2A Attorney Explains How Federal Law Defines a “Machinegun” – And Why It Matters for Glock’s New Line

When gun-rights YouTuber and attorney James Reeves posted his follow-up on the surging “Glock V” debate, he wasn’t trying to pour gas on the fire. He was trying to bring case law and statutory text to a comment section that had gone nuclear.

The key takeaway from Reeves, said plainly: under federal law, a Glock pistol isn’t a machinegun; the conversion device is. 

And that distinction isn’t just academic. It goes straight to how states like California are attempting to rewrite definitions – and to why Glock might be adjusting designs for the future.

Let’s walk through Reeves’ legal tour, what the statutes really say, and why it matters in the Glock V moment.

The Question That Sparked A Clarification

Reeves opens with the comment that kicked all this off: “If a Glock is readily convertible with a switch, and readily convertible firearms are machineguns, doesn’t that make Glocks machineguns?”

It’s a sharp question. And it forced a sharper answer.

Reeves realized that in a prior segment he’d flashed the federal definition of “machinegun,” but read aloud California’s language. They are not the same. That difference, he argues, is the whole ballgame.

My two cents: this is a textbook internet trap. We mash legal terms together until they feel interchangeable. They’re not. And with gun law, the exact verbs – restored versus converted – decide criminal liability.

Federal Law: “Readily Restored,” Not “Readily Convertible”

Reeves anchors his analysis in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), the National Firearms Act definition:

• A “machinegun” is a weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically by a single pull of the trigger.
• It also includes any part or combination of parts designed and intended for converting a weapon to full auto.

That second bullet is crucial. Under federal law, the conversion device—like a “Glock switch”—is itself a machinegun. The semi-automatic host pistol is not, unless and until you install the part.

Reeves emphasizes the verb “restored.” It carries a plain-language meaning: brought back to a prior state. To be “readily restored,” a firearm must have been a machinegun at some earlier point or designed for that capability. 

Think: a demilled M14 built for select fire in its first life.

A Glock 17? That pistol wasn’t designed or manufactured as a machinegun. There’s no original full-auto state to “restore.”

That’s the federal baseline.

California’s New Wording: “Readily Convertible”

Here’s where the roads split. Reeves points to California’s recent statute (he cites AB 1127) using “readily convertible” language and even referencing federal law in a way that, he argues, misreads it. 

California’s definition appears to fold in any gun that can be converted to automatic fire – even if it was never automatic to begin with.

To Reeves, that’s a dramatic expansion. It swaps a narrow “return it to what it once was” framework for a far broader “you could make it” framework.

As a matter of drafting, I think Reeves is right to call that out. “Restored” and “converted” do different work in the sentence. If the state wants a more aggressive standard, it should say so openly rather than claim it’s simply mirroring federal law.

And for owners, that single word can mean the difference between a lawful semi-auto pistol sitting in your safe and a felony classification that rides on nothing more than potential.

The Case That Explains “Readily Restored”

Definitions don’t live on paper alone. Courts breathe life into them.

Reeves brings up a 2006 Ninth Circuit case, United States v. One TRW Rifle (M14) – an in rem forfeiture proceeding literally captioned against a rifle. 

The government seized an M14-pattern gun that had been decommissioned and welded into semi-automatic configuration. The legal question: could it be “readily restored” to automatic fire?

The court said yes. Why?

Because the weapon began life as a machinegun, and evidence showed it could be returned to automatic function with about two hours of work and basic tools (down to a stick weld). 

That fit the common-sense meaning of “restored”: brought back to a former or original condition.

Reeves uses this to draw a bright line. An ex-machinegun that can be quickly resurrected? “Readily restored.” A semi-auto that was never full-auto, but can be converted with a separate, illegal device? Under federal law, the device is the machinegun – not the host.

I agree with that reading. It’s consistent with the statute’s structure and how ATF and courts have treated conversion parts for decades.

So Where Does Glock Fit? And What’s With “Glock V”?

Reeves stresses a bottom line that’s getting lost in the noise: a stock Glock is not a machinegun under federal law. The “switch,” “auto sear,” or any device designed and intended to convert it – that is what the federal statute calls a machinegun.

Why does this matter for Glock’s “V”-series chatter? Two reasons.

First, if large states adopt “readily convertible” wording and start insisting that common semi-autos are “machineguns” because black-market switches exist, manufacturers are going to engineer around the argument. 

Expect redesigns to frustrate drop-in devices or make them mechanically incompatible – not because Glock “admitted” anything was a machinegun, but because compliance and risk-reduction are part of doing business in 50 legal environments.

Second, public confusion feeds political momentum. If enough people repeat “Glocks are machineguns,” you will see more proposals to ban models, block sales, or saddle owners with new liabilities that ignore the federal distinction. Clarifying the law is not fan service; it’s a strategic necessity.

My view: any manufacturer with Glock’s footprint would be irresponsible not to explore internal part commonality and design tweaks that harden platforms against illicit conversion – even as they continue to defend their products’ lawful status.

The Practical Stakes For Owners

Reeves isn’t just parsing verbs for fun. The stakes are real:

• Criminal exposure: Under federal law, mere possession of a conversion device—even unattached – can be treated as possession of a machinegun. Owning the host Glock is legal; possessing the switch is not.
• Jurisdiction traps: If a state adopts “readily convertible” language, it could try to recast the host pistol as contraband. Whether that survives challenge depends on courts, but do you want to be the test case?
• Policy creep: The more definitions drift from federal baselines, the more ordinary semi-auto ownership inherits regulatory uncertainty designed for different weapons altogether.

I share Reeves’ caution: precision matters. When lawmakers blur “restored” into “converted,” they’re not closing a loophole. They’re moving the goalposts.

A Final Word On The Debate

Reeves is the first to admit the internet loves outrage. But his short breakdown does something far more useful: it puts the actual text and a real case on the table.

• Federal NFA: “shoots,” “designed to shoot,” or “readily restored” to shoot automatically; conversion parts themselves are machineguns.
• California’s shift: “Readily convertible” language that sweeps far wider and, in Reeves’ view, misreads what federal law says.
• Case law (M14): “Restored” means back to a prior automatic state, not “you can bolt a gadget on.”

From there, the Glock conversation gets a lot clearer. Glocks weren’t machineguns to begin with; criminals’ conversion parts are what meet the federal definition. If states want to chase the parts, and they should, write laws for the parts. 

Don’t criminalize the millions of lawful pistols that form the backbone of American concealed carry and duty use.

I’ll add this: when policy leans on misstated definitions, it invites bad law and worse enforcement. Reeves did gun owners a favor by putting the language back in focus. 

If the Glock V saga pushes more people to learn the difference between “restored” and “converted,” something good will have come from the chaos.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.