How does ATF determine what is readily converted?

[BogWalker]

Let's say I build a simple closed bolt semi-automatic firearm.

The ATF considers firearms that are readily converted to fully-automatic machine guns.

How do they determine this on new firearms? Do you submit the sample gun to them, and if they rule it is readily convertible destroy it, or do you have to submit your designs to them before building and they determine then?

If the first option, are there any criminal penalties since you made what is legally a machinegun?

Does being closed bolt pretty much give you a pass? The only firearms I've seen deemed readily convertible have all been open bolt, but I'm still curious.

Seems most any firearm can be made fully automatic if you put the work into it so I'm wondering where they draw the line on "readily".

Though there's always the possibility that line shifts depending on how badly they want to prosecute you.

 

[Light]

Not sure. Most companies shy away from the open bolt for this.

I know that the ATF did a recall back in December for the IWI Ace Pistol because it had a 3rd pin in the Galil style rifle.
Although it didn't have an auto-sear, and would require permanent modification to the pistol to make it full-auto, they still chose to do a recall.

 

[Vigilant]

Based on what I can tell, chicken bones, dice, and a Jamaican witch?

 

[DanVoils]

Based on what I can tell, chicken bones, dice, and a Jamaican witch?

I was thinking a dart board and a magic 8 ball!

 

[Cameramonkey]

I was thinking a dart board and a magic 8 ball!

I was thinking sawed off shotgun with #8 and a dartboard at 50'. Where the pellets land is what they decide.

 

[Mosin Mounts]

I can't answer your questions, but I've always "heard" that manufacturers volunteered to quit making open bolt guns just to avoid the wrath of the ATF. You asked some good questions. I'm going to put this on my things to research when I get time.

 

[indykid]

The older GSG-5 had a fake can over the barrel that was considered "readily convertible" to a real can by the AT and unconstitutional F. Forced a recall and replacement. That was one that I couldn't figure out since the muzzle of the barrel was flush with the front of the alleged convertible simulated can!

 

[DanVoils]

....by the AT and unconstitutional F.....

Best thing I've read today! I'd give you rep but the system is still broken.

 

[Indycar:v1.1]

First they try nylon zipties and duct tape...

 

[ryknoll3]

Found this in a Google search

Just as the GCA does not define “readily converted,” the NFA does not define “readily restored.” However, the term “readily,” with respect to the NFA, has been read by courts to “encompass several elements of restoration: (1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon; (2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon; (3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon; (4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon; (5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained; (6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon; (7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has been changed . . . ; (8) feasibility, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction.” United States v. one TRW Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle from William K. Alverson, 441 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006).Despite determining elements of “readily” for consideration, no clear standard exists. Individual courts choose which elements to consider as well as how to weight each element’s importance. With varying interpretations from court to court and the absence of a clear standard defining “readily,” compliance with the law is difficult at best. For example, with respect to the element of time only, one court has determined “readily” to mean that the modification can be completed within two minutes. United States v. Woodlam, 527 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1976). This could lead someone to believe that modification which requires an hour to complete is not done so “readily.” However, another court focused on both time and equipment and said that a firearm was deemed “readily restored” even when it required an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop in order to be converted. United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1973). Depending on which standard is used, a seven hour and fifty-eight minute window of time and a complete disparity of the level of equipment needed exists between what is and is not a firearm.
Other courts have displayed similar discrepancy when determining “readiness.” Focusing on both time and equipment, the Alversoncourt defined “readily” as the ability to manufacture the required parts in four to six hours with particular machinery or in two to three hours by hand. Alverson at 423. Another court determined that a two-hour process that required only simple tools and a stick weld was enough to “readily” convert. United States v. TRW Rifle 7.62x51mm Caliber, One Model 14, 447 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2006).
One court ignored the elements of time, expertise and equipment and instead focused only on the availability of parts. The court declared that a disassembled weapon, which was missing a necessary part, was considered “readily restored” simply because the necessary part was available on the open market. United States v. Cook, 1993 WL 243823 (6th Cir. 1993). Another court set an extreme upper limit on what is not considered “readily” without helping to define what is. It can be assumed that anything less than what the court declared is not “readily” could be considered “readily.” In an extreme example, the court said that a firearm is not considered “readily” restorable when conversion would require an expert gunsmith with tools costing up to $65,000, working between “four and perhaps in excess of thirty hours,” using essential parts that can not be found in this country and doing modifications that could damage or destroy the firearm and cause injury to the shooter upon firing. United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565 (D.D.C. 1980).
A few courts have referred to the Smith “eight hours in a machine shop” standard when determining readiness. The Alverson court upheld a conviction of the defendant where six hours in a machine shop would have been required to modify the firearm. The court reasoned that since six hours was less than the eight hours standard from Smith, six hours of machine shop time was within the definition of “readily.” Another court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment by relying on the Smith eight hour standard. The court said that the one hour of time that would have been required by the defendant was less than eight hours and therefore should have been considered “readily.” United States v. Catanzaro, 368 F.Supp 450 (D.Conn 1973).

Source: https://ryancleckner.com/what-does-readily-converted-mean/

 

[BogWalker]

That has to be the silliest thing I've ever read. Using some of those definitions above nearly any semi-automatic firearm is readily convertible.

 

[m82mike]

Their idea is to keep everyone off balance with a blurred line of compliance, that can keep gun owners wondering what is legal.

 

[Beowulf]

You have to love that Smith 8 hour determination. I don't think there is any small arm that cannot be more or less fabricated from scratch with 8 hours in a fully equipped machine shop/factory by someone who is sufficiently skilled.

Now, if they are bumble-fingered idiot like me, all I could in 8 hours is probably hurt myself severely enough to require medical attention.

 

[shootersix]

The older GSG-5 had a fake can over the barrel that was considered "readily convertible" to a real can by the AT and unconstitutional F. Forced a recall and replacement. That was one that I couldn't figure out since the muzzle of the barrel was flush with the front of the alleged convertible simulated can!

not exactly true, they recalled the fake can on the "sd" model, the bigger fake suppressor(the one on the top)
View attachment 49547

it had a full length fake can just like the gsg5, BUT the big difference was that the gsg5sd didn't have a inner "sleeve" like the gsg5 did, so if you had a sd, you could drill a few holes in the barrel and the "fake suppressor" would become a real suppressor!

if you have a gsg5sd with the older unlined "fake can" you are in violation of the nfa (unless you paid for a tax stamp)

another picture below of a gsg5 vs a gsg5sd

 

[cop car]

That has to be the silliest thing I've ever read. Using some of those definitions above nearly any semi-automatic firearm is readily convertible.

On a AK, mini14 or m1 garand/m1a/m14 and a whole lot of other rifles you just need a shoe string.

 

[Roadie]

Let's say I build a simple closed bolt semi-automatic firearm.

The ATF considers firearms that are readily converted to fully-automatic machine guns.

How do they determine this on new firearms? Do you submit the sample gun to them, and if they rule it is readily convertible destroy it, or do you have to submit your designs to them before building and they determine then?

If the first option, are there any criminal penalties since you made what is legally a machinegun?

Does being closed bolt pretty much give you a pass? The only firearms I've seen deemed readily convertible have all been open bolt, but I'm still curious.

Seems most any firearm can be made fully automatic if you put the work into it so I'm wondering where they draw the line on "readily".

Though there's always the possibility that line shifts depending on how badly they want to prosecute you.

 

["Username"]

Let's say I build a simple closed bolt semi-automatic firearm.

The ATF considers firearms that are readily converted to fully-automatic machine guns.

How do they determine this on new firearms? Do you submit the sample gun to them, and if they rule it is readily convertible destroy it, or do you have to submit your designs to them before building and they determine then?

If the first option, are there any criminal penalties since you made what is legally a machinegun?

Does being closed bolt pretty much give you a pass? The only firearms I've seen deemed readily convertible have all been open bolt, but I'm still curious.

Seems most any firearm can be made fully automatic if you put the work into it so I'm wondering where they draw the line on "readily".

Though there's always the possibility that line shifts depending on how badly they want to prosecute you.

What does the Second Amendment say?

 

[cop car]

What does the Second Amendment say?

Since when have they cared?

 

[Methane Herder]

See "G" S/N prefix Browning import FAL's.
MH

 

[Hop]

I wear loafers now because the ATF said a shoelace was a machine gun!