Quote Originally Posted by ExecDirector View Post
There's a significant amount of contention involved. ATF says that some M2's are MG's. M2 and M1 receivers are identical. But Congress defined the full auto parts as the MG. Contention. Can the contention be resolved? That's what we are looking at.
ExecDirector,

I read through your post again, and am curious about two of your statements.

1. "ATF says that some M2's are MG's." - ATF considers all M2 marked Carbines as machine guns. ATF says "Carbine receivers marked M-2 are machine guns, even though they may only be capable of semiautomatic fire." The preceding may be seen at the following link:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearm...arms-section-1

2. "But Congress defined the full auto parts as the MG." I do not think this was specifically addressed in legislation. In my understanding, it is an ATF regulation. If M2's were specifically addressed by Congress, could you please cite the code reference? It would be helpful, because that would mean that the effort would require a completely different approach.

The contention, in my opinion, involves the various ways in which an M1 or M2 Carbine may be considered a machine gun, as per the list in my previous post.

Thanks!

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com