with the receiver saw-cut in two places, with all three receiver parts present. In addition, the barrel is plugged with what I assume is lead. I have not handled an STG44 parts kit before, and want to be sure I'm legally safe to buy and sell it. I know that more recent "dewat" guns must be "torch cut" but I think in the old days, one could get away with saw cuts. Anybody know the answer for this? Thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 You're right; this is old spec deactivated. It's legal to own. There is no requirment to go back and torch cut the receiver again. There was never any requirement to cut or plug the barrel if the receiver was destroyed. Others will disagree and quibble but that's really your answer. Nice find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
History Hunter Posted March 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 That's a relief. I had heard of a dealer getting arrested for selling saw-cut Uzis, but I think he had a large quantity, suggesting he was doing the saw-cutting himself. This is just the one, and can get it from a really old collector's estate. Thanks for the reply. I'm going to get a couple other opinions, but I think they will be the same as yours (you said what I was thinking ... that old dewats are not contraband). It's cool to see a complete gun, numbers matching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 That seems right. Just because it's no longer in a demilled configuration that can be imported doesn't mean that it's not legal to sell once in the country. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lone Ranger Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) HH - internet legal advice is worth almost as much as it costs. You cannot get a binding answer to this question on the internet. Saw cuts are not altogether off limits, but the receiver needs to be beyond "readily restorable" - a subjective determination made by ATF. The NFA Handbook is the most accessible info - see section 2.5.1. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-2.pdf It's not terribly ambiguous. If this was posted on GB, on any given gun board you would see some posters talking about the unregistered MG for sale, others claiming it's unregulated, both claiming to be correct based on their vast experience. Unfortunately, not a single member of either camp will compensate you if you miss a good deal, get your "parts kit" pinched, or encounter legal difficulties. TSMG - can you post any government sourced info to support what you posted? I have read what you say on the internet for years, but everything I have seen in writing and action by ATF is the opposite. I am also curious about the change in definition of MG in 68 (added "readily restored" text) - any intel on why a receiver with a couple of saw blade slices was exempted then but not in more recent decades or when it changed? Anything you have is more than I've got.... much gratitude for anything you can provide. Same to anyone - if you have any solid info (not internet based/anon source) sharing is next to caring - help your brothers out. Even ATTU pre-GCA era although probably pointless would be great history. Edited March 6, 2014 by The Lone Ranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 The ATF, though their poorly worded and contradictory rulings and publications, makes it funtionally impossible to determine what is and what isn't an NFA item. Had they merely said "this new torch cutting requirement is retroactive and must be carried out on all previously destroyed NFA items" like most real companies do when they are making such decisions, this would all be moot. On the other hand, I'm not sure they could legally do so. The only fully CYA move would be to write the Technology Branch , describe the issue and hope that they might actually respond clearly to your question. They quite likely, if they choose to answer, would just quote the contemporary regulation without specifically answering your question, leaving you in the same situation as you are today. Buy the damned thing, and plan on hiring an attorney if they decide to harrass you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Seems pretty clear to me. You can cut one but you have to dispose of some of the receiver sections. "A machinegun receiver may also be properly destroyed by means of saw cutting and disposing of certain removed portions of the receiver. To ensure that the proposed saw cutting of a particular machinegun receiver is acceptable, FTB should be contacted for guidance and approval of any alternative destruction proposal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 If that's todays instructions, then it is not what (perhaps) the same organization said at the time it was destroyed. The regulations are for the destruction action, not for the subsequent possession. So what is the legality of the possession of a parts kit that was destroyed in accordance with the regulations of the time...30 yrs later? Who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 As it sits with all the pieces of the receiver present it does not meet the destruction requirement and that is how it will be judged if push comes to shove. If that's todays instructions, then it is not what (perhaps) the same organization said at the time it was destroyed. The regulations are for the destruction action, not for the subsequent possession. So what is the legality of the possession of a parts kit that was destroyed in accordance with the regulations of the time...30 yrs later? Who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 It does not meet todays definition. Whether it's legal to own if was demilled to the regs of the day and subsequenty sold, is a question that only the folks at the ATF can answer (in writing). It's very similar to the Section 922 rules on the "domestic parts" content rules for military looking weapons. The rules in that section are for making/importing not owning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 So tell us, exactly when did the standards change? So far every time that question is asked no one can provide the answer. I would like to go back and research the original text stating that a saw cut receiver with no parts being disposed of was the accepted standard. It does not meet todays definition. Whether it's legal to own if was demilled to the regs of the day and subsequenty sold, is a question that only the folks at the ATF can answer (in writing). It's very similar to the Section 922 rules on the "domestic parts" content rules for military looking weapons. The rules in that section are for making/importing not owning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwiifirearms Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 You just aren't going to get a 100% answer on this.If 95% of the people trying to sell a saw cut item don't get hassled, then 5% of them do get hassled.(probably much lower than 5%, but not 0%)I've not heard of anyone going to jail over saw cut guns, but I have heard of the ATF demanding they be surrendered.The details vary, but I have never seen an official ATF ruling that saw cut's before a certain date are OK. To me it is worth MORE if it is torch cut, because you don't need to worry about any of this. (just my $0.02)If it was saw cut with an ATF letter confirming this specific item was OK, then it would be worth more saw cut. -wwiifirearms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Guys get really emotional about questions like this. I've seen some go completely ballistic, going out of their way to contact owners to tell them that they're felons and that if they don't report them to the big, bad ATF, someone else will. These are the same people who fervently want the government out of everything. If the ATF wants something, they'll ask for it, in writing and politely. Otherwise, conduct business as usual, stay clear of the worry warts, and fret not. If someone has a problem with the item, then maybe they just shouldn't buy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 It is not a matter of buying it or not buying it, the man asked a question and we would to see that he get the correct information. We just asked for a date showing the change in the standard. A lot of talk goes on about it but I have never seen anything pointing to an official change of date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Let us know what you find out. I would like to go back and research the original text stating that a saw cut receiver with no parts being disposed of was the accepted standard. Edited March 8, 2014 by johnfreeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lone Ranger Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Folks, assuming a saw blade was sufficient "back in the day" (40s, 50s, 60s), why would people cut up transferrable MGs? Possible but difficult to believe it was done in sufficient quantity to keep a steady supply coming to the present day without some logical explanation. Is it possible that thousands of unregistered guns have been cut up between 68 and yesterday? It's unfortunate that internet pundits state with such confidence and certainty that this or that is legal or illegal and have not a stitch of anything to support it; encouraging presumably decent people to risk money and freedom with "information" gleaned from a fantasy world. Contrary to internet wisdom, it's not just ATF who overall tends to be generous in such matters and treat violations with kid gloves. Suppose some otherwise law abiding person takes free anon legal advice from the internet, becomes involved in an event beyond his control which subjects his life to scrutiny, and gets caught with that "non-firearm" by a city, county, or state LEO who may get far more worked up over such things? Some of you may recall an incident from a few years ago that got some headlines where a homeowner legitimately shot a family member during a confrontation. While five-o was at the house, an unregistered game getter was found. The result may not be right or fair, but it's reality for an unfortunate few. wwiifirearms - your post has a boatload of common sense and even reflects real life. You'll never get famous on the internet with content like that. TSMG - we agree! Anyone who has a problem with any given item shouldn't buy it. Amen. Can we also agree that it's irresponsible to encourage someone else to take possession of an item that bears resemblance to an unregistered machinegun on the grounds that it is unregulated while having no factual basis for that determination in the form of genuine historical knowledge or actual experience in classifying firearms beyond internet gun boards or gun shop lawyer talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Still waiting on experts to provide a date that the change was made from accepting saw cut with no missing pieces to the standard we have today. Let us know what you find out. I would like to go back and research the original text stating that a saw cut receiver with no parts being disposed of was the accepted standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 The only fully CYA move would be to write the Technology Branch , describe the issue and hope that they might actually respond clearly to your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) We just asked for a date showing the change in the standard. A lot of talk goes on about it but I have never seen anything pointing to an official change of date. We? Nobody claimed to have a date showing the "change in the standard". If you're curious, roll up your sleeves and share what you find. John Edited March 9, 2014 by johnfreeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 I am not curious? Do I really need to research this? Nope. The kit pictured above does not meet the requirement, people can argue all day long about mythical standards of the past compared to the standard now but in the end that receiver has not been destroyed in accordance to the regulation. The "we" was Lone Ranger and myself. We just asked for a date showing the change in the standard. A lot of talk goes on about it but I have never seen anything pointing to an official change of date. We? Nobody claimed to have a date showing the "change in the standard". If you're curious, roll up your sleeves and share what you find. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonlmg41 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Since it's a criminal offense the answer always lies in the "intent". If you have a saw cut parts kit and a regsitered gun it's unlikely you will have a problem. If you have a single saw cut receiver sitting next to welding equipment and you possess no other registered machineguns you may be in for a problem should you be caught. If this is a torch cut receiver and you have the same equipment and welding jigs you're still potentially in violation. The current rules suggest all MG parts kits being imported are done so with the intent of becoming spare parts for people who own these guns or may own them. In order to continue importation atf eventually required torch cutting to keep people from putting themselves in violation of laws since apparently a number of people were rewelding saw cut guns too easily and going to jail forcing the gov to constantly reevaluate importation rules. Course then we saw the evolution of master metalsmiths fixing these and creating semi auto guns from them. Again all going against the intent of the laws/rules. Then came the barrel ban as a result of all that. The term readily restorable is just as LR describes an open ended question that will be determined by a prosecutor, judge, and jury, but in the end your conviction will depend on how easily it is to prove your intent to violate the law. Most AR-15's can be made to run full auto in less than a minute by removing one part. Well, one guy did that intentionally, bragged about it, and went to jail while millions more never give it a second thought since they don't "intend" to do that? It's really not that complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnfreeman Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Good post, and I fully agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt21a Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 wow lets stay out of it and let the seller and buyer have fun.. can't do this can do that who freaking cares.. w.t.f. are we now the lap dogs for all the letter agencies?? oh billy bob I found a Thompson in the wall call the news reporters.. let it go.. J.Rambo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul in PA Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 It's a pity. FANTASTIC LOOKING PARTS, what a waste. That being said, if the sum total of the parts are worth more than what he paid, just turn the receiver sections in. I know this is going to be a stupid question and not in any way an area I have any knowledge on. What about welding the receiver parts onto a solid piece of round bard stock? Would it be consigned an illegal MG? You would not be able to insert the bolt and it could not go bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Make the receiver center section "go away" and enjoy your kit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now