I thought the lighting link required a special bolt carrier ?
Correct, and also special hammer,
There is at least one design that does not require a special hammer, only the GI M16 bolt carrier.
What bothers me most, at this point is the apparent inconsistency in the application of logic by a govt agency purporting to enforce the law.
We have a bad law with language in it capable of being very ..stretched, for starters. And, among other things, the law defines any part used only in a machinegun (or converting a semi to a machine gun) AS a machinegun, in and of itself. This is bad enough, but its been the law for a long time now, and we deal with it. But to make the case being reported, one needs a more than generous interpretation of constructive possession, which I can't see being remotely justified, based on what has been reported and a picture of the actual item being deemed a "machine gun".
Here's what I consider the logic flaw, based on a picture of the item, its a "card size" piece of metal with a drawing on it. Etched in or just ink printed, even if it has complete instructions "bend here, drill here", etc., its not a part.
Even if the court accepts the argument that the intent is that it is to be made into a machine gun part, it is an unfinished part. IF an 80% frame or receiver is not, by the ATF rulings, is not a firearm, HOW can a 0% (or a 1%?) finished piece of metal be a part? for anything??
Since I'm not privy to the details of the ATF's reasoning, I have no idea what they were thinking. All I see at this point is a tremendous double standard.
I suppose it will boil down to what the court believes was the
intent of the manufacturer. There are a lot of things in our lives today that are deemed crimes based on intent.