Ruger 10 22 full auto conversion legalities

New Machine Guns...

Well, as far as I can tell, unless you are a manufacturer of firearms, you cant build a new machine gun. My question is if being a manufacturer is all I have to do, then why cant I become a manufacturer and have a R&D department that must build machine guns for testing purposes? I may be splitting hairs, and I dont know what else to do other than to pay for an over-priced NFA machine gun.

Thanks,

INGunGuy
 
You can become a manufacturer, but you must go all the way. You must have a shop, applicable business licenses, tax numbers and you must engage in the business of manufacturing machineguns for sale. As you will be competing against H&K, Colt, S&W and a host of other manufacturers, the odds of you selling to Law Enforcement and/or the Federal Government (your only remaining clients) are pretty slim. IIRC, the SOT needed to manufacture machineguns is $1,000/year.

Lots of people have thought of this as a way to get around 922(o), including ATF. If they decide you are doing this for the reason of acquiring machineguns for your personal use, they will prosecute you for tax evasion, perjury, illegal possession of machineguns and anything else they can think of.

Either you pay the money for an existing machinegun or you do without.
 
Last edited:
Well hopefully someday we can get The Hughes Amendment thrown out as unconstitutional since it is too restrictive. Anyway, I guess for now I need to save save save so I can get a legal machine gun.

Thanks for all the info!

INGunGuy
 
You can be

You can be a manuf. but you can't do it to make machineguns for yourself, you have to do it as a business. Lots of people do it but it's like being a Crack dealer, lots of money to be made unless you are addicted to your own product, then you will end up pennyless living in the gutter with a sign that says will work for ammo.

You can get a SWD M11 9mm SMG for around $3500 and be a lot happier in the long run.
 
You can thank Charlie Wrangel for sneaking in the clause to close the registration for new mfgr machine guns in that bill. I read somewhere it was an 11th hour addition?
 
Yep. Although it was William Hughes. Charles Rangel was presiding over the house and approved a voice vote that is said to have failed in reality. It is a common tactic to attach something really nasty to a piece of legislation at the last minute with the hopes it will cause the entire package to be shot down. That was his goal, to kill the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act. The NRA had the choice to drop everything and start from scratch or accept the machinegun ban.
 
Last edited:
Sadly though, in 1986 there were a lot less states that allowed ownership of MG's. If it were attempted today, there might be a bigger outcry.
 
The problem really is with our elected officials. They what they want. Look at corporate bailout, or the banking bailout. I know that the NRA lobbied Regan to NOT veto the FOPA, because they felt that the no new machine guns amendment was less important than protecting the firearms owners from the BATF. My question is how come this hasnt been petitioned to be overturned due to constitutionality of the amendment as it infringes upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the constitution didnt specifically draw out what types of firearms we can or can't keep and bear. Only that our right shall not be infringed upon.

INGunGuy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top