Correct, but I doubt that a favorable ruling will apply beyond the limited issue of suppressors. We will have to continue this process with every element of what we consider as infringements. Costly and lengthy, but necessary.
That depends partly on how the defense argues the case. If GOA argues that the NFA as a whole is unconstitutional, the court is more likely to rule on the NFA as a whole. They could still decide to rule only on suppressors, but they don’t usually do that kind of thing unless they foresee a future case where a broader ruling would be more appropriate.
Well yeah, but my penis does not have nor need a serial number. As for machinegun parts, couldn't you use the point of a trigger to clean under your nails?
Kidding aside, you could make a charm for a bracelet out of flimsy plastic identical to a machinegun sear and get arrested even though the charm would not survive even one pull of a trigger. That is why I believe a part specific to a machinegun needs to have a model number and serial number inscribed upon it to make it identifiable as a machinegun part and traceable in order for illegal possession of such an implement to be prosecutable under the law.
If you are dealing with a counterfeit part, now you need to prove intent to use it illegally since it is not an identifiable and traceable part. Mere possession of such a non-traceable part could be construed as it being nothing more than a charm for a bracelet, or a high school machine shop project.
Woody
Last edited:
Unfortunately, using machine gun conversion parts is not what’s at issue in the NFA. It’s possessing them that’s illegal. You have a lot of interesting what ifs, but according to the statute, it doesn’t matter that you could use a part as a bracelet charm or a lemon zester. It doesn’t even matter if the part actually could successfully convert a weapon into a machine gun. All that matters is whether it was designed and intended to convert a weapon into a machine gun. If it was, it’s an NFA item.
I’ll amend my previous comment that possession doesn’t need to be construed because conversion parts are specifically defined as “machineguns” in the NFA. The phrase “designed and intended” implies that conversion parts are only “machineguns” if the person in possession of them intends to use them to make a full auto weapon. So constructive possession may apply as a way to demonstrate a defendant’s intent to use conversion parts to convert a weapon to a machine gun.
Similar threads
