ATF’s Random Enforcement
If I understand this correctly, the ATF asserts that:
1 – Owing a semi-automatic firearm and having access to a machine shop constitutes possession of a readily convertible machine gun. By that rationale, of course, just access to a machine shop does as well. So, machinists, I suppose, cannot own firearms.
2 – If you have one weapon that is a short barreled rifle and one that isn’t but can accept the after market accessories designed for the short barreled rifle, then the ATF shows up and takes the short barreled rifle but not the other one, your possession of said after market accessories constitutes unlawful possession of a short barreled rifle.
It’s like they make it up as they go along.
Further, the guy involved is actually a special occupational taxpayer. And he was merely a person of interest in a murder. Seems two guns he at one point owned were later used in a murder. And the ATF traced the weapons to him, which is odd since the anti-gunners say cops don’t have access to trace data.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
[…] Via SayUncle, we learn of some disturbing interpretations of the NFA on the part of the ATF. I do believe that the ATF has long held that “one a machine gun, always a machine gun” in regards to firearms that have been converted to only fire semi-automatically.  Thus an M14 receiver is always a machine gun, no matter what you do to it subsequently. The argument being that it is readily converted to fire full auto. […]
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 am
“It’s like the make it up as they go along.”
Ching! We have a winner!
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Clarificaiton: US Attorney Tom Wales was murdered in his basement. The killer used a Makarov pistol fitted with an uncommon aftermarket barrel. The FBI basically did a nationwide dragnet for everyone who had purchased any of the barrels.
Kwan, according to the barrel manufacturer’s records, had purchased two of the barrels, and could only account for one. That’s why the FBI and ATF twigged on him. The barrel he had wasn’t the one used in the murder, and they have no proof about the other one, because he doesn’t have it.
And the stock for the VP-70, at least on full-auto (actually, burst) versions, isn’t just an aftermarket accessory-it’s a function part of the weapon. Without the stock, the VP-70 can’t do burst fire.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
They are pressing bogus charges against this guy because they think he had a US Attorney killed. They don’t have any evidence so they are trying to get him to crack by abusing the legal system. Usually a judge steps in to stop this sort of stuff, but these judges apparently haven’t.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Even the 9th circuit won’t uphold this. It has nothing to do with guns, it is a simple actus reus problem that any 1st year law student learns about. Simply put, if there is an illegal act, the government can’t accomplish it for you. His actions were completely legal until the government took away the machine gun that the rifle stock belonged to. It would be like revoking someone’s driver’s license on the side of the road and then arresting them for driving without a license (of course the ATF has attempted such things with gun dealers in the past).
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
And who, exactly, does NOT have access to a machine shop? In this town of about 25,000 there are several machine shops.
And how about a drill, some bits, some files, and hammer and a grinder? We hear that third-world peasants can make a complete AK-47 using such tools, do we not?
Hence, anyone with a brain and access to the Earth’s crust has “constructive possession” of a machinegun.
And lets not forget the little string and ring thingy– not exactly ascociated with the term “machine shop” I wouldn’t think.
And by all means, lets never bring anything as obscure, silly and stupid as the Bill of Rights into a conversation about guns, because that would shut us up immediately (and shut down the BAFTE).
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
This, in addition to being a 2nd Amendment issue, is one that violates “Prior Restraint”. If I have a gun, and have access to a bank, I’m not thereby guilty of bank robbery. If I have a penis, and access to females, I am not thereby guilty of rape. If I have a car, plus access to pedestrians, I am not guilty of vehicular homicide. If I have fertilizer, plus access to fuel oil, I am not guilty of a terrorist bombing. If you have a vagina and access to males, you are not therefore guilty of prostitution, etc., etc.
Anyone who says so is not only a blithering idiot, but if charges are pressed based on such logic, is also a criminal.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Tom Wales was apparently very active with Washington CeaseFire, and I think I ATF, and maybe the FBI as well, REALLY wants his murder to be about his anti-gun activities.
If some gun nut murdered him because of his pro-gun control activities, it gives them justification to say “Look at how dangerous those gun nuts are. We really need to go get them.”
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Fuck, there goes your inalienable right to keep and bear machine tools.
I hear those cheap ‘Grizzly’ brand ones are the choice of gang members. I also understand that they plan to tighten restrictions on 1-3/16″x16 tpi taps. (j/k)
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Also, remember, it was the Republicans who did not bitch-slap the BATFE when they had the chance.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Actually, by the rationale in #1, you don’t need to possess a single firearm at all. Merely owning machine tools means you possess readily manufacturable machine guns.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
[…] “Owing [sic] a semi-automatic firearm and having access to a machine shop constitutes possession of a readily convertible machine gun. By that rationale, of course, just access to a machine shop does as well. So, machinists, I suppose, cannot own firearms.” Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
June 25th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I thought I had read (some years ago now) that ATF had confiscated a semi-auto weapon from somebody, taken it to their machinists who fabricated (from scratch) and installed full auto components, then the charged the original owner for possession of an unregistered machine gun. I just thought this was the way ATF operated.
In the famous words of that arch-conservative Senator, Hubert Humphrey, “jack booted thugs.”
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
[…] More here. […]