XD Prefix M2 Carbines - Considering ATF Request to Remove from NFA Status

[ExecDirector]

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.

[RenegadeConservative]

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.

When I first read your previous post, I thought maybe it had something to do with transferable M2 kits.

There is some debate in the Carbine community about the status of registered trigger packs. Some people claim that the registered M2 trigger housings put out by Fleming, Norrell and others were improperly registered (because they weren't one of the seven full auto parts exclusive to the M2 Carbine) and thus contraband. Others say these kits are in a legal gray area. Still others say that there is nothing to be concerned about. The debate doesn't appear to be going away. I suppose that one day, somebody will ask the ATF flat out what the story is with these registered packs.

[dalbert]

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