Q: When is a gun a machine gun?
Kwan legally owns more than 100 pristine and historical machine guns. But during a search of Kwan’s home in January 2005, agents found one – an M-14 – that they said was illegal.
Kwan’s attorneys argue that the M-14 in question required substantial modification by federal agents – including use of a rotary tool with a cutting wheel and the installation of new parts – before it could be fired automatically. Therefore it didn’t meet the legal definition of a machine gun, they argued.
A: Whenever they say it is.
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
100 machine guns? Damn. Well… at least he probably has money to afford a pretty good lawyer 🙂
I just hope the feds don’t end up melting those beauties down.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:31 pm
The amazing thing is…MGs were only legal in WA state from 91-94. State AG in 1991 revised the interpretation of the law on the books at the time to allow MGs, then the Leg. changed the law in 1994, but MGs legally acquired between those dates are grandfathered.
So this guy managed to get himself 100 machineguns within a 3 year span. Dayum.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:32 pm
HL, maybe not. He may be a dealer.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
One good thing: Bellevue is represented by the only GOP Congressman in the western half of WA-Dave Reichert.
Niether of our current Senators (Murray, Cantwell) would have any interest in reigning in the ATF. But Reichert might.
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:46 pm
RCW (9.41.190)doesn’t make exceptions for dealers, only manufacture, repair, or testing.
So unless he’s one of those, he had to have bought them all before July 1, 1994.
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
This sucks, I hope he gets off.
What pisses me off is that the ATF turning his M14 into a machine gun is obviously (to gun people) an attempt to railroad him, but suing the federal government for it is going to be almost impossible.
One interesting side note is that the rifling of the makarov barrel must have been fairly unique for them to have traced it back to that one supplier.
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
If you are a gun owner laws that protect individuals don’t apply to you. If you plead the 5th that can be used against you.
Also of interest is that the law that says MG are illegal in Washington was declared unconstitional (WA State constitution) in one WA county but the prosecutor, who was going to appeal it, was besiged by the other prosecutors in the state saying that if he appealed it the law might be overturned by the Supreme Court and “spoil things” (my phrasing) for all the counties in the state. It was decided it was better for the one guy to get off and confine the “damage” to WA State law to just that one county.
WA State law aside, it sounds like the Feds are doing the prosecuting so it must be that it’s an “illegal machinegun” because it wasn’t registered or it was a post ’86 gun. Never mind that had he tried to register it the ATF probably would have refused because it wasn’t a MG–until they wanted it to be a MG. Hmmmm…. I wonder if anyone else has a gun they could try and register or has tried register? That might be a defense for him…
October 24th, 2006 at 4:17 am
HL, my prediction is that Reichert will have absolutely no interest in reigning in anyone at the ATF.
Throughout his entire tenure as Sheriff, not one single civilian application filed from within his jurisdiction for an “Any Other Weapon” shotgun or rifle or a suppressor was approved. The favorite method at that time was to round file the app and claim it lost. Without approval from the constabulary authority in which the item will reside, no ATF application will be approved.
Reichert is OK with “regular” firearms, but the rest, in his apparent opinion, are for “Police Use Only”.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Then he should fit in with the fine with the rest of congress. Can he do the congressonal hearing dog and pony show? After all, he has to look tough, act concerned, and pretend to be outraged while not actually reigning in, firing, cutting the budget or reducing any of the powers of the agency in question.
The voters must see that congress is “doing something”.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Since this is an ATF Federal case, it is not a state issue. ALL legal machine guns must have been registered BEFORE November of 1968, and any domestic manufactured machine guns must have been registered before May of 1986. These weapons have “titles” with them, either they are registered, or they are felonies, your only two choices. NO MACHINE GUN IN ANY CONDITION CAN BE REGISTERED AFTER 1986. Its very simple. If the M-14 in question was not registered, he goes to jail, if it is, its one of a very few original M-14s that were registered, and in the civilian market. If the weapon inquestion was a semi-auto, there is no crime, UNLESS the owner made ANY attempt to modify the receiver to accept full auto parts. I own over 100 REGISTERED machine guns, (including a registered M-14) have been a collectgor for over 30 years. Registered mgs increase in value about 15-20 % per year, year after year. See http://www.sturmgewehr.com for more accurate information. In most states, any non-felon, non-dealer can own a legal registered mg. Google machine gun values, there is a web page that tracks the values of registered mgs. MY 1/2 cents worth., bob
October 27th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
bob, trouble is it’s not capable of full auto fire. it’s a semi-auto.