Intent....

[giantpanda4]

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=87688302

 

 

[bug]

A little deceptive for sure. I don't know what rewelds sell for out of the USA but 11K for a 28 postie would be quite a stretch. Edited December 18, 2007 by bug

[DC Chris]

A little deceptive for sure. I don't know what rewelds sell for out of the USA but 11K for a 28 postie would be quite a stretch.

 

Egads... that isn't even destroyed correctly.

 

Per the ATF:

"All cutting must be done with a cutting torch having a tip of sufficient size to displace at least 1/4 inch of material at each location.

The receiver must be completely severed in each area indicated using a diagonal torch cut.

Cutting by means of a bandsaw or cut-off wheel does not ensure destruction."

 

 

I would stay away from it to be safe. The intent might be costly....

Edited December 18, 2007 by DC Chris

[Norm]

I woud advise that all stay far away from this! :cop:

[Z3BigDaddy]

To answer your title... All parts + plans = intent YMMV but not by much......

 

 

[GPDT]

Could a class 2 SOT legally possess the items in that auction?

[The Lone Ranger]

Could a class 2 SOT legally possess the items in that auction?

 

not a problem

 

[inertord]

Could a class 2 SOT legally possess the items in that auction?

 

not a problem

 

How could an SOT legally possess these item(s), if they were Classified / Defined as Unregistered NFA Items at the time they come into in his possession ? I have never read an exemption covering SOT's from possessing Unregistered NFA Items.

 

 

[GPDT]

Could a class 2 SOT legally possess the items in that auction?

 

not a problem

 

How could an SOT legally possess these item(s), if they were Classified / Defined as Unregistered NFA Items at the time they come into in his possession ? I have never read an exemption covering SOT's from possessing Unregistered NFA Items.

 

Demill requirements have changed over time, yes?

 

Ever see those demilled BAR receiver sections that were mill press sheared with the internals in place? The government must have been satisfied of those demills prior to selling them as scrap metal. If an SOT shopped for overlapping sections, would enough of those sections put together to "complete" a receiver be verboten?

 

I'm not an SOT nor do I play one on TV, just looking for the logic if any.

[Z3BigDaddy]

Could a class 2 SOT legally possess the items in that auction?

 

not a problem

 

How could an SOT legally possess these item(s), if they were Classified / Defined as Unregistered NFA Items at the time they come into in his possession ? I have never read an exemption covering SOT's from possessing Unregistered NFA Items.

 

Demill requirements have changed over time, yes?

 

Ever see those demilled BAR receiver sections that were mill press sheared with the internals in place? The government must have been satisfied of those demills prior to selling them as scrap metal. If an SOT shopped for overlapping sections, would enough of those sections put together to "complete" a receiver be verboten?

 

I'm not an SOT nor do I play one on TV, just looking for the logic if any.

 

I think a "class 2" can have all the "intent" in the world...... Otherwise D-Slayer would be communicating from prison.... btaim, A class two cannot have in their possession an unregistered class III item that was not demilled at some point... So if they find a complete unmolested gun they must cut it up then put it back together... Of course all this is jmvho......

 

[The Lone Ranger]

Logic, Schmogic.... yeah, the bits are tools of the trade for a manufacturer - the only way to a finished product is with bits. Interesting point on "constructive possession" - how do you register a "firearm" that isn't one? I never liked the phrase much - seems like you should have a firearm or not, but unfortunately I wasn't consulted. Actually, I suppose one could register bits, but then which section of receiver does the number go on - all? Then what - are you evading taxes by registering 3-4 bits as one firearm? Would you be disallowed registering bits that you can get prosecuted for? You pay one tax on silencers which by definition are full of "firearms" - same w/an SBR that holds a sear. It's mad world.

[inertord]

Could a class 2 SOT legally possess the items in that auction?

 

not a problem

 

How could an SOT legally possess these item(s), if they were Classified / Defined as Unregistered NFA Items at the time they come into in his possession ? I have never read an exemption covering SOT's from possessing Unregistered NFA Items.

 

Demill requirements have changed over time, yes?

 

Ever see those demilled BAR receiver sections that were mill press sheared with the internals in place? The government must have been satisfied of those demills prior to selling them as scrap metal. If an SOT shopped for overlapping sections, would enough of those sections put together to "complete" a receiver be verboten?

 

I'm not an SOT nor do I play one on TV, just looking for the logic if any.

 

I think a "class 2" can have all the "intent" in the world...... Otherwise D-Slayer would be communicating from prison.... btaim, A class two cannot have in their possession an unregistered class III item that was not demilled at some point... So if they find a complete unmolested gun they must cut it up then put it back together... Of course all this is jmvho......

 

I agree 100 Percent that a SOT Manufacturer has "Intent" Covered in legal terms related to the approved manufacture of a Post 86 Machinegun, as that's the nature of their licensed business. What I was referring to was if MG Receivers are not demilled to current ATF Specifications, what exemption allows a manufacturer to possess them PRIOR to approved registration and manufacture? When the Steyr MG Receivers Imported in a few years back were determined to be in violation of the then demill specs, they had to be turned in during a roundup conducted from a purchaser list. From being involved in that as a customer, my understanding was to no one (Including SOT's) could continue to posses the receiver pieces unless they were immediately registered and manufactured into a Post 86 MG. Also don't think that a SOT can posses a live unregistered MG Receiver under any circumstances, whatever his intent is???

 

 

[The Lone Ranger]

OK, now I get it... me slow. You have a good point there - in theory if the beast is not properly destroyed, it never ceases being a MG.

 

Example: you have an unregistered MG; you saw cut it in the center then give/sell it to a SOT. The SOT has now received an unregistered MG and manufacturer or not, is in possession of forbidden fruit. As was posted earlier, "acceptable" standards of destruction have been allowed over the decades and at some point a saw cut or two was probably legit. I believe Erb made some MP-40s from such receivers.

[Z3BigDaddy]

"I agree 100 Percent that a SOT Manufacturer has "Intent" Covered in legal terms related to the approved manufacture of a Post 86 Machinegun, as that's the nature of their licensed business. What I was referring to was if MG Receivers are not demilled to current ATF Specifications, what exemption allows a manufacturer to possess them PRIOR to approved registration and manufacture? "

 

None..... In the fact Big Reno Gunshow had a big deal go down with an ATF sting involving selling a complete Sten Gun. The purchaser was a class II manufacture and tried unsuccessfully to argue he could legally own it for manufacture. His argument as of yet has not been accepted that I know of but it has been a while since I last checked on it... Maybe a Goggle search is in order.... He was also making a big stink against the gunshow promoter for knowingly letting the ATF set up at the show, like he has a choice.

 

edit... here is a link... Looks like it was a Grease Gun not a Sten.....

 

As I said up the thread....

"I think a "class 2" can have all the "intent" in the world...... Otherwise D-Slayer would be communicating from prison.... btaim, A class two cannot have in their possession an unregistered class III item that was not demilled at some point... So if they find a complete unmolested gun they must cut it up then put it back together... Of course all this is jmvho......"

 

 

"When the Steyr MG Receivers Imported in a few years back were determined to be in violation of the then demill specs, they had to be turned in during a roundup conducted from a purchaser list. From being involved in that as a customer, my understanding was to no one (Including SOT's) could continue to posses the receiver pieces unless they were immediately registered and manufactured into a Post 86 MG. Also don't think that a SOT can posses a live unregistered MG Receiver under any circumstances, whatever his intent is???"

 

Correct

Edited December 28, 2007 by Z3BigDaddy

[GPDT]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everybody.

 

The following is because its easier to stay out of trouble if one knows what trouble looks like.

 

Could I get a more specific internet opinion determining if shopping for and obtaining overlapping receiver pieces is a no-no?

 

Specifically, semi-auto home builder nut digs through properly demilled receiver sections and over time ends up purchasing the required overlapping pieces. By properly demilled I mean demilled under the appropriate procedures of the day they were demilled. For instance the shear press/squash cut demilling of those BAR receivers I see at the Creek or more recently, torched Bren sections from IO.

 

I would think that overlapping pieces would be better pieces to start with.

 

This post has been edited to fix the weird spellchecking I did earlier.

Edited January 4, 2008 by GPDT

[inertord]

That's a good question related to the current possession of receiver part(s) that were demilled under earlier standards. I do not know either way if the current possession of a complete set of these parts are per say "grandfathered" if they would not meet the current Demill Requirements. It appears that many of the past demill operations via shear cutting, were preformed by the military to their standards with no concern or obligation to the ATF Standards of the time. An example of the current demill requirement for a 1919 Browning Receiver can be found at: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/rules/2003-1.pdf This current procedure appears to not leave any possibility of overlapping parts, if preformed exactly in accordance to the specifications.

[GPDT]

That's a good question related to the current possession of receiver part(s) that were demilled under earlier standards. I do not know either way if the current possession of a complete set of these parts are per say "grandfathered" if they would not meet the current Demill Requirements.

 

 

Great discussion, thanks for the reply.

 

That very appropriate phrase of "complete set of parts" confounds the theory even more. Having looked inside one of those BAR sections at the last Creek, there ain't nothing left to use (i.e. the fcg, bcg and everything else inside ends up shattered).

 

Complete set of parts to me would mean everything in basically functional condition including an appropriately demilled yet complete receiver.

 

If that is an acceptable definition of "parts kit" for the sake of our "Intent" conversation then a piece of muffler tube sitting next to a mashed flat (and useless) set of STen parts is just so much scrap metal.

 

Looking for logic in this might be fruitless but it is interesting.

[inertord]

GPDT I agree! Plus there may possibly be two separate but related legal issues here, Intent and / or the possession of receiver parts that do not meet current demil requirements? Not sure either way. Take Care.