Constructive Possession Question

[TurboChrisB]

So I've seen comments regarding NOT running a M16 trigger group or and/or selector in a AR15....usually stating that it shouldn't be done because of the possibility of being convicted by a prosecutor using the "constructive possession" argument.

Has this ever actually been successfully done? Or is this based mostly on the theory that it could be? I searched and I've been unable actually find any references to cases where someone has. Obviously, ultimately the weapon is either capable of full auto or it isn't. And without that lightening link or DIAS...it's NOT. Of course then you also see comments about how the BATF will mess with a suspect weapon till they "make" it able to fire full auto...not sure I believe that's actually occurring...

And yes I understand all the possible ramifications of doing that to a AR, the possible legal cost associated with just not getting convicted if someone were caught doing that...I'm NOT looking for a lecture or being told the obvious risks..I've not done this to any of my AR's...Back in the day, I had a friend out of state with a registered DIAS...when I'd visit I had a AR with M16 bolt, trigger group and selector and it was cool to swap it into my AR and shoot full auto. That weapon is long gone....but until joining Calguns I'd never heard of constructive possession.

Just curious and looking for the facts.

Thanks in Advance.

[ke6guj]

look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olofson

M16 FCG in an AR-15 , no DIAS or LL, convicted of transfering an MG.

[Cato]

look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olofson

M16 FCG in an AR-15 , no DIAS or LL, convicted of transfering an MG.

Wow, I never heard of the Olofson case. That otherwise law abiding guy is doing hard time for having a malfunctioning firearm. Why is the gov't so strict when it comes to machine guns?

[TurboChrisB]

Interesting case...but I think it can be assumed that someone was able to duplicate the "malfunction" in a controlled setting to obtain a conviction. And just having a M16 trigger group or selector is not going to cause an otherwise normal AR to fire full auto. I'm curious as to whether anyone with a normally functioning semi auto has been prosecuted or an attempt to prosecute for having otherwise legal full auto parts (sans the LL or DIAS)

[HK Dave]

look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Olofson

M16 FCG in an AR-15 , no DIAS or LL, convicted of transfering an MG.

That is some B*LLSH*T

[ke6guj]

Interesting case...but I think it can be assumed that someone was able to duplicate the "malfunction" in a controlled setting to obtain a conviction. And just having a M16 trigger group or selector is not going to cause an otherwise normal AR to fire full auto. I'm curious as to whether anyone with a normally functioning semi auto has been prosecuted or an attempt to prosecute for having otherwise legal full auto parts (sans the LL or DIAS)

it didn't malfuction the first time that ATF tested it so they did it again with different ammo (most likely with softer primers like pistol primers) and got it to slamfire. If you have a soft enough primer, it will go off with a hammer follow.

[Cyc Wid It]

Wasn't it something closer to "hey, you know, when these parts are worn down we can make it go full auto. Let's try and duplicate this effect. Remember if anybody asks, they are malfunctioning old worn down parts."

[ke6guj]

Wow, I never heard of the Olofson case. That otherwise law abiding guy is doing hard time for having a malfunctioning firearm.

actually, he was convicted of transfering that malfunctioning firearm. The .gov witness said that Olafson knew that it would slamfire if put in the full-auto position but lent it to the guy anyways. Who in their right mind lends someone a malfunctioning firearm?

[G1500]

Remind me never to go shooting at a place called "The Conservation Club".

[dieselpower]

Wow, I never heard of the Olofson case. That otherwise law abiding guy is doing hard time for having a malfunctioning firearm. Why is the gov't so strict when it comes to machine guns?

Interesting case...but I think it can be assumed that someone was able to duplicate the "malfunction" in a controlled setting to obtain a conviction. And just having a M16 trigger group or selector is not going to cause an otherwise normal AR to fire full auto. I'm curious as to whether anyone with a normally functioning semi auto has been prosecuted or an attempt to prosecute for having otherwise legal full auto parts (sans the LL or DIAS)

That is some B*LLSH*T

it didn't malfuction the first time that ATF tested it so they did it again with different ammo (most likely with softer primers like pistol primers) and got it to slamfire. If you have a soft enough primer, it will go off with a hammer follow.

actually, he was convicted of transfering that malfunctioning firearm. The .gov witness said that Olafson knew that it would slamfire if put in the full-auto position but lent it to the guy anyways. Who in their right mind lends someone a malfunctioning firearm?

He knew the firearm was firing burst. He shaved components, installed select fire M16 components and "adjusted" the firearm to fire burst when the selector was moved to an unlabeled position (where an M16 would say auto or burst). Dont give me this "malfunction" poop. People have posted the actual court transcript and the technicians findings. We just had a thread on this. I actually forgot all the details, then reread the case file again. He was in violation, clear as day.

Now on a side note for the record, I feel the law is unconstitutional, as are laws banning felons from owning firearms..if they are dangerous people, they need to be killed or in jail, not free. And if they are in the public, they have the right to self defense as anyone else.

[Bolt2Bounce]

I think possession of an Ar-15 and M-16 parts is what they have convicted many people of in the past, I would not have or possess any m-16 parts if you own a Ar-15 type rifle..not worth it.. if you want to fire full auto go to Vegas or knob creek and rent a MG for the day. Now the carrier may be the exception.. I think colt was selling factory rifles with the m16 carriers..as it adds weight to the bolt group and cycles better with Hot nato 556 ammo.. Atf has convicted many people with duck tape, high primers, JB weld, shoe laces and broken parts..they don't play around, and if they decide to roll you up, your gonna get 1) sent to federal prison 2) bankrupted with legal fees, or both..even when you win you loose..they have unlimited resources..you do not, even if your rich.. B2B

[TurboChrisB]

Thanks, but "I think" doesn't cut it. I think NOBODY has been convicted of anything because they had M16 parts (Again...sans LL or DIAS or a sear hole) in there AR15. But I'm looking for FACTS not conjecture, please. On its face it would NOT be illegal. So my question from my original post still stands.

[AJAX22]

Thanks, but "I think" doesn't cut it. I think NOBODY has been convicted of anything because they had M16 parts (Again...sans LL or DIAS or a sear hole) in there AR15. But I'm looking for FACTS not conjecture, please. On its face it would NOT be illegal. So my question from my original post still stands.

I read at least one case where a guy was popped for M16 parts possessed (but not installed) in conjunction with an AR15 rifle....

I'll see if I can find it.

[TurboChrisB]

Thanks that's exactly what I've been trying to find (unsucessfully)

[dieselpower]

Thanks, but "I think" doesn't cut it. I think NOBODY has been convicted of anything because they had M16 parts (Again...sans LL or DIAS or a sear hole) in there AR15. But I'm looking for FACTS not conjecture, please. On its face it would NOT be illegal. So my question from my original post still stands.

So, your opinion that it is NOT illegal is based on what? because no one who saw and then responded to you post here could give you a link to a legal case .

So let me get this straight... two mall ninjas, a couple ex-serviceman, a couple high school kids and several gun nuts who shoot long range bolt guns are the be-all end-all legal team in your mind and since they cant prove the BATFE has laws against select-fire parts in semiauto firearm...you say its not illegal...

dude...

1) Ownership of a NFA controlled part is only legal with BATFE permission after filling out the proper paperwork and paying the tax. (DIAS, Auto sear assembly, 3rd hole lower, Silencer)

2) Some parts are legal to own by themselves, but having a group of parts that turns a semiauto firearm into a machine gun is against NFA/local laws. (Trigger, hammer, disconnector...)

3) Some parts are common in an industry and if used in a way that converts a semiauto firearm into a machine gun is against NFA/ local laws. (shoestring, rubberband, trigger activator...)

4) Some parts are legal to own, EXCEPT when you also have in your possession a semiautomatic firearm, and those parts can be used to convert it into a machine gun...even if the parts are not BEING used at that time. (registered M16 + an AR15..you can not then own a second set of select fire parts. You must first sell the AR15 to legally store spare/extra parts for your legally owned M16)

If you dont believe any of this...hire a lawyer to explain it to you. They will say the same thing. Just because the few of us responding to you can not link to a case, doesnt mean its really legal to own a select fire FCG.