It Is Past Time For An Update On The Tenko
- Thread starter A&S Conversions
- Start date
UZI Talk Life Member
Esox
Well-known member
I hate to keep reminding people about this, but the only organization that can actually determine whether the Tenko adapter is a machinegun (or not) is a court of law...not the BATFE. The BATFE only provides guidance towards prosecution for the Department of Justice. If the BATFE wanted, they could easily recommend to the DoJ that all semi-automatic firearms are machineguns via the ill-defined "...or can be readily restored to shoot" wording in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), which is subject to interpretation. A court determination can be a very expensive determination and potentially jeopardizes more than what was initially litigated.
If you poke the bear, the bear gets mad. I can understand how the BATFE could get irritated with so many submissions for 'accessories' that are clearly intended to skirt the intention of the machinegun and SBR portions of the NFA...not to mention outright adversarial submissions for dildo bumpstocks, etc. The relationship between gun owners and the BATFE is broken.
I am in no way suggesting that bumpstocks, binary/resetting triggers, and braces are bad in principle. However, IMHO, the relentless pursuit of these 'accessories' has created an environment where legitimate accessories for NFA transferable machineguns, such as the Tenko, suffer collateral damage by being scrutinized much greater than before. Sadly, this unintended consequence has the potential to extend to all semi-automatic firearms as well. We all should stop poking the bear and turn our energy towards educating the general public about firearms in a positive way. Perhaps this could even lead to the eventual repeal of the NFA (or portions of it). If some factions keep going hyperbolic against the BATFE, we ALL are likely to lose out in the end. Only 32% of Americans own guns...a smaller percentage of those care about 2nd amendment rights, and only a tiny percent care or even knows about the NFA.
v/r,
Esox
If you poke the bear, the bear gets mad. I can understand how the BATFE could get irritated with so many submissions for 'accessories' that are clearly intended to skirt the intention of the machinegun and SBR portions of the NFA...not to mention outright adversarial submissions for dildo bumpstocks, etc. The relationship between gun owners and the BATFE is broken.
I am in no way suggesting that bumpstocks, binary/resetting triggers, and braces are bad in principle. However, IMHO, the relentless pursuit of these 'accessories' has created an environment where legitimate accessories for NFA transferable machineguns, such as the Tenko, suffer collateral damage by being scrutinized much greater than before. Sadly, this unintended consequence has the potential to extend to all semi-automatic firearms as well. We all should stop poking the bear and turn our energy towards educating the general public about firearms in a positive way. Perhaps this could even lead to the eventual repeal of the NFA (or portions of it). If some factions keep going hyperbolic against the BATFE, we ALL are likely to lose out in the end. Only 32% of Americans own guns...a smaller percentage of those care about 2nd amendment rights, and only a tiny percent care or even knows about the NFA.
v/r,
Esox
Lets not validate or rationalize the ATF's reprehensible actions. They created this environment. They are the ones who attempt to ruin people's lives because they can't figure out how a measuring tape works(twice), sell weapons directly to drug cartels, or pose for "triumphant kill" photos on the smoldering ash of 76 people including 20 children.
And here we are, yet again, potentially ruining the life of a small business owner because they are unable to be reasonable and consistent.
I agree and disagree. The ATF is a political office and has been for some time. Their actions have lost the trust and respect of the 2A community much like those of the FBI have turned an organization that once had an OK reputation into one that is ridden with garbage.
There is no validation or rationalization for their actions. Without the ATFs illegal actions, even the NFA its self is very very questionable legally, we would not have bumpfire stocks, binary triggers, tacsacs (great gift to go on a buddies rifle at his bachelor party btw) or other nonsense at the levels we do today. People do it because they hate the ATF and want to poke fun at them. They are incompetent as are their contractors that process forms for them.
Not sure where you get this 32% from. Got a source? 90% of gun owners I've met wouldn't tell you if they oned a gun or not even if you met them at the range!
With things like bumpfire stocks, SBRs and suppressors becoming much more popular more and more gun owners know about the NFA. I rarely meet someone anymore that is suprised by a suppressor or an SBR that's an AR.
What you suggest is to allow them to abuse their illusion of power (congress makes the rules, not the ATF) and people like Scott should just drop their case, loose money and stop inventing.
Hell No! Keep going people! Keep coming up with new ideas! Keep furthering the 2A! While folks like Scott have a very small market his product is a huge step in our small niche. What if his next idea isn't just in our niche and you just want him to give up?
Give em hell, Scott!
Esox
Well-known member
So it's accurate because they interviewed 0.0003125% of the US population? Gallup also has been known for faulty data in the past.
The safety harbor (I think that's the name) 50BMG uppers were recently declared firearms. The shenanigans continues!
Polls are as irrelevant as the day is long. It doesn't matter whether 1% support gun rights or 99% support gun rights. The law is the law. The ATF should follow it and nothing more. Anything beyond that is simply abuse of power. Coddling them and/or telling us that we must cower in fear to their abuses only emboldens them to go further beyond the law.
Esox
Well-known member
My point is that there is significant potential fallout from the interpretation of "can be readily restored to shoot" in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).
All a lawyer would need to do is pull out a cordless drill with an 1/8" bit in a courtroom and convert an AR-15 lower into an M16 lower in front of a jury (or SCOTUS) in less than 5 minutes and things could take a drastic turn for the worse for all of us.
Not to mention interpretation of "The frame or receiver of any such weapon" ...upper receiver, lower reciever, or both? There is no legal definition of a receiver. Nearly all AR-15 upper recievers will work on an M16.
If bumpstocks and binary triggers were around in the 1930s, the NFA would have surely been written to include those items as well. They were specifically designed as a legal loophole around the relatively clearer "by a single function of the trigger." portion of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Don't lie to yourself to think otherwise.
My advice is that when you start playing with legal loopholes to get what you want, that same rationale can be used against you. In the examples pointed out above I'm certain most people would prefer to keep their AR-15 versus a bumpstock. If you don't like the NFA, then garner public support to have the law changed or repealed...don't try to find and exploit a legal loophole to get around it; because as currently written, further legal interpretation strongly favors potential for MORE restrictive legal precedent.
It will be an uphill battle. The fact is that while many (hopefuly most) Americans support the 2nd ammendment, many of these same people would be against making machinegun ownership less restrictive. In fact, many would probably be shocked to find out that they can be legally owned today. Public sentiment is probably not on our side. This country is much larger and much more diverse than our little NFA forums.
All a lawyer would need to do is pull out a cordless drill with an 1/8" bit in a courtroom and convert an AR-15 lower into an M16 lower in front of a jury (or SCOTUS) in less than 5 minutes and things could take a drastic turn for the worse for all of us.
Not to mention interpretation of "The frame or receiver of any such weapon" ...upper receiver, lower reciever, or both? There is no legal definition of a receiver. Nearly all AR-15 upper recievers will work on an M16.
If bumpstocks and binary triggers were around in the 1930s, the NFA would have surely been written to include those items as well. They were specifically designed as a legal loophole around the relatively clearer "by a single function of the trigger." portion of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Don't lie to yourself to think otherwise.
My advice is that when you start playing with legal loopholes to get what you want, that same rationale can be used against you. In the examples pointed out above I'm certain most people would prefer to keep their AR-15 versus a bumpstock. If you don't like the NFA, then garner public support to have the law changed or repealed...don't try to find and exploit a legal loophole to get around it; because as currently written, further legal interpretation strongly favors potential for MORE restrictive legal precedent.
It will be an uphill battle. The fact is that while many (hopefuly most) Americans support the 2nd ammendment, many of these same people would be against making machinegun ownership less restrictive. In fact, many would probably be shocked to find out that they can be legally owned today. Public sentiment is probably not on our side. This country is much larger and much more diverse than our little NFA forums.
Esox
Well-known member
I can understand if you don't like the NFA (I don't either). But if you feel that the BATFE Firearms Technology Division is not following the law, then please provide a specific example of it. It's likely that your grievance will be associated with the interpretation of "readily restored" or "receiver"...which only a court can decide.
A&S Conversions
UZI Talk Life Member
This project currently represents half my net worth. I am 61. I don't have 25 or 30 years of working life to earn that money back for retirement.
The NFA specific lawyer we hired to represent us in this matter (because even as a 07 Title I manufacture the FATD would not respond to my phone calls or emails) has given me a "ballpark " figure of $100,000.00 and two years to sue them. The lawyer feels, especially in the current political climate, that there is a good chance we could lose the lawsuit, even though the FATD has admitted that they supposedly didn't fire the original 3D printed submission.
A&S Conversions
UZI Talk Life Member
Certainly the current administration would love that. But that would mean that it would require two regulated parts to make one function firearm. I don't know as current law would support that. Further, as conservative as the current Supreme Court is, I would not think that such a change in the interpretation of the law would be constitutional without a change in the law.
No I don't think so. My understanding is that the second determination reversed the first determination of the adapter. So that too is a machinegun.
Scott
Manager A&S Conversions L.L.C.
Last edited:
Gaujo
UZI Talk Supporter
Sorry to say I agreed with Esox. These loop hole devices are bad for us. If the tenco were to go the 80% route they would be in the same boat, rousing the ire of the ATF and probably dooming his chances as an NFA accessory maker in the future. He's either got to redesign or cut bait.
While I don’t have anything substantive to add to this disheartening/enlightening conversation, I’m wondering if there is a GoFundMe or similar crowdfunding effort for Scott’s (potential) legal defenses. Surely, a $100k would be doable...
Well it takes more than just drilling a 3rd hole to fit an auto sear into a lower. The more useful demonstration would be them setting up a 3d printer and printing a swift link while the case is displayed and by the end of the morning you've got a drop in auto sear. Or even better how about just taking a close hanger and bending it into an auto sear. At some point there needs to be clear lines on what legal and not and there should be no further determination. If it meets these standards it's fine otherwise it's not.
A&S Conversions
UZI Talk Life Member
Thank you so very much for the sentiment, but I don't think that this would be the best time for this. Our first submission was not designed to make it difficult to "convert". Since we got a positive determination we didn't try to change the design? After the Slidefire debacle apparently the world came down to not let anything pass. So we are changing the design to make it much more difficult to "convert ".
$10,000.00 would be hard enough to raise. I would think $100,000.00 would be next to impossible. This is a very small community. That is a lot of money. I really appreciate the sentiment though.
Just to be clear, there are semi automatic AR lowers available to the public that have been opened up to M16 receiver specs that only lack the auto sear hole. Like https://strategicprecisiondefense.com/lower-receivers-1/ols/products/m16-cut-ar-15-lower-receiver if you are interested.
Scott
Manager A&S Conversions L.L.C.
Last edited:
DoubleStamper
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 12
This is just a dumb idea, not en engineer, but if their issue is that it runs with a nail and a vice and a piece of angle iron, is there a way to make it non-functional without using one of the other holes on a M10 lower?
Some of the other members here could attempt to contact some of our senators as well and get some pressure on.
Some of the other members here could attempt to contact some of our senators as well and get some pressure on.
- Status
Please Visit our Sister Sites Below
Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter