Bil wrote:I have approved the post above and you can look through the facebook link for yourselves.I did,and see no problem with this.It seems to me to be a young guy that is trying to start a business building dummy guns and other re-enactor supplies.I have dis-approved several other posts that were written that may have been better sent in a PM,or e-mail.I would ask the poster to do so.As I said,this looks good to me,look for yourselves.I hope this clears things up. ---bil
With all due respect, a few small photographs clears nothing up.......one of the things to remember when dealing with ATF-FTB is that what you are doing does not have to be a restoration, or even a re-creation, of any specific original receiver to draw a determination of either "firearm" or "machine gun" receiver. In other words, just because something you have created looks exactly for all the world just like a real MG-42 receiver does not mean that it will, or COULD, be determined to be one upon official examination.....for instance a solid cast metal MG-42 receiver, which would look good in a photograph.
Opposing that reference is that opposite case where something you create bears absolutely no technical resemblance to a MG-42 receiver may indeed draw an FTB determination of being a "machine gun receiver" (or "firearm")....the SOLE determining factor is does the constructed device accede to one or more of the legally standing definitions of either "firearm" or "machine gun" (which is not always the same as "functionality"). I bring this up because what the pictures on the FaceBook account linked to clearly show an item that should have been submitted to ATFE-FTB for an determination examination before anyone goes pronouncing it "approved" or otherwise. The key here is that this pictured item has two salient characteristics that bring into question its (likely)potentially qualifying legal status as a "firearm" (frame or receiver), and possibly a "machine gun".
Characteristic one is that it CLEARLY conforms to a constructed "frame" or "receiver" of the legally defined MG42 type, under GCA definition as pictured, the fact what appears to be (and is claimed to be) a bolt welded in place bears no technically legal bar to the external pieces themselves forming such a frame or receiver, as defined, because the presence or absence of the "bolt" is not a legally defining construction.
Characteristic two is that, CLEARLY, this pictured assembly forms the physical basis of joining and/or assembly to what is the remnants of a (now presumably destroyed) machine gun, now restored. This is not to be viewed lightly as legal determination of "restoration", or "re-activation", does not always follow what we would like to call common sense approaches. It is the little annoying nuances in the actual Law that will get you in trouble, not whether in common sense terms it appears to be a machine gun or not. European DEACTs are good examples if considered under applicable laws here.
The legal issues here are confined to the area of what is legally defined by ATF as the receiver of an MG-42 type weapon, and I hate to rain on anybody's parade here but with more than two decades of professional interaction with FTB on this topic, what is shown there clearly transcends the muddy waters of an MG-42 type receiver. It does not take much to draw yourself into a corner with that particular receiver, legally speaking as defined, and the (welded) presence of a bolt isn't enough so long as you have what amounts to a functional shell of ANY configuration or appearance that is intact and COULD accept unmodified original full auto parts, like what is shown there, welded or not.
FTB will not take into account the presence of any welded-in parts, trust me. The first thing they will do is REMOVE those welded in parts and see if the remaining pieces can be made to duplicate the -DEFINITION- of a "firearm" or "machine gun"....note I did NOT say "duplicate the FUNCTIONALITY" of a firearm receiver or machine gun, but only the legal DEFINITION.....and there is a whole long list of legally defining definitions that something like what is pictured here could potentially run afoul of. Again, having spent over two decades interacting with FTB determination examinations, I have the important lessons on that well and truly accumulated. You don't need to even get close to the stage where they try to shoot real ammo, before you may have fun afoul.
Sorry folks, you CANNOT assure yourselves of ANYTHING from a legal protection perspective by viewing ANY photographs of any such device or construction ONLY; and the ONLY legally safe, sound, and remotely defensible position to operate from when playing with such things is to follow PRECISELY the legal and technical steps ATF requests by submitting a constructed device for a formal determination examination.
And you need to do it each time, every time, with every single such unique design you construct, if you want to be sure. That is what FTB is there for, to protect people from getting into trouble, and by assisting them with the needed technical and legal guidance to make their projects successful.
And remember, there is NO SUCH THING as an "80%" receiver, or any such similar nonsense...there are ONLY FTB uniquely approved designs, or not.
Not trying to step on toes or piss in anyone's Wheaties......just being straight up with 26 years of experience dealing and working with ATF. Lawyers are expensive, but good lawyers are priceless.