Posters Question:
When does a mal-functioning semi-automatic rifle become an illegal machinegun. Serious business this, very serious business.
Mr. John Glover was, according to magazine articles and a video showing the test firing of an FAL type rifle he owned, accused and indicted for making/possessing an illegal machinegun, that is to say a supposed semi-automatic rifle, the above mentioned FAL, that fired in the full automatic mode. In the course of events, and the spending by Glover of god knows how much money defending himself against what appear to be questionable charges, all charges have been since dismissed.
I personally, based on what I've seen and read, am uncertain as to whether or not other firearms seized from Glover by the BATFE have been returned to him, however the question that I find especially interesting is the following. How did Glover happen to come to the attention of the BATFE, and it's stalwarts? Which of The Seven Deadly Sins did he commit to draw the attention of the BATFE? I've been told by people who might well know a lot more than I, that even if Glover had been seen firing his rifle in full automatic mode, and that his action had been reported to BATFE, that the allegations or statement by the person claiming to have so seen would not be sufficient to obtain a warrant, yet unless BATFE was really out on a limb, acting without a warrant, they did obtain a warrant or warrants, and Mr. Glover had been indicted too.
Interestingly, BATFE firearms examiner Michael Cooney, during October 2002, test fired the FAL in question, using what he described as Federal brand American Eagle 308 Winchester (7.62 x 51mm) ammunition. During the course of this test firing, he obtained what he described as "full automatic fire". According to Mr. Cooney, who is/was based in Washington, DC, he had obtained this rifle from a BATFE agent in Charlotte, NC. One presumes that this agent had seized the rifle from Mr. Glover. It would appear that there was no film made of this first test firing, as none has been mentioned. In his report, Mr. Cooney characterized the FAL as a machinegun, which presented quite serious problems for Mr. Glover, as the rifle was not registered as a machinegun, and one assumes that Glover was not authorized to make or possess machineguns.
A year and a half pass, what might have been ongoing during this period, and during the morning of 27 May 2004, the rifle was again test fired by BATFE firearms examiner Michael Cooney.. This test firing is depicted in tapes and a DVD available from JPFO. The following are events/results seen on a DVD I obtained from JPFO. Mr. Cooney proceeded as follows. He first loaded one round into a magazine, and with the rifle's selector switch on "semiautomatic", fired one shot. He then loaded two rounds into the magazine, selector switch was unchanged, and fired two shots. He then loaded three rounds into the magazine, placed the selector switch on full automatic, and fired three shots. Ammunition used was Chilean and Portuguese manufactured, military surplus 7.62 x 51 mm rounds, as well as Remington caliber 308 Winchester loads and Winchester brand 308 Winchester loads. The last two mentioned being commercial ammunition purchased in the Charlotte area, near to the police range where the firing was done.
Results obtained were as follows. Completely normal firing and function with two different surplus ammunitions, and with Remington commercial loads. Firing of Winchester brand ammunition produced multiple shots with a single actuation of the trigger, with three rounds in the magazine, and the selector switch in the full automatic position. Cooney made frequent mention of "light firing pin hits or strikes on the primers of unfired rounds". Cooney also made frequent mention, at the outset, of the presence of either a muzzle break or a flash suppresser, screwed onto the threaded muzzle of the rifle. I'm not quite certain as to the significance of this last, though Cooney seemed to have been taken by it. WRITERS NOTE: I have seen similar conditions, light firing pin strikes on ammunition primers regarding commercial ammunition in caliber 9 x 18mm (Makarov), rounds that had been chambered but not fired, as well as in 30-06 loads that had been chambered but not fired in Garand rifles, and 7.62 x 51 mm (308 Winchester) rounds chambered, then ejected from M-14 type rifles. The firing pins of the three weapons mentioned do not have retractor springs, and sort of "slop around" in the rifle bolts and the slide of the pistol, making light contact with the primer of a chambered round, when the slide is allow to close under spring pressure in the case of the pistol, and re the rifle, when a round is stripped out of the magazine or "en block clip" in the Garand, and chambered, but not fired.
When the FAL was detail stripped by Mr. Len Savage, a defense witness and firearms manufacturer, it was determined that internal parts of the FAL were not in proper condition, what appeared to be a firing pin retractor spring being in worn or damaged condition, (broken ends and missing coils). Other internal parts were described as being not as they should be. Mr. Savage went so far as to state that, in his opinion, this rifle, due to it's condition, was capable of "firing unlocked", which is an extremely dangerous condition for a rifle to be in. It appears, from his statements, that Mr. Cooney, the BATF firearms examiner, despite having experienced unusual functioning of the rifle in question, had not himself taken the trouble to closely examine the rifle to determine exactly what it's situation was. Having obtained, in October 2002, an unstated number of multiple firings with a single actuation of the trigger, he reported this rifle as being a machinegun. Later testing and examination determined that while there were multiple discharges with some brands of ammunition, they were caused by improper parts, not illegal alterations or substitution of parts, intended to create a machinegun.
As above stated, charges against Mr. Glover have been dismissed, which is all well and good, until question as to the following is raised. To whom does Mr. Glover look to "be made whole", defending oneself against criminal charges can be quite expensive. Has his property, seized forearms, been returned, and in what condition? If they have not been returned, why? Finally, given the seriousness of the charges, quite substantial fines and significant time in jail if convicted, permanent loss of basic civil rights too, why did Mr. Cooney, as seems the case, not take an especially close look at this supposed machinegun, for after all, if it was a machinegun, as opposed to a mal functioning rifle, one would think it would fire full automatic with any proper ammunition. That it didn't should certainly have set alarm bells ringing loudly in the mind of any thoughtful, responsible firearms examiner.
That this did not happen, raises the following question in my mind, perhaps in the minds of others too. Staying within the bounds of polite inquiry, is it possible that BATFE's primary interests lay in the direction of "making a case", with finding the truth coming in dead ass last? The agency, over many years, has garnered for itself, a record that could be characterized as checkered, and then there were the results of Congressional investigations into ATF operations and methods, these hearings held in 1982, as I recall. The results obtained were less than complimentary to the ATF, and respecting this case, one wonders if existing problems ever received the corrective attention they so badly needed, and perhaps still need. One might note in passing that the answer to that question is unfortunately NO. That situation strikes the writer as particularly sad. One wonders as to how it might strike others, and or what actions others might take.
When does a mal-functioning semi-automatic rifle become an illegal machinegun. Serious business this, very serious business.
Mr. John Glover was, according to magazine articles and a video showing the test firing of an FAL type rifle he owned, accused and indicted for making/possessing an illegal machinegun, that is to say a supposed semi-automatic rifle, the above mentioned FAL, that fired in the full automatic mode. In the course of events, and the spending by Glover of god knows how much money defending himself against what appear to be questionable charges, all charges have been since dismissed.
I personally, based on what I've seen and read, am uncertain as to whether or not other firearms seized from Glover by the BATFE have been returned to him, however the question that I find especially interesting is the following. How did Glover happen to come to the attention of the BATFE, and it's stalwarts? Which of The Seven Deadly Sins did he commit to draw the attention of the BATFE? I've been told by people who might well know a lot more than I, that even if Glover had been seen firing his rifle in full automatic mode, and that his action had been reported to BATFE, that the allegations or statement by the person claiming to have so seen would not be sufficient to obtain a warrant, yet unless BATFE was really out on a limb, acting without a warrant, they did obtain a warrant or warrants, and Mr. Glover had been indicted too.
Interestingly, BATFE firearms examiner Michael Cooney, during October 2002, test fired the FAL in question, using what he described as Federal brand American Eagle 308 Winchester (7.62 x 51mm) ammunition. During the course of this test firing, he obtained what he described as "full automatic fire". According to Mr. Cooney, who is/was based in Washington, DC, he had obtained this rifle from a BATFE agent in Charlotte, NC. One presumes that this agent had seized the rifle from Mr. Glover. It would appear that there was no film made of this first test firing, as none has been mentioned. In his report, Mr. Cooney characterized the FAL as a machinegun, which presented quite serious problems for Mr. Glover, as the rifle was not registered as a machinegun, and one assumes that Glover was not authorized to make or possess machineguns.
A year and a half pass, what might have been ongoing during this period, and during the morning of 27 May 2004, the rifle was again test fired by BATFE firearms examiner Michael Cooney.. This test firing is depicted in tapes and a DVD available from JPFO. The following are events/results seen on a DVD I obtained from JPFO. Mr. Cooney proceeded as follows. He first loaded one round into a magazine, and with the rifle's selector switch on "semiautomatic", fired one shot. He then loaded two rounds into the magazine, selector switch was unchanged, and fired two shots. He then loaded three rounds into the magazine, placed the selector switch on full automatic, and fired three shots. Ammunition used was Chilean and Portuguese manufactured, military surplus 7.62 x 51 mm rounds, as well as Remington caliber 308 Winchester loads and Winchester brand 308 Winchester loads. The last two mentioned being commercial ammunition purchased in the Charlotte area, near to the police range where the firing was done.
Results obtained were as follows. Completely normal firing and function with two different surplus ammunitions, and with Remington commercial loads. Firing of Winchester brand ammunition produced multiple shots with a single actuation of the trigger, with three rounds in the magazine, and the selector switch in the full automatic position. Cooney made frequent mention of "light firing pin hits or strikes on the primers of unfired rounds". Cooney also made frequent mention, at the outset, of the presence of either a muzzle break or a flash suppresser, screwed onto the threaded muzzle of the rifle. I'm not quite certain as to the significance of this last, though Cooney seemed to have been taken by it. WRITERS NOTE: I have seen similar conditions, light firing pin strikes on ammunition primers regarding commercial ammunition in caliber 9 x 18mm (Makarov), rounds that had been chambered but not fired, as well as in 30-06 loads that had been chambered but not fired in Garand rifles, and 7.62 x 51 mm (308 Winchester) rounds chambered, then ejected from M-14 type rifles. The firing pins of the three weapons mentioned do not have retractor springs, and sort of "slop around" in the rifle bolts and the slide of the pistol, making light contact with the primer of a chambered round, when the slide is allow to close under spring pressure in the case of the pistol, and re the rifle, when a round is stripped out of the magazine or "en block clip" in the Garand, and chambered, but not fired.
When the FAL was detail stripped by Mr. Len Savage, a defense witness and firearms manufacturer, it was determined that internal parts of the FAL were not in proper condition, what appeared to be a firing pin retractor spring being in worn or damaged condition, (broken ends and missing coils). Other internal parts were described as being not as they should be. Mr. Savage went so far as to state that, in his opinion, this rifle, due to it's condition, was capable of "firing unlocked", which is an extremely dangerous condition for a rifle to be in. It appears, from his statements, that Mr. Cooney, the BATF firearms examiner, despite having experienced unusual functioning of the rifle in question, had not himself taken the trouble to closely examine the rifle to determine exactly what it's situation was. Having obtained, in October 2002, an unstated number of multiple firings with a single actuation of the trigger, he reported this rifle as being a machinegun. Later testing and examination determined that while there were multiple discharges with some brands of ammunition, they were caused by improper parts, not illegal alterations or substitution of parts, intended to create a machinegun.
As above stated, charges against Mr. Glover have been dismissed, which is all well and good, until question as to the following is raised. To whom does Mr. Glover look to "be made whole", defending oneself against criminal charges can be quite expensive. Has his property, seized forearms, been returned, and in what condition? If they have not been returned, why? Finally, given the seriousness of the charges, quite substantial fines and significant time in jail if convicted, permanent loss of basic civil rights too, why did Mr. Cooney, as seems the case, not take an especially close look at this supposed machinegun, for after all, if it was a machinegun, as opposed to a mal functioning rifle, one would think it would fire full automatic with any proper ammunition. That it didn't should certainly have set alarm bells ringing loudly in the mind of any thoughtful, responsible firearms examiner.
That this did not happen, raises the following question in my mind, perhaps in the minds of others too. Staying within the bounds of polite inquiry, is it possible that BATFE's primary interests lay in the direction of "making a case", with finding the truth coming in dead ass last? The agency, over many years, has garnered for itself, a record that could be characterized as checkered, and then there were the results of Congressional investigations into ATF operations and methods, these hearings held in 1982, as I recall. The results obtained were less than complimentary to the ATF, and respecting this case, one wonders if existing problems ever received the corrective attention they so badly needed, and perhaps still need. One might note in passing that the answer to that question is unfortunately NO. That situation strikes the writer as particularly sad. One wonders as to how it might strike others, and or what actions others might take.
) tough sh*t, defendant goes free and gets all his guns back. Keep better track of it next time.
You said the gun has a selector switch! for semi or full auto. If the gun is not registered? it is illegal. period. and can not be made legal.