PDA

View Full Version : Does CADOJ really care about AR-15 bolt carriers?


BT JUSTICE
10-19-2009, 12:13 PM
Lately I've heard some buzz among semi-informed law enforcement types about CA legal AR bolt carriers. I haven't seen any factual information about this and I'd be surprised if CADOJ even knew one variety of AR bolt carrier from the next.

If one were to buy an OLL and a parts kit and put together a CA compliant rifle, how do they know which bolt carrier to use to avoid issues? Or is this all FUD? I can understand the concern about using machine gun parts, and I suspect that there is a technical difference between full auto and semi auto bolt carriers, but as long as the completed rifle only goes "bang" once per trigger pull, who cares? Your thoughts....?

troysland
10-19-2009, 12:22 PM
Hi there, first time, long time. My understanding is that the Bolt Carrier Group functions the same way whether it's a Fully Automatic or Semi-Automatic. The firing mechanism in the Lower receiver will determine the One "bang" per trigger pull or more than on "bang" per trigger pull.

Top: Normal AR-15 Carrier
Middle: Colt "SP1" style Carrier
Bottom: M-16 Carrier (Full Auto)

http://www.quarterbore.com/images/ar15_sp1_m16carriers_sm_small.jpg

Mute
10-19-2009, 12:28 PM
Bolt carriers are not the issue when it comes to NFA parts. It's the fire control group items you need to avoid.

bwiese
10-19-2009, 12:55 PM
It's FUD.

Many people that own Colt reg'd AWs have M16 bolt carriers. Some ARs are even shipped that way.

DOJ could, if they wanted to, traverse their way thru the Colt (and a few other) make/models of reg'd AW - since they have reg'd detals and serial #s - and kick folks' doors down if they wanted to try that.

I have a couple of M16 bolt carriers in my ARs (reg'd AWs).

Also, the M16 BC is not sufficient to trigger FA status. FA operation can also occur even without an M16 bolt carrier.

I'm not worried about it, and I'm amongst the more paranoid here on details.

DOJ - PLEASE ARREST ME. CALL DON KILMER BEFORE YOU KICK MY DOOR DOWN SO THE KITTIES DON'T GET LOOSE (they are not street-wise).

Dr Rockso
10-19-2009, 1:00 PM
I know this is federal and not state, but below is a letter the ATF sent to Colt about using M16 BCGs in their semi-auto rifles. Basically the first several paragraphs are legalese for "we don't know how an AR-15 works" and the bolded paragraph is the important part. If the CA DOJ has a problem with M16 BCGs I haven't heard about it.

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
Firearms and Explosives

903050:RV
3311/2005-167
www.atf.gov

Legal Department

Mr. Carlton S. Chen
Colt Defense LLC
547 New Park Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06110

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reference to your most recent facsimile transmitted to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), on January 13, 2005. In your faxed letter, you seek clarification regarding the use of M16 machinegun bolt carriers in AR-15 type weapons.

As you are aware, since your provision of copies of relevant material in your previous faxes, ATF has previously addressed the use of M16 machinegun fire-control components in AR-15 type rifles in the General Information section of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (ATF P 5300.4). (Please refer to page 115, item #3, €œImportant Information Concerning AR-15 Type Rifles.€)

However, we would like to direct your attention to a particular paragraph of item #3, which states the following:

In order to avoid violations of the NFA, M16 hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors and bolt carriers must not be used in assembly of AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles, unless the M16 parts have been modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration. Any AR-15 type rifles which have been assembled with M16 internal components should have those parts removed and replaced with AR-15 Model SP1 type parts which are available commercially. The M16 components also may be modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration.

Accordingly, based on previous FTB recommendations not to install this bolt carrier and the conclusions presented in the passage cited above, our Branch cannot specifically authorize you to install an M16 bolt carrier into an AR15 rifle. Also, we cannot definitively tell you that installing an M16 bolt carrier in an AR 15 will make that firearm fire automatically.

We can only inform you that if this installation were to create a firearm that fires automatically, it would be a machinegun as defined; conversely, if it did not result in the production of a weapon that shoots automatically, it would be lawful to posses and make.

We thank you for your inquiry and trust the foregoing has been responsive.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Sterling Nixon
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

gun toting monkeyboy
10-19-2009, 1:03 PM
As they have said, the BC doesn't mean squat. You can have full auto M16 bolt carriers in all of your guns. Without the FA trigger group in the lower receiver, it works exactly the same as a regular AR BC. If it makes you feel better, you can avoid them. But you really don't need to. Some people actually prefer them for AR pistols and carbines because the little bit of extra mass seems to help some guns cycle properly.

-Mb

SgtDinosaur
10-19-2009, 1:30 PM
One of my uppers (Colt) has one. The only difference I can see is that it's heavier. That AR functions the same as the others.

-hanko
10-19-2009, 2:16 PM
Lately I've heard some buzz among semi-informed law enforcement types about CA legal AR bolt carriers. I haven't seen any factual information about this and I'd be surprised if CADOJ even knew one variety of AR bolt carrier from the next.

If one were to buy an OLL and a parts kit and put together a CA compliant rifle, how do they know which bolt carrier to use to avoid issues?

Your thoughts....?
:sleeping:
My thoughts??

One, the law enforcement types are not informed; whatsoever.

Two, they should stfu unless they know (and they're responsible to know) the law.

Three, there are no issues to avoid.

-hanko

Sniper3142
10-19-2009, 5:22 PM
I have a couple of FA BCGs from LMT in my ARs.

No worries at all.

And this line really cracks me up...

"Lately I've heard some buzz among semi-informed law enforcement types... "

Some of the WORSE sources for actual Legal information are LE types.

B Strong
10-19-2009, 5:46 PM
Lately I've heard some buzz among semi-informed law enforcement types about CA legal AR bolt carriers. I haven't seen any factual information about this and I'd be surprised if CADOJ even knew one variety of AR bolt carrier from the next.

If one were to buy an OLL and a parts kit and put together a CA compliant rifle, how do they know which bolt carrier to use to avoid issues? Or is this all FUD? I can understand the concern about using machine gun parts, and I suspect that there is a technical difference between full auto and semi auto bolt carriers, but as long as the completed rifle only goes "bang" once per trigger pull, who cares? Your thoughts....?

BT - not only is it FUD, I doubt that the standard issue DOJ BOF employee would be able to tell the difference between BCG's that were unlabled.

Considering that Iggy claimed in court that the trigger housing for a 9-series HK was the "receiver" of the rifle, I doubt they come much better informed than that.

bwiese
10-19-2009, 7:02 PM
BT - not only is it FUD, I doubt that the standard issue DOJ BOF
employee would be able to tell the difference between BCG's that
were unlabled.

Agreed, regardless that it's irrelevant.


Considering that Iggy claimed in court that the trigger housing for
a 9-series HK was the "receiver" of the rifle, I doubt they come
much better informed than that.

Please understand that Iggy was amonsgt their better informed.

We had poor Brent George of DOJ wrapped around a tree by Oaklander in matters of pistols vs rifles vs SBRs and Roster issues that even quite a few raw noob Calgunners understand. When he found out that Oaklander was an attorney he clammed up, said he couldn't talk to lawyers, and went back to hide in his bat-cave.

One of the problems of the DOJ BoF folks is less that they know/ understand details of gun laws - they just don't know crap about guns and their variations.

garandguy10
10-19-2009, 10:56 PM
Was that case with Iggy testifying that HK9 series trigger housings were receivers involving a gentleman from Dublin Ca, that ran a gun store there at one time? Was that gentlemen not arrested after selling some select fire HK trigger housing assemblies to DOJ types at a Pomona gun show many years ago? if so, how did that all turn out? and was there ever any type of successful civil suit brought against the DOJ?

bwiese
10-19-2009, 11:01 PM
Was that gentlemen not arrested after selling some select fire HK trigger housing assemblies to DOJ types at a Pomona gun show many years ago? if so, how did that all turn out? and was there ever any type of successful civil suit brought against the DOJ?

That's One Eyed Jack from Reno, NV.

He turned out fine, we got some juicy testimony on the record proving DOJ and Iggy are, in general, idiots and that Iggy doesn't know "apples from oranges", etc.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-20-2009, 1:39 AM
That's One Eyed Jack from Reno, NV.

He turned out fine, we got some juicy testimony on the record proving DOJ and Iggy are, in general, idiots and that Iggy doesn't know "apples from oranges", etc.

One day CGN will have to publish a "books on tape" version for sale...

dwtt
10-20-2009, 2:27 PM
DOJ - PLEASE ARREST ME. CALL DON KILMER BEFORE YOU KICK MY DOOR DOWN SO THE KITTIES DON'T GET LOOSE (they are not street-wise).
I have a feeling DOJ would rather go visit Rob Blank again than to arrest Bill. They would lose less.

falawful
10-20-2009, 7:14 PM
Blackrazor is correct.

Also bear in mind that every HK type rifle, FAL type rifle, M14 type rifle, and probably many others ALL have 'auto' carriers..... AND fire control parts.

ATF gets pissy when you have the AR bolt carrier AND fire control parts. Not sure they can really convict you on that one, but who would want to go through that.

I'd not worry about the bolt carrier but I'd avoid the fire control parts personally....

artherd
10-21-2009, 1:41 AM
Cops are not lawyers - There is no DOJ issue with M-16 BCGs.

I have a feeling DOJ would rather go visit Rob Blank again than to arrest Bill. They would lose less.

I (and the United States District Court) can assure you that they want no part of bothering Mr. Blank ever again :D :D :D

The DRis
10-21-2009, 4:36 PM
The difference between a "FA" aka M16 and a "SA" aka AR15 BCG's is weight. The FA is heavier due to more metal on the backside. If you have both compare them side by side. The reason for being heavier is to increase the locktime in Full Auto fire. National Match BCG's such as Young's are even heavier. That is the only difference between the names, is weight.

oaklander
10-21-2009, 4:44 PM
We had poor Brent George of DOJ wrapped around a tree by Oaklander in matters of pistols vs rifles vs SBRs and Roster issues that even quite a few raw noob Calgunners understand. When he found out that Oaklander was an attorney he clammed up, said he couldn't talk to lawyers, and went back to hide in his bat-cave.

That was CLASSIC. . .

Brent George <Brent.George@doj.ca.gov>
to [Oaklander]
date Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM
subject RE: pistol followup

6/26/08

Mr. [Oaklander],

This is in response to your recent correspondence to the Bureau of Firearms, regarding your "single-shot pistol that I built from an 80 percent receiver" (your words). You did not identify yourself as an attorney when asking the Bureau of Firearms for information. Unfortunately, all specific inquiries from attorneys must be submitted to the Department of Justice Public Inquiry Unit. You may contact the Public Inquiry Unit at (916) 324 - 5500 for further assistance. Bear in mind that the Bureau of Firearms cannot offer you legal advice, legal opinions, or legal interpretations.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Brent George
Staff Services Analyst
California Department of Justice
Bureau of Firearms
Training, Information, and Compliance Section

(916) 263 - 4868

IN THEIR FACE!

http://i37.tinypic.com/28ludjs.jpg

dwtt
10-21-2009, 7:53 PM
I (and the United States District Court) can assure you that they want no part of bothering Mr. Blank ever again :D :D :D

Isn't it great when they shoot themselves in the foot? :)