Legality of Removing "Shelf " from Foreign Made Semi Autos-Opinion Needed

[Greasegunner]

Hello All;

I am a 07/02 and familiar with NFA regulations ,more so than non licensees.

There are discussions where individuals are removing the shelf in MP5 clones so they can install 

the super safety trip  into the semi auto upper receiver. To do that they dremel out a weld in the upper.

That modification makes it a Illegal weapon according to NFA. That shelf is there so FA parts wont drop in

so that removal is illegal and constitutes manufacture of a unregistered Machinegun.

Appreciate any input on the above 

[Uncle Zeek]

Well, there's no strict definition of "manufacturing" ... so (I'm speculating here, ok?) it might depend on whether or not the modification would allow F/A parts to fit, or only the super safety parts.  If the former, then I'd agree with you.   If someone were able to modify the receiver so that F/A parts would NOT fit, but SS parts would, then the person might have a legitimate claim that the firearm was not a machinegun.

 

 

Edited April 30 by Uncle Zeek

[MPFiveO]

I'd have to agree with Uncle Zeek. I'm not certain what modification Grease Gunner is referring to. The shelf, as it's known, is where the front of a 90 series trigger housing "clips" on to the receiver. This welded on shelf covers up the area where an original swing down trigger group would have been pinned in place. That was good enough to be considered not readily converted or restored.

Today there are a variety of other methods used by manufacturers to satisfy the requirements of not being readily converted or restored. HK uses a pin protruding from under the rear sight. It matches a groove in the top of the bolt carrier. This modification prevents a full auto bolt carrier from just dropping in. HK also uses a shelf similar to their old 90 series receivers but the dimensions differ slightly.

PTR follows the original HK 90 series pattern by welding a shelf over the swing down attachment point. There are no other blocks and these often come with full auto bolt carriers unlike all other manufacturers that use bolt carriers that have had the full auto trip removed.

The Turkish guns retain the factory pinned method of lower housing attachment. To keep full auto parts from fitting they weld a block to the back of the magazine housing so that a full auto pack will not fit. They also weld a block into the rear of the receiver by the stock attachment point that prevents a full auto carrier from being installed.

I don't know what they're removing to install the Super Safety but unless they remove all the features that prevent the installation of full auto parts then I don't think it would fall under the purview of the NFA.

Most of the modifications made to the receivers by the manufacturer are due to import regulations. Otherwise, PTR would have to make additional modifications to their receivers in order to sell them.

F.J. Vollmer actually won a case against the government that claimed "once a machine gun, always a machine gun"

He'd been given permission to modify HK 94 receivers to swing down attachment while installing registered machine gun sears, but then was later told that the modification made the receivers machine guns. So, he welded them back up with the shelf configuration. He was then told that even though they were functionally identical to semi auto receivers and that they could not accept full auto parts that they were still machine guns. He took them to court and actually won his case. This is one of the few situations that actually applied common sense when it comes to the regulations that are often just made up on a whim.

While this case isn't precisely what's being discussed here, it is related in the way that it helps clarify what is and what isn't a machine gun.

One modification to a receiver that does not result in the ability to shoot full auto or accept unmodified parts that would allow it to shoot full auto should not constitute a conversion to full auto. Particularly if the modification is to facilitate the use of a product that doesn't meet the definition of a machine gun... Yet.

The biggest concern we should have today is the leeway the agency charged with regulating the industry has with it's power to interpret the laws, rules and regulations that apply to firearms. There have been scores of cases made where items were deemed easily converted or readily restorable. Anyone that knows anything about firearm mechanics knows that the vast majority of semi auto firearms can be converted to shoot automatically. Some are easier than others. It's possible that certain firearms might be reclassified one day in the future leading us to who knows where. I sometimes wonder if this isn't part of the plan by them allowing certain designs that will allow that trap to be sprung.

A bit of research will show this pattern to exist. Just use the power of Google and research the Spitfire semi auto submachine gun. Then look at the 1981 open bolt ruling. Then, if you dare, research demilling procedures and find out just how many cuts it takes to avoid prosecution, because that number has changed over the years and if you have an older parts kit without the current number of cuts you could find yourself in deep poop.

Bottom line, in most cases, they are required to show intent to violate the law. I say in most cases because there are plenty out there where mere possession without the knowledge of it's legal status have still resulted in prosecutions.