BRP's SA42

[panaceabeachbum]

Thats good to know, anyone made in progress on getting an approval letter on a rewatt?

Just to be clear, what do you mean when referring to a "rewat"?

By rewatt, I mean an original demilled rec, commonly known as a dewatt , rebuilt to function as a semi auto firearm.

Does anyone to date have an atf approval letter for a semi auto 42, rifle or firearm, using an original demilled rec as the basis of the build?

[none123]

To correct some earlier misconceptions regarding the BRP SA MG42, the ATF classified their product a "firearm" and as such BRP does not have to meet the requirements of 922r in the construction of their SA MG42's.

Regards,
Orin

That can't hold up in court

[762x51]

That can't hold up in court

Say what??? - I have a copy the friggin letter from the ATF to BRP right here and it says:

"Based on the foregoing, FTB has determined that the semiautomatic MG 42 firearm, as received, is not a machinegun as defined and, further, that it cannot be readily converted to a machinegun. Any modification to the prototype or any deviation in the manner in which the receiver is constructed could change our classification.”

[none123]

That can't hold up in court

Say what??? - I have a copy the friggin letter from the ATF to BRP right here and it says:

"Based on the foregoing, FTB has determined that the semiautomatic MG 42 firearm, as received, is not a machinegun as defined and, further, that it cannot be readily converted to a machinegun. Any modification to the prototype or any deviation in the manner in which the receiver is constructed could change our classification.”

What i meant was, ruling a reweld is a rifle and the BRP a firearm would not hold up in a court of law(if somone was charged w/ not complying w/ 922r on a reweld) . It's one or the other it cant be both a rifle and a firearm (according to the BATFE's defintions of a rifle vs firearm) now this would cost $$$ to get a final court ruling, and both may be rulled a a rifle in the end. BUT it can't be both

[panaceabeachbum]

I think the key is in the last line of the clipit Orin posted "any deviation in the manner in which the receiver is constructed could change our classification"
Brp is using a newly constructed US made receiver, and the rewelds do not. That was what prompted me to ask if anyone had an approval letter on a reweld yet, not a letter on a proposal to reweld but a letter that was returned with an actual 42 semi submission built from a demiled rec.

[smoggle]

Isn't a dewat, (deactivated war trophy) still a registered item? It has be made inactive yes but not destroyed as the recievers we have are? These parts kits we are buying are just that parts kits, correct?

[Abominog]

I think the point being made here is that the BRP is a "firearm", while ours are "rifles". While ATF could base this on the minor designs ("change the classification") that would not hold up in court- BUT it's would cost somebody a boatload of time and money to get to that point.

The receiver is a non-issue because both ours and BRP are "new manufacture".

[panaceabeachbum]

Isn't a dewat, (deactivated war trophy) still a registered item? It has be made inactive yes but not destroyed as the recievers we have are? These parts kits we are buying are just that parts kits, correct?

I guess your correct, I should have said demill.

[Cpt_Kirks]

I think the point being made here is that the BRP is a "firearm", while ours are "rifles". While ATF could base this on the minor designs ("change the classification") that would not hold up in court- BUT it's would cost somebody a boatload of time and money to get to that point.

The receiver is a non-issue because both ours and BRP are "new manufacture".

You know, that's how the 1986 "machine gun ban" works now. All FA guns in non gov, non SOT hands are "illegal", but having registration papers allow an "affirmative defence".

That sound about right, robertmcw?

[drooling idiot]

ORIN would you repost that letter or E-mail it to me ?

I'm sure i saved it somewhere but for the life of me i can't find it now.
I would have sworn BRP had the gun classified as a rifle right from the start at there request.
shows how fussy your mind can get , or the maybe the onset of Alzheimer's

[panaceabeachbum]

so currently BRP has an approval letter for their semi 42 using a new rec and its classified as a firearm not a rifle, And another letter exist stating that if a semi 42 were to be built from a demilled rec it would be considered a semi rifle, but know one has an approval on a semi built from a demill rec yet , is this correct? I seem to remember reading the letter Orin had submitted proposing to build a semi from a demill and bieng told it would be considered a rifle. do I remember correctly? I confuse easily.

[robertmcw]

Here is the law in Texas:

§ 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures,
transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) an explosive weapon;
(2) a machine gun;
(3) a short-barrel firearm;
(4) a firearm silencer;
(5) a switchblade knife;
(6) knuckles;
(7) armor-piercing ammunition;
(8) a chemical dispensing device; or
(9) a zip gun.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor's conduct was incidental to the performance of official
duty by the armed forces or national guard, a governmental law
enforcement agency, or a correctional facility.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the
National Firearms Act, as amended.
(d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the actor's conduct:
(1) was incidental to dealing with a switchblade
knife, springblade knife, or short-barrel firearm solely as an
antique or curio; or
(2) was incidental to dealing with armor-piercing
ammunition solely for the purpose of making the ammunition
available to an organization, agency, or institution listed in
Subsection (b).
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree unless it is committed under Subsection (a)(5) or (a)(6), in
which event, it is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for
the possession of a chemical dispensing device that the actor is a
security officer and has received training on the use of the
chemical dispensing device by a training program that is:
(1) provided by the Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education; or
(2) approved for the purposes described by this
subsection by the Texas Private Security Board of the Department of
Public Safety.
(g) In Subsection (f), "security officer" means a
commissioned security officer as defined by Section 1702.002,
Occupations Code, or a noncommissioned security officer registered
under Section 1702.221, Occupations Code.


I don't think TEXAS state law differentiates between a post or a pre 86 machine gun, all that is required as a 'defense' is that it be regiwtered with the BATFE. Note there are some 'defenses' and some 'affirmative defenses.'


Federal statutes regarding machine guns are generally found in the Unted States Code and in the Code of Federal Regulations. Here is a link to some of the statutes:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/ ... 4/toc.html

The BIG DEAL is to have your paperwork in order. MACHINEGUNS ARE NOT ILLEGAL under federal law as long as you have paid the tax, have complied with all paperwork requirements and have passed the NCIC background checks and of utmost importance have had BATFE approve your paperwork. Some states trump federal law and prohinit possession of machine guns regardless of federal law, but that is a state by state deal and is not law in Texas.

Hope that helps.