🚀 go-pugleaf

(Apologies if this shows up twice;  something was weird with Panix
the other day when I mailed this, so I'm not sure it went out.)

Can anyone enlighten me (et alia :-) on what criteria the BATF uses to
classify a gun as "readily convertible" to full-auto?  The Sten gun (or
at least one variant of it, the Mk.II) and the Mac-10 open-bolt version
are apparently always considered to be full-auto guns no matter whether
a specific instance is set up as semiauto-only or as a real full-auto SMG.

If I'm wrong about the purpose of the BATF rulings on this subject, I'd
appreciate hearing that, too.  (The rulings, to me, seem to imply that
these guns have been corralled into falling under the NFA restrictions.)
 
In particular, if a rifle is not even a SEMIauto, can BATF claim that it
violates the NFA?  (American Rifleman had an article a while back, which
mentioned that Australia converted some Enfields to full-auto, and also
that someone (John Browning?) had converted a lever-action to full-auto.)

			Curiously,

			-- Michael.

[MODERATOR:  Reminder, let's keep it technical here.  Editorials or
discussion on motivation or merit of ATF rulings should go to the usual
Alternate Places... thanks.]