Machine Gun/Auto-Sear Calculator
Calculate sentencing for machine gun possession or conversion devices.
Need Help Understanding Your Sentencing Range?
Our federal defense attorneys have decades of experience navigating the federal sentencing guidelines.
Call (212) 300-5196Get Personalized Legal Guidance
Our attorneys can analyze your specific situation and identify strategies to reduce your sentence.
Machine Gun/Auto-Sear – What You Need to Know
Federal firearms charges carry some of the harshest penalties in the entire federal system. Calculate sentencing for machine gun possession or conversion devices.
If you’re facing firearms charges, here’s what you need to understand: 18 USC §924(c) imposes mandatory consecutive sentences – 5 years for possession, 7 for brandishing, 10 for discharge – and these sentences run on top of any other sentence. A second §924(c) conviction carries 25 years to life. This is serious. But there are defenses, there are arguments, and there are strategies that an experienced federal defense attorney can use to fight for a better outcome.
How Federal Firearms Sentencing Works
The first question in any §924(c) case is whether the predicate offense qualifies as a “crime of violence.” After the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. United States (2019), many offenses that previously served as §924(c) predicates no longer qualify. This is a major development – and it means that §924(c) charges can sometimes be challenged and defeated entirely. Many attorneys don’t even raise this argument. We always do.
For felon-in-possession cases under §922(g), the guideline calculation under §2K2.1 depends heavily on your prior convictions. If you have a prior “crime of violence” or “controlled substance offense,” the base offense level jumps significantly. But the definition of these terms has been subject to extensive litigation, and what counts as a qualifying prior varies by circuit. You need an attorney who stays current on this case law – because it changes frequently.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) adds another layer. If you have three qualifying predicate offenses, you face a 15-year mandatory minimum. But qualifying priors are determined using the categorical approach, which requires examining the elements of the prior offense – not the underlying facts. Many convictions that look like they qualify on the surface actually don’t when you apply the correct legal analysis.
What Most People Don’t Realize About Machine Gun/Auto-Sear
The biggest thing people miss in firearms cases is that §924(c) charges are negotiable. The difference between pleading to a §924(c) count and having the firearm reflected only in a guideline enhancement can be the difference between 5+ years of mandatory consecutive time and a 2-level increase. This is where experienced plea negotiation makes all the difference.
For felon-in-possession cases, constructive possession is often more defensible than people realize. The government has to prove you had knowledge, access, and dominion over the firearm. If the gun was found in a shared residence or vehicle, that’s not automatic possession – and a suppression motion challenging the search can sometimes eliminate the evidence entirely.
Why You Need the Right Federal Defense Attorney
Federal firearms cases have mandatory minimums, consecutive sentencing requirements, and guideline calculations that can produce devastating results for defendants who don’t have experienced representation. You need an attorney who understands the post-Davis landscape, knows how to challenge predicate offenses, and can negotiate effectively with federal prosecutors to eliminate or reduce the most damaging charges.
At Federal Lawyers, we have handled every type of federal firearms case – from §924(c) charges to ACCA cases to felon-in-possession to NFA weapons. We know the law, we know the arguments, and we know how to fight for the best possible outcome. If you’re facing federal firearms charges, don’t wait – call us now.
Get Help Now – Risk Free Consultation
If you’re dealing with a situation involving machine gun/auto-sear, you need an attorney who gets it – and has experience handling these exact types of cases. At Federal Lawyers, our criminal defense attorneys have over 50 years of combined experience handling federal cases nationwide. We’ve handled some of the toughest cases in the country, and we’re not afraid to fight for the best possible outcome.
When you reach out to our law firm, the process begins with a risk-free consultation. You can ask us anything, regardless of how long it takes. We are available 24/7 to help you. Call us at (212) 300-5196 – your first consultation is free, and completely confidential.
Disclaimer: This calculator provides estimates based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. It does not constitute legal advice. Federal sentencing involves many factors not captured here – including judicial discretion, cooperation agreements, and individual case circumstances. Always consult with a qualified federal criminal defense attorney.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal framework for machine gun and auto-sear prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)?
Section 922(o) imposes a near-total ban on civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Pre-1986 registered transferable machine guns remain legal but require NFA registration and a $200 tax stamp. "Machine gun" includes any weapon that shoots automatically more than one shot per trigger pull, as well as any part designed solely to convert a weapon to automatic fire — including drop-in auto-sears (DIAS) and forced reset triggers (FRTs). Violations carry up to 10 years. Under USSG § 2K2.1, the base offense level for machine guns is 26, among the highest for firearms offenses. Defense counsel should challenge whether the device actually functions as a machine gun through independent testing, and examine whether the item was registered pre-1986.
How are forced reset triggers (FRTs) and similar devices treated under current ATF enforcement?
The ATF has classified FRTs as machine guns on the theory that the trigger resets and fires faster than a shooter could voluntarily pull the trigger, effectively producing automatic fire. This classification is actively contested — the Fifth Circuit in Cargill v. Garland (vacated, then Supreme Court ruled on bump stocks in Garland v. Cargill, 2024) established that ATF's expansive interpretation exceeds statutory authority when the device requires separate trigger functions. Defense counsel should argue that FRTs require a separate trigger pull for each shot, falling outside § 921(a)(23)'s definition of machine gun. Expert testimony from firearms engineers demonstrating the mechanical distinction between true automatic fire and forced-reset operation is essential. The rapidly evolving regulatory landscape means defense attorneys must monitor ongoing litigation and ATF reclassification actions.
