You are not logged in. Log In |  Register New Search
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  
advanced

Posted:  6/21/2007 2:51 AM #7632
justbust16


Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 20
Last Post: 6/26/2007
Subject: full auto sks
how do you make the sks fully automatic
help anyone

Posted:  6/21/2007 6:34 AM #7631
Semper Paratus


Joined: 2/23/2007
Posts: 288
Last Post: 5/18/2008
You don't.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."

Posted:  6/21/2007 6:37 AM #7633
RendonRedneck


Joined: 6/23/2005
Posts: 797
Last Post: 4/30/2009
Correct don't even try.
I work to support my outdoor habit
Aaron
NAHC Life Member
NAFC Life Member
Trained Gunsmith
According to wife outdoor and computer nut
I support the Bill of Rights
RendonRendneck@dovesoutdoors.com

Posted:  6/21/2007 11:01 AM #7634
justbust16


Joined: 6/21/2007
Posts: 20
Last Post: 6/26/2007
well is it even possible

Posted:  6/21/2007 11:42 AM #7635
Mad Max


Joined: 12/3/2006
Posts: 95
Last Post: 12/20/2006
yeah, making a SKS full auto is possible, but is it worth being caught and sent to a federal prison for ten years,not to mention what yer cell mate bubba will be doin to ya at night? read my thread JUSTBUST16 under "How to make a sks take detach mags" and you'll get a good idea why NOT CONVERTING IT is a good idea


-MAD MAX
They'll have to pry my gun from my Cold, Dead hands;
Guns dont kill people, PEOPLE kill people

Posted:  6/21/2007 12:28 PM #7636
Semper Paratus


Joined: 2/23/2007
Posts: 288
Last Post: 5/18/2008
I have never tried and I never will try.

1. The ATF have STRICT LAWS about coverting firearms to full auto. DON'T DO IT.

2. I like my freedom and their isn't much of that in jail. DON'T THINK ABOUT IT

3. A full auto gun that holds 10 rounds, would be pretty silly. DON'T EVEN TRY.

ect. ect. ect. I could list the many reasons why it isn't a good idea but I think points 1 and 2 are good enough.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."

Posted:  6/22/2007 5:12 PM #7630
hail_of_bullets


Joined: 3/3/2006
Posts: 233
Last Post: 7/10/2007
to answer your question:

first you obtain a Class II FFL license to manufacture Class III weapons. In strict accordance with ATF laws, and all applicable NFA laws.

It is my understanding that these licenses are no longer issued, and the red tape makes it cost prohibitive for current license holders to create any new Class III weapons ( machineguns and/or destructive devices )

So it looks like nobody is converting anything, unless they have a time machine. ;)

IMHO - machineguns are only good if you have a pillbox and 2 or 3 grunts to assist in loading, spotting targets and changing barrells...... otherwise, a well trained rifleman can defeat any machinegunner lugging a huge weapon and ammo around.

P.S> if I am wrong on any of these points....Im sure the CTD forumn members will point it out. :)
Ask every question, question every answer

Posted:  6/22/2007 7:43 PM #7629
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
You all can correct me if I am wrong, but, a Class III License is $1500.00 PER YEAR FEE; IF you get by all of the BS involved.

ANYTIME you ask for ANY type of ATF LICENSE (I do not care what Class it is), YOU are subjected to 24/7/365 "UNNANOUNCED" searches &; seizures, YOU GIVE UP ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL "PROTECTIONS".

IF, ANY of your "PAPERWORK" is awry, when the ATF does this, YOU will LOSE ANY AND ALL WEAPONS, with NO RECOURSE OF EVER GETTING THEM BACK. Even those YOU personally own.

WE, on this List, have a "LEGAL EAGLE" and, I am SURE he will have even more BAD NEWS. :(

The GOOD NEWS; DON'T BOTHER LETTING BB INTO YOU HOME by getting any type of "License". Pay the $35 to your FFL dealer and let HIM worry about the FED'S. 8)

BTW, ALL "Gun Laws" that run against the "Grain" of the Constitution are illegal, WE THE PEOPLE HAVE ALLOWED THIS TO BE SO. :x
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  6/23/2007 3:38 PM #7628
General Protection Fault


Joined: 5/21/2007
Posts: 74
Last Post: 4/10/2009
Even setting the legal issues aside, there's the questionable safety of firing, in full-auto mode, a weapon which was not designed to be full-auto. Do a little research on SKS "slam-fires" - you don't have to read very long to realise this is something you DON'T want your SKS to do, as people have gotten injured, crippled, and even killed when this happens.

If you want a full-auto rifle, buy a proper machinegun or assault rifle - they're not impossible to come by legally. Leave the poor SKS alone to do what it was designed to do (and it does that very well, as long as you take good care of it.)

If, on the other hand, you want an illegal rifle, then an illegal full-auto AKM would work much better as a machinegun and cost only a little more than a bubba'd SKS (I read somewhere that black-market full-auto AK's in many parts of the world can sell for the equivalent of as little as US$50!) I suppose if that's what you want to do, it's your business, but please don't complain if the ATF pays you a visit....

Posted:  6/23/2007 4:03 PM #7627
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
Full AUTO AK-47's and F/A AK74/AKM74's run for $4.00 a piece at the Hajii's Bazaars in Irak. A fully functional/operational RPG-7 w/ rockets will run you $25.00. This is in American dollars. If you had $50 American dollars in Irak, you would be VERY well armed. 8)
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  4/11/2008 12:19 PM #7549
pmkringiv


Joined: 4/9/2008
Posts: 54
Last Post: 4/21/2008
DUDE!!! 10 years and 10,000 dollars for starters, THINK AGAIN

Posted:  4/11/2008 1:31 PM #7550
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
Show me where in either the Constitution, or, Bill of Rights, that it is "illegal" to own a F/A weapon? Even though F/A is a waste of ammo.

I can not wait for the responses. Please do not tell me that the 10th Amendment allows the States to set "Laws" that contravene the Constitution.

If USC "conflicts" with the Constitution, the Constitution "Prevails." You can NOT have two Laws conflicting, ONE MUST PREVAIL; and the Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. End of story.

"When PEOPLE Fear the Government, you have TYRANNY; When the GOVERNMENT Fears the PEOPLE, you have FREEDOM."

Good Hunting. 8) 8)
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  4/11/2008 5:22 PM #7544
BikerBen4


Joined: 3/26/2008
Posts: 4268
Last Post: 9/11/2012
The US Constitution did not cover full-auto firearms (because they didn't exist at that point in time), and the Bill of Rights, to my knowledge, does not cover full-autos either. I’m still trying to verify.

The Constitution is the law of the land, until each state decides to create even more strict laws. Each state has the power to be even more strict on their laws, especially when it comes to weapons laws (refer to the 10th Amendment). Sorry to say it, but as far as I know, each state does have the ability to enact even more strict laws than the constitution.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure of this. If someone can show me the error of my ways, please do. I don’t like being wrong about this kind of stuff.
Moderator of CheaperThanDirt.com/Forums

Posted:  4/11/2008 9:28 PM #7542
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
The 10th Amendment only enumerates "powers' NOT covered by the Constitution. No where does it state that individual State(s) can enact "Laws/Statues" that "CONFLICT"; hence, once again, ONE "Law/Statute" must prevail.

When I get the chance, I will write, in a little more depth, about these issues of which we speak.

Another problem is this, if YOU do NOT know your "Rights", you will NEVER know what they are, or, even worse, when they were "Taken" away; once those "Rights" are taken, it is harder than pulling teeth to get them back. The "Institutions" (I can NOT say "Government, because WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT") love to keep its Citizens like mushrooms, F.O.S. and kept in the dark. :x :x
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  4/16/2008 1:00 AM #7546
General Protection Fault


Joined: 5/21/2007
Posts: 74
Last Post: 4/10/2009
With me, you're preaching to the choir on the Constitutionality of private ownership of machineguns and any other weapon, though the government will disagree with us on the legality in spite of the Constitution. I'm tempted to go on about that subject in greater detail, but perhaps those are discussions better left for the appropriate forum....

More to the topic: I can't see any good to possibly come out of a full-auto conversion for an SKS. Full-auto modifications to the SKS are probably dangerous or even deadly, they're likely to get you in trouble with the government (whether that trouble is constitutionally lawful or not), and, furthermore, a converted SKS is not likely to be something that will be easy to sell off again later on to any great advantage, since most collectors will be more interested in something in its original condition and most casual shooters won't want to be caught anywhere near the thing.

And, in most states, virtually any law-abiding adult can own a "real" machinegun without the risk of a poorly modified gun blowing up or some ATF guy throwing search warrants and court orders around. And if the whole point is to break the rules, at least break the rules with something that isn't as likely to get you killed or at least ruin a perfectly good SKS :) (I'm told that virtually anything is available on the black market, and I have no doubt that would include real assault rifles.)

The last few Gun and Knife shows I went to were stocked with plenty enough hopelessly butchered Russian and Yugoslavian SKS's... leave the poor SKS in its original condition if possible, and invest extra money in a transferable, full-auto M-16, AK-47, or whatever else you can get your hands on. Both the SKS and the machinegun will be worth a lot more to you in the future that way! I have no doubt that government interference will only drive prices of transferable machineguns, and military curios and relics in their original condition, higher and higher into the near future, making these weapons a fantastic investment (if you don't feel that owning the security these weapons offer is not reward enough, not to mention the satisfaction of owning increasingly rarer pieces of history!)

Posted:  4/22/2008 7:30 PM #7444
DaveyDug


Joined: 12/26/2005
Posts: 109
Last Post: 6/18/2006
The amount of ignorance being displayed in this thread is astounding.

Posted:  4/22/2008 11:25 PM #7441
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
Uhhh,

May I humbly ask what type of "ignorance" is being displayed in this thread? :?
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  4/23/2008 2:47 PM #7443
DaveyDug


Joined: 12/26/2005
Posts: 109
Last Post: 6/18/2006
ANYTIME you ask for ANY type of ATF LICENSE (I do not care what Class it is), YOU are subjected to 24/7/365 "UNNANOUNCED" searches &; seizures, YOU GIVE UP ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL "PROTECTIONS".

That one stands out. :wink: I have a 03 FFL and I can tell you with no hesitation that you're very wrong.

The US Constitution did not cover full-auto firearms (because they didn't exist at that point in time), and the Bill of Rights, to my knowledge, does not cover full-autos either. I’m still trying to verify.

The Constitution is the law of the land, until each state decides to create even more strict laws. Each state has the power to be even more strict on their laws, especially when it comes to weapons laws (refer to the 10th Amendment). Sorry to say it, but as far as I know, each state does have the ability to enact even more strict laws than the constitution.

That's another good one. State laws don't trump the Constitution. The tenth amendment doesn't give states the power to override rights that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution, i.e. the second amendment. Also, there are no restrictions on rights, and the Constitution places none on the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns are arms too.

Just the whole tone of this thread strikes me as kind of funny. The "full auto sks" guys never fail to pop up when I least expect it and make me laugh. :lol:

Posted:  4/23/2008 6:05 PM #7446
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
Better book up on your knowledge of Constitutional law, Washington D.C. is NOT a State, YET, it managed to put through the USA PATRIOT Acts? Or, Territories do not count? I know BATFE agents and, when you sign on the dotted line, you give up the 4th Amendment rights of "Illegal Searches and Seizures."

I know of way too many FFL dealers that have had the unannounced "surprise" raids to check the books and, it is not a 9 to 5 job, they can come at ANY TIME THEY SO PLEASE.

It is just like filling out a 1040 on your taxes, once you sign that baby, your 5th Amendment rights are LOST too.

I had an Attorney in KS, whose father was a Federal Judge; if I were to call him right now and, tell him what you wrote, he would ask what kind of rarified air you were inhaling.

You show me what USC that "Specifically" states that there are ONLY "Certain" times that the FEDS can come a knocking? Or, better yet, what "Constitutional Protections" are guaranteed by obtaining a FFL?

I will tell you another thing, mess up your paperwork by not having ALL of your "I's" dotted and "T's" crossed and, they will take EVERY weapon you own, if you do not believe me, try it some time if you dare. You will have Federal charges thrown in there for good measure and, will be in jail too.

I want to be there at 4:00 a.m. when "they" decide to come a knocking and, you tell "them" they can NOT come in.

That is why I will NEVER get a FFL; it is NONE of the BATFE's business what legally obtained "Private Property" I own.

If you do not know what your rights are, then you will never know what they are when you LOSE THEM.

If this is not enough, I am sure that I can find some Constitutional Scholars across the river @ Washington U. in St. Louis.
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  4/24/2008 2:13 PM #7447
BikerBen4


Joined: 3/26/2008
Posts: 4268
Last Post: 9/11/2012
DaveyDug-ANYTIME you ask for ANY type of ATF LICENSE (I do not care what Class it is), YOU are subjected to 24/7/365 "UNNANOUNCED" searches &; seizures, YOU GIVE UP ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL "PROTECTIONS".

That one stands out. :wink: I have a 03 FFL and I can tell you with no hesitation that you're very wrong.

The US Constitution did not cover full-auto firearms (because they didn't exist at that point in time), and the Bill of Rights, to my knowledge, does not cover full-autos either. I’m still trying to verify.

The Constitution is the law of the land, until each state decides to create even more strict laws. Each state has the power to be even more strict on their laws, especially when it comes to weapons laws (refer to the 10th Amendment). Sorry to say it, but as far as I know, each state does have the ability to enact even more strict laws than the constitution.

That's another good one. State laws don't trump the Constitution. The tenth amendment doesn't give states the power to override rights that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution, i.e. the second amendment. Also, there are no restrictions on rights, and the Constitution places none on the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns are arms too.

Just the whole tone of this thread strikes me as kind of funny. The "full auto sks" guys never fail to pop up when I least expect it and make me laugh. :lol:

I have to ask: when and where did you read anyone say that State laws "trump" the Constitution? I certainly never said anything like that. I wouldn’t say that. If that's what you thought, you were mistaken and should re-read what I wrote. I specifically said that State laws can be made more strict than Federal laws. AT NO POINT DID I SAY THAT STATE LAWS “OVERRIDE” FEDERAL LAWS.

I apologize for getting a little upset, but please make sure that you’ve got everything right on your end before you tell someone else that they’re wrong. It’s just common courtesy.
Moderator of CheaperThanDirt.com/Forums

Posted:  4/25/2008 5:13 PM #7445
DaveyDug


Joined: 12/26/2005
Posts: 109
Last Post: 6/18/2006
wildmanofwichita-

You show me what USC that "Specifically" states that there are ONLY "Certain" times that the FEDS can come a knocking?


OK, here you go:

SELECTED REGULATIONS (27 C.F.R.) APPLICABLE TO LICENSED COLLECTORS

§ 178.11 Meaning of terms. Collector: Any person who acquires, holds, or disposes of firearms as curios or relics.Collection premises: The premises described on the license of a collector as the location at which he maintains his collection of curios and relics. Licensed collector: A collector of curios and relics only and licensed under the provisions of this part. Person: Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society or joint stock company.

§ 178.23 Right of entry and examination. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), any ATF officer, when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of the Act has occurred and that evidence of the violation may be found on the premises of any licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, may, upon demonstrating such cause before a Federal magistrate and obtaining from the magistrate a warrant authorizing entry, enter during business hours (or, in the case of a licensed collector, the hours of operation) the premises, including places of storage, of any such licensee for the purpose of inspecting or examining:

1.) Any records or documents required to be kept by such licensee under this part and
2.) Any inventory of firearms or ammunition kept or stored by any licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer at such premises or any firearms curios or relics or ammunition kept or stored by any licensed collector at such premises.

(c) Any ATF officer, without having reasonable cause to believe a violation of the Act has occurred or that evidence of the violation may be found and without demonstrating such cause before a Federal magistrate or obtaining from the magistrate a warrant authorizing entry, may enter during hours of operation the premises, including places of storage, of any licensed collector for the purpose of inspecting or examining the records, documents, firearms, and ammunition referred to in paragraph (a) of this section (1) for ensuring compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of this part not more than once during any 12-month period or (2) when such inspection or examination may be required for determining the disposition of one or more particular firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. At the election of the licensed collector, the annual inspection permitted by this paragraph shall be performed at the ATF office responsible for conducting such inspection in the closest proximity to the collector's premises.
(d) The inspections and examinations provided by this section do not authorize an ATF officer to seize any records or documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law. If an ATF officer seizes such records or documents, copies shall be provided the licensee within a reasonable time.


Please closely read the writing in bold print. You are very clearly wrong. You don't give up your rights at all having an 03FFL. You don't even have to let the ATF into your house if you don't want to.

I want to be there at 4:00 a.m. when "they" decide to come a knocking and, you tell "them" they can NOT come in.
That's exactly what I'd tell them, and I would be perfectly within the letter of the law to do so.

Posted:  4/25/2008 5:36 PM #7460
DaveyDug


Joined: 12/26/2005
Posts: 109
Last Post: 6/18/2006
BikerBen4-The Constitution is the law of the land, until each state decides to create even more strict laws. Each state has the power to be even more strict on their laws, especially when it comes to weapons laws (refer to the 10th Amendment). Sorry to say it, but as far as I know, each state does have the ability to enact even more strict laws than the constitution.



The Bill of Rights was created to enumerate some of our INALIABLE human rights. These are not privilages that can be taken away on a whim. The entire purpose of the BOR was to RESTRICT the ability of federal and state governments to infringe upon our rights. By your logic, any state could pass a law more strict than any amendment. Do you agree that, say, Nebraska has the ability to pass a law making it illegal to criticize the government? Or how about Georgia passing a law that says everyone in the state has to be a Muslim? Maybe Arizona could pass a law that states you no longer have the right to a trial by jury.

Come on, man. Use some common sense. The bill of rights can't be touched, except by the procedure set up to amend the Constitution. No states can pass ANY laws that contradict the BOR. That's why any and all firearms laws are unconstitutional.

I'll say it again: The tenth amendment only gives the states power to make laws that are not already granted or prohibited in the Constitution. Period.

Posted:  4/26/2008 2:18 AM #7459
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
DD,

BINGO, you explained the 10th Amendment perfectly. 8)
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  4/26/2008 7:59 PM #7461
bapa


Joined: 11/6/2006
Posts: 657
Last Post: 4/29/2009
DaveyDug-BikerBen4-The Constitution is the law of the land, until each state decides to create even more strict laws. Each state has the power to be even more strict on their laws, especially when it comes to weapons laws (refer to the 10th Amendment). Sorry to say it, but as far as I know, each state does have the ability to enact even more strict laws than the constitution.



The Bill of Rights was created to enumerate some of our INALIABLE human rights. These are not privilages that can be taken away on a whim. The entire purpose of the BOR was to RESTRICT the ability of federal and state governments to infringe upon our rights. By your logic, any state could pass a law more strict than any amendment. Do you agree that, say, Nebraska has the ability to pass a law making it illegal to criticize the government? Or how about Georgia passing a law that says everyone in the state has to be a Muslim? Maybe Arizona could pass a law that states you no longer have the right to a trial by jury.

Come on, man. Use some common sense. The bill of rights can't be touched, except by the procedure set up to amend the Constitution. No states can pass ANY laws that contradict the BOR. That's why any and all firearms laws are unconstitutional.

I'll say it again: The tenth amendment only gives the states power to make laws that are not already granted or prohibited in the Constitution. Period.


I'm curious. If the constitution can't be touched, how was it then that the local governemnt was able to declare that all civilians were to be disarmed and no guns would be allowed during katrina aftermath? If this was a violation of constitutional rights, why haven't there been lawsuits over it?
NAHC Life Member
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday

Posted:  4/27/2008 8:24 AM #7452
DaveyDug


Joined: 12/26/2005
Posts: 109
Last Post: 6/18/2006
bapa-I'm curious. If the constitution can't be touched, how was it then that the local governemnt was able to declare that all civilians were to be disarmed and no guns would be allowed during katrina aftermath?

This most definately WAS a violation of constitutional rights. The local government was operating WAY outside its authority. If you recall, police chief Eddie Compass resigned in the disastrous aftermath of his actions. He was handed an emergency injunction that ordered him to cease confiscating firearms. A few days later, he quit.

If this was a violation of constitutional rights, why haven't there been lawsuits over it?

What in the world are you talking about? There have been dozens, and probably hundreds of lawsuits over this! Heck, even the NRA sued New Orleans. All the lawsuits led to the "Emergency Powers Protection Act" (which, in my opinion is repetitive and unnecessary). This was a state law that said this type of thing couldn't happen again. It has since led to numerous other states passing similar legislation. Look it up.

Posted:  4/28/2008 11:17 PM #7457
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
Don't lose "Sight" that the 2nd Amendment is inter-twined with the "5 Capstone Provisions" of the 1st Amendment and, the Citizenship "Rights" enumerated in the 14th Amendment. In addition, the "Capstone Provisions" are inter-twined with the 4th Amendment.

Who in the H*ll was paying ANY attention when the USA PATRIOT Acts I &; II were passed? Read them sometime and, then get back to me.

I have another question that I would LOVE to have somebody answer; when did "WE THE PEOPLE" have to start "PAYING MONEY" for the privileges of the "BILL OF RIGHTS"????? :x :x :x
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  6/10/2008 10:50 PM #7420
Marksman


Joined: 6/9/2008
Posts: 47
Last Post: 4/12/2009
I don't want to get too involved in this argument, but as far as katrina goes, you guys should look into FEMA, why it was created, what it can do...

Do you guys have any qualms about discussing this stuff online?

Posted:  6/11/2008 12:19 AM #7421
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
The 10th Amendment provides that ANY rights NOT enumerated to the GOVERNMENT is "RESERVED TO THE STATES AND PEOPLE"; the Executive has ONLY 3 "Enumerated RIGHTS", Jefferson explained this quite easily, it was to STOP the over-reaching and encroachment of the FEDERAL Government into the PEOPLES lives.

The "Legislative Branch" has 17 "LIMITED RIGHTS" with an 18th added, and it is called a "Qualifier", also known as the "Necessary and Proper" Clause.

This is where the debate should be, because it is quite apparent that too many, on this Forum, are VERY MISTAKEN/Mis-INFORMED about what the Constitution means and what its applicability is.

The reason I am studying to become a Constitutional Scholar is because I am tired of always being told: "IGNORANCE of the LAW is NO EXCUSE."

I have NO qualms about discussing this, but if somebody thinks having an FFL protects them from an ever intrusive government, "THEY" are sadly mistaken, and when push comes to shove, "they", the FFL holders, will find out the hard way; because "they" do not know "THEIR RIGHTS."

How did ALL of this come about? The "Commerce Clause" (Limited Right #3) that Congress uses VERY LIBERALLY along with the "Qualifier" (Limited Right Eighteen) Clause.

BTW, there is a BIG difference between "RIGHTS" and "LIBERTIES" too..... 8) 8) 8)

"When the Government Fears the PEOPLE, you have FREEDOM, when the PEOPLE FEAR the GOVERNMENT, you have TYRANNY."
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  6/11/2008 5:32 PM #7419
Texan Raven


Joined: 5/22/2007
Posts: 411
Last Post: 1/9/2013
BikerBen4-The US Constitution did not cover full-auto firearms (because they didn't exist at that point in time), and the Bill of Rights, to my knowledge, does not cover full-autos either. I’m still trying to verify.

Under your theory, the Bill of Rights does not cover any firearm made after 1781. The beauty of the Bill of Rights is that it was designed to adapt to changing times. Otherwise, freedom of speech, when it comes to the internet, talk radio, television, ipods, etc. doesn't exist either.

Posted:  6/29/2008 1:17 PM #7435
General Protection Fault


Joined: 5/21/2007
Posts: 74
Last Post: 4/10/2009
DaveyDug-BikerBen4-The Constitution is the law of the land, until each state decides to create even more strict laws. Each state has the power to be even more strict on their laws, especially when it comes to weapons laws (refer to the 10th Amendment). Sorry to say it, but as far as I know, each state does have the ability to enact even more strict laws than the constitution.



The Bill of Rights was created to enumerate some of our INALIABLE human rights. These are not privilages that can be taken away on a whim. The entire purpose of the BOR was to RESTRICT the ability of federal and state governments to infringe upon our rights. By your logic, any state could pass a law more strict than any amendment. Do you agree that, say, Nebraska has the ability to pass a law making it illegal to criticize the government? Or how about Georgia passing a law that says everyone in the state has to be a Muslim? Maybe Arizona could pass a law that states you no longer have the right to a trial by jury.

Come on, man. Use some common sense. The bill of rights can't be touched, except by the procedure set up to amend the Constitution. No states can pass ANY laws that contradict the BOR. That's why any and all firearms laws are unconstitutional.

I'll say it again: The tenth amendment only gives the states power to make laws that are not already granted or prohibited in the Constitution. Period.




The United States Constitution was written to define what the Federal government would and would not be permitted by free people to do. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution does not apply directly to the states, beyond specifying there are a few special priviliges explicitly granted to the Federal goverment under the US Constitution, and anything not explicitly defined as a function of the Federal government in the Constitution shall be the privilige or responsibility of individual states to perform, if the people of those states feel it needs to be addressed.

The Bill of Rights was, if I remember correctly, an afterthought added to the US Constitution, under the objection of the Libertarians of the day, who argued that the Bill of Rights was redundant in spelling in writing things that are implied in the US Constitution, and by specifically defining such things the Bill of Rights opens up a can of worms by providing loopholes for the Federal government to work through to restrict freedom. Nevertheless, the PRINCIPALS behind the Bill of Rights are universal, but the Bill of Rights it self was addressed to the Federal government to underscore examples some of the chief concerns of those people who at the time objected to the need for a Federal government to unify the colonies as an unnecessary risk of tyrrany, and to assure the people and the states that the Federal government was being carefully restricted by a constitution specifically to prevent the sorts of abuses listed in the Bill of Rights.



I believe that most, if not all, of our states have their own individual constitutions, which in most cases generally parallel the U.S. Constitution in most ways: the state constitutions are forced by the peoples of individual states upon the governments of those states to explicitly define what forms of government tyranny the citizens of those states will tolerate in the name of law, order, and civilisation, while outlining what forms of tyranny and abuse will not be tolerated by the free people of that state.

In short, individual states would be constitutionally restricted from passing laws restricting free speech or establishing a state religion by their own constitutions, not by the United States Constitution. For the most part, people will be no happier about allowing their state governments to restrict their inalienable rights than they would be about the Federal government restricting those rights, but a federal system of government does allow for exceptions to this when they arise.

Posted:  6/29/2008 3:34 PM #7436
wildmanofwichita


Joined: 12/12/2006
Posts: 796
Last Post: 5/13/2010
ANY State Constitution that "conflicts" with the U.S. Constitution is "Null &; Void" as if it was never contemplated nor passed. The U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the LAND, and it SUPERCEDES any Acts, Clauses ad nauseum, that conflict with it.

BTW, that was a NO WIN in the Heller v. D.C. gun ban case because of "Judicial Restraint." The "Nine's" opinion was so narrow in scope as to make it "almost" meaningless. :x :x
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Those That OWN the Country, Ought to Govern It" (John Jay, 1st U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

Posted:  12/18/2009 8:59 AM #20620
Bladerunner2000


Joined: 12/18/2009
Posts: 1
Last Post: 12/18/2009
Gods the posts here!  You would think everyone is a lawer or something.  Anyway back to the original question.  It is illegal to convert an SKS (or other semi auto) to full auto PERIOD!  Yeah there might be some legal way of doing it but too much time and money gets wrapped up into doing so and the payoff is crap.  So enjoy your semi-auto SKS (and your freedom!) and beleive me you can do just about as much damage with it as a full auto example.


Posted:  12/18/2009 9:34 PM #20638
General_Protection_Fault


Joined: 4/13/2009
Posts: 149
Last Post: 12/1/2012
Welcome, Bladerunner!
 
I'd say it's less like everyone being a lawyer, and more like a Constitutional Convention in miniature :)  In any case, I think it can be argued that ordinary people are probably in just as appropriate a position to argue these points as professional lawyers.  I'll grant you that not all the arguments are created equally, but even the badly-argued ones or the simply silly ones are at least entertaining, and have a chance of yielding satisfying food for serious thought.
 
I suppose that it's not too far out of line to mention that there are spring-loaded or crank-driven trigger devices that simulate full-auto fire which are currently unregulated, and there really aren't any laws against the practice of bump-firing an SKS, which can achieve a similar effect.  This would not really convert your SKS into a full-auto weapon, it does not pemanently or irreversibly alter the weapon, and it currently doesn't cause too much trouble with the police in most of the U.S. or the ATF.  Before trying one of the trigger devices, I recommend researching them, and it might not be a bad idea to write a nice letter to the ATF to make sure it's alright, if you don't trust your own research.
 
For anyone wondering the same thing the original poster was, I think these are the relevant points of the ensuing argument:
  • though it can be debated ad-nauseum whether the U.S. and/or state governments have lawful, Constitutional authority to regulate the manufacture or ownership of any firearm, the fact is these governments claim that authority anyway, and any decision to challenge that authority through civil disobedience carries the risk that you would find yourself virtually alone against everything the government can throw at you; thus, I recommend picking such fights with caution
  • manufacturing a full-auto weapon will require an investment of money, time, research, and legal and federal supervision that few ordinary people can commit to, and it's unlikely you'll easily get approval to legally convert an SKS to a machinegun
  • aside from the gun laws, pretty much any gun, including the SKS, can be made into a machinegun:  the possibilities are limited only by the gunsmith's enginuity, time, effort, tools, and materials
  • the SKS is an aging rifle was not designed to be full-auto, and could potentially pose a safety risk upon conversion whether legal or illegal; any such conversion would ruin any value the rifle has as a curio/relic; left in its original configuration, the SKS is a fine collectible semi-auto rifle and a lot of fun to shoot as it is
  • purchasing transferrable machineguns is legal; most such machineguns would have been full-auto before the 1980's, they're relatively uncommon and thus fairly expensive, and require extensive background checks and approval to transfer, but can afterward be owned by ordinary law-abiding U.S. citizens without license in most of the U.S.; this is probably more practical and preferable for almost anyone
  • forums such as this reportedly find themselves visited from time to time by undercover Federal agents looking for troublemakers, fanatical gun control advocates looking for evidence to support claims of of rampantly irresponsible gun owners, trolls looking for any reaction, the occassional misguided "bubba" - a normal and well-meaning hobbiest with questionable judgement- providing badly-researched advice, and other unsavory characters who are looking for an opportunity to stir up trouble (whether they mean to or not); under the circumstances, questions like the one posed by the original poster instantly look suspicious; in that environment, it's best to follow the most cautious, conservative advice you find
  • most U.S. gun owners respect and follow the law even if they don't always like or agree with it; I think you'll find it difficult to get strong support for any action that even seems illegal among the ranks of gun owners
  • if you make a full-auto conversion anyway, you will have to do so on your own against the advice of most (if not all) of the regulars here, and take your chances that you won't get caught; you may wish to carefully weigh the benefits of the conversion against the risks before proceding
 
CTD's Curio & Relic Forum
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/forums/topics.aspx?forumID=27

Posted:  12/16/2010 9:13 AM #25060
keg419


Joined: 12/16/2010
Posts: 1
Last Post: 12/16/2010
I would also like to know how to do this. Illegal, or not. The original posters question was not weather, or not it is legal to preform such a conversion. He simply asked how. As far as I know knowledge is not illegal so if someone would kindly get off their high "legality" horse, and simply answer this posters question it would be much appreciated by myself, and what I am sure is many thousands of other people seeing as how this is one of the first links to come up on Google when you search how to convert an SKS to fully automatic. I am not going to do this, I like my SKS the way it is in simi-automatic mode. Nice, and accurate, and not wasteful of ammo. All I want to know is weather, or not it is possible to do this without compromising the integrity of the gun, if such a converted rifle is safe for firing, and how to preform such a conversion?


Posted:  12/16/2010 10:40 AM #25063
gundog94


Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 312
Last Post: 4/14/2014
It is illegal unless;
You hold a valid Class 7 FFL ($150 for 3 years) with a Type 2 SOT ($500 per year). You could then convert the firearm to full auto but it would be classified as a dealer sample and only a Type 2 or 3 SOT could own it. It would NOT be transferrable to an ordinary person. Because of this, we will not discuss how to do it on this forum.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

CTD Moderator


Posted:  4/9/2012 9:11 AM #31034
nait


Joined: 4/9/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 4/9/2012
as everyone has already told you that you shouldnt im gonna let you know why. first you will prolly end up being charged with terrorist crap. the only leagle way to do it is to be a licenced gun smith and even then there are things they arent alowed to do. if it is a pre clinton era many things that are now illegal are ok with them as long as they came to the country before he took office. im not trying to give you a lecture just letting you know why it should not be done.


Posted:  6/8/2012 12:47 PM #31977
GunsAmmoLiquor


Joined: 6/8/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 6/8/2012
@BikerBen4 I don't know where you are from, or what but the Constitution covers every firearm in existence. There was not semi-auto handguns, no bolt action rifles, pump action, lever action, revolvers, and so on. The only ones back then were muskets/muzzle loaders. That is like saying the govt doesn't need a warrant to use a microphone laser on a drone to listen in, or to say your freedom of speech doesn't apply online because computers, and the internet didn't exist back then.

Posted:  6/8/2012 4:03 PM #31978
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2063
Last Post: 9/30/2014
www.rapidfiretriggers.com See videos of all the best in LEGAL trigger actuators. I still cannot believe this question was even asked. We're all supposed to be smarter than that. Our big argument against gun control is that we're law abiding. And then I see this. Don't make me come over there.


Posted:  6/14/2012 11:23 PM #32158
General_Protection_Fault


Joined: 4/13/2009
Posts: 149
Last Post: 12/1/2012
"I still cannot believe this question was even asked. We're all supposed to be smarter than that."


Unfortunately, some folks aren't smarter than that.
 
But, don't let that fool you:  it's pretty safe to assume that many, if not most, of the group asking questions like this consists of wise-guy internet trolls pulling pranks, a handful of police and government agents trying to drum up some business, and a lot of activists, lobbyists, reporters, and government flunkies fishing around for someone stupid enough to give them all the information they need to claim that kids can get instructions for manufacturing machine-guns on the Internet, to support their belief that the first and second Amendments need to be marginalized out of existence.
 
Supposedly, there's no such thing as a dumb question, and maybe that's true.  Whatever the case, it's best not to give questions like this the answer the original poster is looking for.
 

CTD's Curio & Relic Forum
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/forums/topics.aspx?forumID=27

Posted:  6/15/2012 8:19 AM #32167
hot_lips_banana


Joined: 6/28/2005
Posts: 1336
Last Post: 8/8/2014

Agreed, GPF. No responsible gun owner is going to turn his or her guns into illegal full autos, nor give advice on how to do it.

CTD Forum Moderator

Posted:  8/12/2012 5:40 AM #33297
NeilSherman


Joined: 8/12/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 8/12/2012
Well, no-one who's ever known (of) me has ever accused me of the crime of being responsible. They're always telling me "don't use your real name, don't give out your address, don't use hand signals, don't eat your soup with a fork", blah, blah, blah. So in keeping with my life-long habit of irresponsibility I shall state simply that I have, over the years, restored and modified many arms to the standard established by Aymette that "the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment." etc. I honestly believed I'd retired from this nonsense back in 2000 when I came to Iowa on vacation and wound up getting sorta adopted by the nice lady who ain't yet kicked my useless arse outa her home. But Everywhere I turn lately, it's seems like "the force" is tryinnuh pull me back in! Neil Sherman 212 N Main, PO Box 108 Onslow, IA 52321

Jump to:
 
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  

CheaperThanDirtForums