I could swear I remember reading a case very similar to this where the ATF was smacked down on this theory on what constitutes a machinegun under the NFA and GCA. Anyone remember what it was?
5 thoughts on “The Elusive Definition of Machinegun”
Comments are closed.
On pages 453-454 of the 2008 edition of Firearms Law Deskbook, there is a quote from United States vs. Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (M.D. Fla. 1999), as follows:
The intent of the “ready restoration” clause is, at least, to statutorily include a weapon that is inoperable as a fully automatic weapon on the occasion of the alleged unlawful possession but is capable of renewed automatic operation by the purposeful deployment of a practicable effort. On the other hand, the law is not intended to trap the unwary innocent, and well intentioned citizen who possess an otherwise semi-automatic weapon that, by repeated use of the weapon, by the inevitable wear and tear of sporting activities, or by means of mere inattention, happenstance, or illfortune, fires more than semi-automatically.
I thought so. What a surprise, the ATF still holding to a court rejected interpretation of the machine gun law.
In this case I believe the firearm had some of the prohibited M16 parts in it.
Hey, at least the ATF no longer regards pieces of string as machine guns.
Para JJ, no it didn’t have prohibited M-16 parts in it, but it did have some allowed M-16 parts.