Snowflakes in Hell

Six and a half years for a crime that had no victim, and for mere possession of devices that supposedly have some kind of constitutional protection I think I might have heard of somewhere. Why the 1/2? Will the extra half year really teach Mr. Fincher a lesson that the prior six won’t?

I don’t think taking on federal gun laws in this manner is a wise idea, but this kind of time for a man in his sixties who is no danger to anyone seems like a waste of tax dollars and federal prison space that could be used to house, I don’t know, people who are actually violent and willing to harm others.

All in the name of “reasonable restrictions” I suppose?

A machinegun is actually a legal term, and not what we generally think of as machine gun.   The definition is actually found in Title 26, which is the tax code:

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

The big problem with ATFs regulations surrounding machineguns is that the law itself sucks, so it allows the ATF to be rather arbitrary and capricious in drawing up regulations when issues come up.  To me that is the heart of the problem.  Any law which is defined so badly that it allows a government bureaucracy to turn people into criminals with the stroke of a pen is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ law making powers to the executive branch.

Big problems in this law are:

1. The term “readily restored” is not clearly defined.
2. By the language “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” you may not be able to have any machine gun part.  Even if you don’t have enough parts to make an actual machine gun.   I’ve heard of people getting in trouble for having M16 bolt carriers in their AR-15s, even though an M16 bolt carrier is insufficient to make a machinegun, because theres no auto sear in an AR-15 for the bolt carrier to trip.
3. And of course “The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon” is probably where ATF’s one a machinegun always a machinegun crap came from.

If I were to rewrite this law, assuming I didn’t have the power to get rid of it entirely, I would have written it as such:

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single actuation of the trigger. The term shall also include any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

To me that language preserves the essential framework of the law, but closes the door to a lot of nonsense by the ATF.   Under this law, you could have a machine gun receiver, or a machine gun part, as long as you didn’t have all the parts you needed to make a machinegun.  No more readily converted nonsense.  Either you have a machinegun, have the parts, or you don’t.  Pretty simple, I think.

But what’s wrong with this picture:

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.

I’m more disturbed about the short barreled rifle (SBR) charge. I’ve long considered registering my AR-15 carbine as an SBR, then using an M4 style upper. But I also have another AR-15 that I did not intend to convert. Does this leave me vulnerable to ATF prosecution? Remember, I hold a type 03 FFL, so the ATF can ask to inspect my records and inventory, so this is an important deal for me. It’s one of those things you’d be tempted to get a letter from the ATF saying it was OK, but we know what those are worth.

You want to talk reasonable gun control? Does the Brady Campaign want another opportunity to “work with the NRA” to “strengthen our nations laws on machine guns?” How about undertaking a major restructuring of federal law so that the ATF can’t, at whim, turn someone from a law abiding collector into a felon looking at ten years hard time in Club Fed? It’s long time to codify what “readily converted” means, in hard, clear language, that’s not easily open to interpretation by federal agencies. It’s long time to reexamine whether there’s any reasonable connection to the SBR and SBS law and public safety. Is that rifle more dangerous because it has a barrel an inch and a half longer than another one? Is that pistol more deadly because someone clipped a stock onto it? Come on Brady’s, if you guys can spin this last thing as gun control, surely you can spin this as the same. So how about it? Let’s pass some more “reasonable” laws together.