5 ms·
> It is in a US legal sense You'll need to cite that. It is not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of considered to be a "machine gun". "Readily converted" is a l
by bmelton 10y ago
> It is in a US legal sense
You'll need to cite that. It is not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of considered to be a "machine gun". "Readily converted" is a legal term that is defined by the BATFE, and AR-15s are saleable to the public expressly because they are NOT considered readily convertible to firing multiple rounds.
If they were, they would be barred from regular sale per the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. As an AR-15 does not require a tax stamp, it is not legally considered a machine gun. Nor is it fully automatic, easily converted to fully automatic, nor capable of select fire.
- maxerickson 10y agohttps://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-appendix-b/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-... That's the specific part I guess, not "the AR 15". Once it has been modified to full automatic fire the ease of conversion also isn't relevant.
- bmelton 10y agoRight. In the same sense that a Subaru Legacy isn't considered a sports car, but with an engine / suspension change, it becomes one. Regardless, the AR15 is not in any way considered a machine gun until and unless it has been converted to be one.
- maxerickson 10y agoYes, sloppy delivery on my part. The weapon in the link had apparently been converted and thus fell under the NFA. I was pointing at the NFA definition and included the broader provision in my summary, I didn't mean to imply that the convertibility would have been an issue in the incident being discussed.
- bmelton 10y agoNo worries, I just find it's important to be specific when dealing with firearms and legal terms, because the average person really doesn't understand these issues, and the political landscape is muddied by a bunch of folks who think they know things that are false.