Law Enforcement M14, Legal?

L

Long Tom

Inactive
Someone I know, knows a police officer. He has a M14 that he purchased
from his then police dept. as a semi-auto rifle in the seventys.
I assume it's considered a machine gun.
My question is, can the rifle be sold to a class 3 dealer or will it have to be destroyed.
He has all the papers he got when he bought it.
I'm told the gun is near mint.

Thanks in advance.
LT.
 
It may very well be a semi-auto. Lots of dept's wanted centerfire rifles, but not necessarily full auto rifles. If it is actually a machinegun, chances are good that he transferred it out of his department legally. You should inquire what kind of form it is on, whether it is a form 5 or a form 4.
 
Someone I know, knows a police officer. He has a M14 that he purchased from his then police dept. as a semi-auto rifle in the seventys.
I assume it's considered a machine gun.

My question is, can the rifle be sold to a class 3 dealer or will it have to be destroyed. He has all the papers he got when he bought it. I'm told the gun is near mint.

Thanks in advance.
LT.
Click to expand...

If this rifle was not registered as a machine gun prior to 1986, it is contraband. The BATFE considers any and all M14s, whether M14, M14M, or M14NM, as "readily restorable" and thus remain machine guns.

There is only one exception: TRW M14 NM A/N 143711; see U.S. v. One U.S. (TRW) 7.62mm M-14 National Match Rifle, Serial No. 143711, 1980 WL 95647 (S.D.Ohio, May 20, 1980)

TRW-03-1000.jpg

"In this case the trial court turns down an ATF attempt to forfeit a TRW M-14 rifle, built by TRW as a National Match rifle. The court decides that ATF failed to prove the gun was a machine gun, as ATF argued - the gun was not registered as anything. ATF claimed the gun was readily restorable to a machine gun, and tried to prove that by welding the selector lockout to the lug on a regular M-14, then restoring that gun to take a selector. However, the court found that they did not weld the lockout in the manner that was done on the NM guns, nor did they refute the evidence that the NM guns never were machine guns, but were made as semi-autos at TRW."​

You indicate that he "purchased" the rifle as a "semiauto." The consequences of this vary somewhat. For example, if the M14 came from the DoD, the DoD is going to want its property back. Unless things were very different back then, the "sale" of an M14 or an M16 to a LEO agency entails continued accounting for the weapon, which remains subject to recall. In the last year or two the DoD had all the M14s "loaned" to State Rifle Associations recalled.

If the rifle's source was not the DoD (as is the case with 143711 above) but the manufacturer, it may have been a non-tax transfer to a government agency (the police department). While the rifle would not be subject to DoD audit and/or recall, a transfer to a private individual without NFA registration would have been unlawful. A PD of my acquaintance has a mint Colt Thompson M1921; they would love to sell it to the collector market to use the funds for other purposes, but they cannot do so.

Now, I'm not an NFA owner or dealer, so I don't know if a rifle in the latter case can be transferred to a SOT as a post-'86 sample, but if so, that would keep it out of the clutches of the Federal authorities.

Were I he, I would keep a very low profile :eek:.

Regards,

Walt
 
Have your brother's uncle's cousin's friend

Have your brother's uncle's cousin's friend send me an email and I will either by email or phone call walk him through the legality of his rifle configuration and what his options are.

I am not interested in talking to second or third parties, have the owner of the gun contact me.
 
Hello all, I sorta had the same question...I'm a patrol officer, in a small town in T.X. My Dept has 3 m14 rifles, 2 trw,1 H.R. I found them in a back locker, some years ago. I don't know where they came from..Am I correct in assuming a Dept, would have to register them prior to 1986, for them to be legal? My Police chief at the time, knew nothing about them..

I would dearly love to own them, as The Dept. would let me have them for next to nothing,(I asked) but I just don't see how. They just sit, and I'm the only one who has fired them in years.. The other Officers see them as "mine". I wish...................seems a shame......


Later....Caspar
 
Last edited:
Your dept can register then at any time on an ATF Form 10... they will ONLY be transferable to other PD's and Gov't agencies... not even to Class III dealers...
 
I have to ask myself, does it really make since that we are even discussing this? I mean obviously the law is unconstitutional, a violation of liberty, and the law is actually illegal. What the ATF does is immoral, and unethical. I'm not advising anyone to get in trouble. I myself try to avoid that. But seriously, we are talking about M-14's for Christ's sake. Even if they are fully automatic, what's the issue? You aren't killing anybody are you? Why do you even want to make it public that you own it? It isn't like somebody is going to approach you on a range and ask you for your papers.
 
If the post is read carefully. You will see I DO NOT OWN this, someone else does
The rifle was purchased like I said.
The rifle was offered for sale with the paperwork.
I advised that he should contact a dealer. Was I wrong?
I would love nothing better than to own such a nice item, but.
It's not like any M1A I ever saw. I think it would attract a Lot of attention
from my fellow shooters, much less the range master.

My question was is it possible to sell such a rifle to a class3 dealer,
and then the dealer be able to sell it as a legal machine gun.

He bought the item several years ago, before 1985.
Several others did the same thing. Are they gold or junk.
LT
 
My question was is it possible to sell such a rifle to a class3 dealer,
and then the dealer be able to sell it as a legal machine gun.
Click to expand...

No. If it wasn't registered as a transferable MG prior to 1986 then it can never be transfered to any non-dealer.
 
AFAIK, NO M14 rifles were sold to police departments or to individual officers. Some were loaned to departments but were still considered U.S. property and could not be sold to anyone by the department, since the department didn't own them. (I am talking here about a GI M14, not a civilian semi-auto clone. An M14 is legally a machinegun, whether it fires full auto or not.)

If the department did somehow own the rifle, and the rifle was registered prior to 1986 and is transferrable, it could only sell the gun on a Form 4 just like any other owner of a registered NFA firearm. So the officer should have a copy of the approved Form 4 transferring the gun to him. If he does not, it is possible that he is not the legal owner, but that is not your problem. Unless he can show a lawful transfer to him [Form 4, not just a bill of sale], your action should be to run, do not walk, away from any deal. If he tries to sell the gun to a dealer, and does not legally own it, the dealer should call BATFE; he would suspect a set-up and would want to protect himself.

If he is the legal owner, he can sell directly to a buyer within his state, state law permitting. He does not have to go through a dealer.

Just as a note, more than one police department misunderstood the deal with those guns, and were or are under the impression that they belong to the department and can be sold. Some even thought that they could sell or even give auto weapons to individual police, and some got them as retirement gifts, no papers. BATFE has had to straighten out quite a few PDs and individual officers on the law.

Jim
 
I guess in my original post, I was trying to get across the fact that a lot of people/departments get the nomenclature wrong. I was thinking that it could possibly be an M1A, not necessarily an M14
 
I was under the impression that some M-14s were made as semi auto only...as in every one in my ships armory, with the exception of two, were built as semi-auto only, no full auto ability. Does ATFE consider these rifles, constructed as semi-auto only, without the provision to convert, as full auto machineguns?
 
I was under the impression that some M-14s were made as semi auto only...as in every one in my ships armory, with the exception of two, were built as semi-auto only, no full auto ability. Does ATFE consider these rifles, constructed as semi-auto only, without the provision to convert, as full auto machineguns?
Click to expand...

Might be an M1A. Also, didn't TRW make some semi M-14s as VIP gifts?
Click to expand...

M14s were issued with the selector lock pinned to the selector shaft in lieu of the selector, rendering them operationally semiauto only. However, the lock can be easily removed, one roll pin, and replaced by the selector. Thus, even though your M14 appears to be semiauto only, it lacks only the selector to be full auto. The BATFE considers all M14s to be machine guns.

M14NM rifles were built by SA (the real one, not the commercial company in IL that appropriated the name) and TRW. TRW did give some of its contract overrun M14NM rifles to employees, vendors and customers. These rifles were manufactured with the selector lock welded to the selector shaft, with other weldments rendering the rifles semiauto only. They never were machine guns. However, the BATFE position was, has been, and remains that these M14NMs are also machine guns.

There is only one exception: TRW M14 NM S/N 143711; see U.S. v. One U.S. (TRW) 7.62mm M-14 National Match Rifle, Serial No. 143711, 1980 WL 95647 (S.D.Ohio, May 20, 1980)

TRW-03-1000.jpg

"In this case the trial court turns down an ATF attempt to forfeit a TRW M-14 rifle, built by TRW as a National Match rifle. The court decides that ATF failed to prove the gun was a machine gun, as ATF argued - the gun was not registered as anything. ATF claimed the gun was readily restorable to a machine gun, and tried to prove that by welding the selector lockout to the lug on a regular M-14, then restoring that gun to take a selector. However, the court found that they did not weld the lockout in the manner that was done on the NM guns, nor did they refute the evidence that the NM guns never were machine guns, but were made as semi-autos at TRW."​

This decision is binding only on this particular rifle, and the precedent, if one can be argued, applies only to the Southern District of Ohio. The trial judge seems to have been persuaded by TRW engineers' testimony that the modifications to the receiver that rendered the rifles semiauto only were done prior to heat treat, that is, prior to the point that the receiver could be considered a firearm. Further, she was not moved by the ATF's clumsy attempt to show how an M14 could be welded and unwelded to go from select fire to semi to select fire again. The judge noted that since the rifle had never been a machine gun, the "readily restorable" criterion did not apply, because you cannot "restore" something to a state in which that something never was.

The Army, prior to GCA '68, considered a modification to existing M14s, welding the selector lock, with the designation "M14M." However, this strategem was rendered ineffective by the passage of GCA '68 and the program terminated.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Regards,

Walt
 
Last edited:
Back in the early '90's the NRA had a proposed bill to reclassify to amend the law to exempt M-14s that had been converted permanently to semi by Anniston Arsenal from the NFA. It never took off and it gave Clinton the motivation to start crunching them all. I wish it had come to pass.
 
The M14 is not a machinegun nor was it ever to include the full auto models. It is a "Battle Rifle". The full auto M16 A1 and the M16A2 with the three round burst is not a machine gun either, it too is a "rifle". I was a marine and my job was "machinegunner'. A M2 50cal and an M60 E2 and E3 are machineguns.
 
Darndest thing...Appearently you dont have to agree with the law for it to still be applicable, Patrol. The Military at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Rifle, M14, wouldnt have ever heard the civy coined term "battle rifle" at that time, nor was it ever nomenclature for the weapon. The M14 in its basic form was select fire, and it was up to the unit using them as to whether a selector switch or selector lock was installed on each rifle. In the Army each fire team had a designated automatic Rifleman(served the same purpose as a WW2 BAR'man) and his rifle would be equipped with the full auto selector,M2 bipod, The E2 buttstock, and a slip on compensator to better control the 750rpm cyclic rate.
(Federal and State law does define the G.I. M14 as a "machinegun". Just as a Thompson M1 SMG while not resembling a belt fed M60 or M240 either...is a machinegun by law as well.
Just the naked stripped M16A2 lower receiver with the hole for the auto sear drilled into it(and no form 4/tax stamp with your name on it) will send you to a grand tour of our fine countries legal system.and cost you thousands of dollars in legal expenses. You really do need to read up on what they believe, as it will be what will take your freedom away.(regardless of what you think)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top