[TurboC5]

Assuming for a minute that you are a Class2 mfr and can't get a demo letter. And you have a USC that you want to test out full auto. Can it legally be done? Take into account that ATF gets pissy if you cut the USC upper with a slot for the sear- http://www.top-notchparts.com/atf_nfa_letters.htm

So if you could make an auto sear that was tripped by the bolt and did not require the upper to be slotted, would that be it?

???

 

[osprey2one]

An C2/SOT can make pretty much whatever and play with it, but it would eventually have to be destroyed.

 

[JTinIN]

Initial comments were from empirical observations of what is done by current Class II manufactures as indicated by assorted "auto sears" and other conversion devices being manufactured for various firearms currently being produced along with assorted manufacture of older firearms from parts kits.

Will defer to the experts on the all issues legal. As always, all standard and non-standards disclaimers apply.

 

[straightgrain]

This is very bad information.

18 U.S.C. 922(o) specifically addresses this point. The manufacture of machineguns solely for testing or research purposes is not (my emphasis added) recognized as a legitimate exception to the ban on possession or transfer of firearms...

Manufacturers may make and stockpile after May 19, 1986 only if the weapons are held for sale to Federal or State agencies, for distribution as bona fide sales samples, or for export.

Now, given that the UMP is the full auto production model of the USC, is readily and cheaply available to any agency (and dealer/mfr who wants to sell them), and doesn't require modification of a civilian weapon to work... And given that a FFL (in any but the C&R class) requires legit business... Do you really think the folks at ATF would buy into the excuse "I just wanted to see if it would work"?

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. Running afoul of BATFE regulations can wind you up in a heap of trouble and I recommend that you contact a lawyer for specific guidance. The Internet and this forum should never be used as acceptable substitutes for qualified legal guidance.

 

[CAC01]

Thank you straightgrain! A great answer to a stupid question.

 

[boomfab]

C2 manufacturers can build whatever they want. Don't be paranoid.

 

[TurboC5]

I take that back.
I've got to think some more about this.

 

[straightgrain]

I'm not going to get in a p***ing match with you. Please cite a reference in the law that allows the construction of machinegun such as described for research purposes.

 

[TurboC5]

This is very bad information.

18 U.S.C. 922(o) specifically addresses this point. The manufacture of machineguns solely for testing or research purposes is not (my emphasis added) recognized as a legitimate exception to the ban on possession or transfer of firearms...

Manufacturers may make and stockpile after May 19, 1986 only if the weapons are held for sale to Federal or State agencies, for distribution as bona fide sales samples, or for export.

Now, given that the UMP is the full auto production model of the USC, is readily and cheaply available to any agency (and dealer/mfr who wants to sell them), and doesn't require modification of a civilian weapon to work... And given that a FFL (in any but the C&R class) requires legit business... Do you really think the folks at ATF would buy into the excuse "I just wanted to see if it would work"?

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. Running afoul of BATFE regulations can wind you up in a heap of trouble and I recommend that you contact a lawyer for specific guidance. The Internet and this forum should never be used as acceptable substitutes for qualified legal guidance.

Then here's my understanding so far-
If I wanted to transfer in a UMP then I need a demo letter. But if I manufacture a machine gun (auto sear), I just need to offer it for sale to Federal or State agencies.

I guess my real question then is how do I make an auto USC but without altering the host USC permanently?

 

[boomfab]

I'm not going to dig through the law but here's a brief synopsis from the Bardwell FAQ...


A Class 2 SOT can make, tax free, machine guns, silencers, short
rifles, short shotguns or AOWs. A Class 2 can also have weapons
transferred to him tax free, by other SOT's. He also has to have
a type 07 or type 10 FFL. He does not need to ask prior permission
of ATF to make a weapon, he would notify ATF of its making within
24 hours after its making by filing Form 2 with ATF.


A Class 2 SOT can make machine guns for research and development
purposes, or for sale to dealers as samples, or for sale to
government entities. These are commonly called post-86 machine
guns.


Ther are many SOT's (hundreds?) that make things like post sample AK MGs, post sample AR15 MGs, etc from existing semi auto weapons for their own use. This is not illegal provided the necessary Form 2 is filed with the government as prescribed.

 

[straightgrain]

Rather than just offering cite to cite, I'll agree to disagree with your interpretation. It is my impression, after consultation with the BATFE, that creating a machinegun SOLELY for the purposes of R&D is prohibited under current interpretation of regulations and statute.

 

[BigFreddie]

I guess my real question then is how do I make an auto USC but without altering the host USC permanently?

According to the Top Notch site (I know, not the folks to mention here but I think it is valid) that to get the parts to work together correctly you need to modify the upper with a couple minor cuts. However, ATF has ruled that these cuts make the USC upper (the receiver in the whole mess) contraband. Here's the info posted there.

ATF HAS MADE A RULING ON WHAT MODIFICATION MAKES A HK USC CONTRABAND!!!


ATF has in just the last month made an official ruling that making a cut on the bottom of the USC to allow for the full auto trip lever to reach the bolt carrier (despite the fact that a full auto bolt can not readily be installed in a USC without it itself being altered) is in fact making the receiver a machine gun!!!

With this information it now confirms that the UMP lowers have to have the full auto components removed and discarded and that the area where they came out of does not have to be filled with any blocks. If the receiver can not accept the full auto parts the lower can not be installed on the receiver with these parts installed in the lower. The modification to the upper receiver is the contraband modification.

Buyer beware!!! If you are buying or going to buy a USC from anyone make sure that the upper receiver has not be cut to accept the full auto trip lever. Unlike a metal gun that can be re-welded to repair a mistake, the new plastic guns (i.e. Hk USC) can not be repaired. Ask for a photo of the bottom the receiver before you send ANY MONEY TO ANYONE!!!

A recent customer bought a USC off of someone and sent it in to me for some work. Once I saw the cut on the bottom of the receiver I was required to contact ATF for determination. This USC receiver is what the ATF used to make the ground braking decision. It is now etched in stone for all to comply with.

Below is an illustration of what we are talking about. Click on the thumbnails for a larger view.

http://www.top-notchparts.com/atf_nfa_letters.htm



There are pictures that show what the text describes. So, if this letter from ATF is any indication once you go down that path no one will be able to legally own that receiver again...

BF

 

[straightgrain]

I apologize for furthering this thread, which tends to become less HK specific with time. One of the other mods asked me to support my position. This is how I responded:

The difference is current application of procedure and intent. The most recent publication from the ATF, the NFA Handbook, clearly states:

7.6.2 Manufacture of machineguns solely for purposes of testing. The manufacture of machineguns solely for testing or research purposes is not recognized as a legitimate exception to the ban on possession or transfer of firearms under 18 U.S.C. 922(o). As previously stated, manufacturers may only manufacture machineguns on or after May 19, 1986 and stockpile the same if they are manufactured and held for sale to Federal or State agencies, for distribution as "sales samples," or for export.
​

While Bardwell has provided excellent research and commentary, the work is dated (self described as accurate as of 12/30/2001) and has not kept up. The difference that I am pointing out is that the ATF is holding that you cannot just make a machinegun to see if it works. You must have the bona fide sales intent. And the only place that a new machinegun can wind up is with an agency or export.

This is a subtle difference, but important, nevertheless. ATF enforcement is done by evolving interpretation. Their interpretation! So one might ask about all of the conversions done after the all important date... The simple approach is that the conversion parts must be manufactured before the "big date". You can buy a brand new conversion with old (but unused) parts today for a lot of money on a Form 4. But you cannot make a new machinegun and transfer it on a form 4. Slight but important difference.

Converting a USC to full auto with no intent to sell it to an agency or export it is making a "new" machinegun and will not meet the current requirements of the ATF and wind you up in trouble.

 

[CZ-75]

So here's the way I see it in layman's terms...

Your intent must clearly be to make something to sell. That may require you to perform intense testing, but the intention must be to sell it, not just play with it.

Further, it is very difficult to prove intent to sell a conversion sear used to convert a semi auto version of a gun that can be purchased in full auto version for the same or less money.

 

[straightgrain]

Give that man a cigar (I'm sure he'd prefer an HK, though)...

 

[SudS]

Further, it is very difficult to prove intent to sell a conversion sear used to convert a semi auto version of a gun that can be purchased in full auto version for the same or less money.

There's a well known HKPro member who told me his department (small department in the southwest) uses registered post sample HK trigger packs modified to fit clip-on semi guns. The department allows the officers to supply their personal weapons and issues them the full auto pack. All to save the department money. The difference there is, the semi guns don't get altered.

 

[Renegade]

Rather than just offering cite to cite, I'll agree to disagree with your interpretation. It is my impression, after consultation with the BATFE, that creating a machinegun SOLELY for the purposes of R&D is prohibited under current interpretation of regulations and statute.

This is correct. That is why all posties are MFG'd for sale to qualified LEO agencies.

The only R&D exception is if you get a written waiver from ATF.

 

[Renegade]

Further, it is very difficult to prove intent to sell a conversion sear used to convert a semi auto version of a gun that can be purchased in full auto version for the same or less money.

No, it is actually very easy, and quite common. For example:

PD wants to test a full-auto Glock.

Option #1) So they can type up a demo letter, and wait a few months for the FFL to find one, pay $3000 for it, and wait a few more weeks to xfer it in, and then get to demo it.

OR

Option #2) FFL can make full-auto glock in a few hours and they can be demo-ing it the next day.

Most PDs in my area choose option #2.

 

[straightgrain]

Renegade,
Excellent illustration of the point being made. In what you describe, the cheaper route *is* being taken and raises no flags. In the case of the USC situation, it is not cheaper to convert the USC to full auto than just getting a UMP.

 

[boomfab]

Renegade,
In the case of the USC situation, it is not cheaper to convert the USC to full auto than just getting a UMP.

It can be. What if the PD has USCs? Then it's the same situation.