[bcg1]

Actually it seems very similar to the example you provided.

A similar scenario would be if a firearms manufacturer designed a semi-automatic rifle (one trigger pull = 1 shot fired) that easily could be modified to be an automatic rifle (one trigger pull = multiple shots fired). Former is legal, the latter is not. If such a firearm starting becoming a favorite of criminals because of this feature, a vast majority of gun enthusiasts would have no problem with BATF requiring the manufacturer to put safeguards in place (there are perhaps a small sliver of extremists that might object, but nowhere near the degree to which an equal-but-oppositely extreme sliver of gun control advocates would have you believe).

The FCC is really just saying that if you make a device that you want to get certified, and it is physically capable of transmitting outside of the parameters for which it is being certified, it wants to know what steps you are putting in place to ensure that the it can't easily be modified to do that.

And to answer your question - yes, people are already modifying consumer routers to use outside of Part 15... for example http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/ ... those are licensed operators of course but anyone could do this, licensed or not.

[bmelton]

Honestly, as someone who associates with a lot of gun enthusiasts, I think that the AR platform is quite easily modified into fully automatic -- just replace the sear from a semi-automatic sear to a full auto sear.

You have to have a BATFE approval and pay a tax stamp to possess a full auto sear, but the work in switching from semi to full auto is pretty minimal.

A more apt scenario that people would clamor behind is a semi-automatic firearm that had a fully automatic failure state. That would be terribly unsafe, and everyone on both sides of the gun debate would be demanding it got fixed, just as they would if a firearm were on the market that could accidentally fire when dropped.

Both of those used to be fairly common scenarios, but are now both exceedingly rare thanks to advancements in gun safety.

[pavel_lishin]

I'm not familiar with guns - what's a sear?

Without knowing that, I'm gonna go ahead and make a comment that may not make sense: I think the idea is that it shouldn't be trivially simple to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic rifle. E.g., it can't be done by putting a paperclip into some part of the mechanism, or slightly filing down a metal part.

If getting a full auto sear is a non-trivial process (which it seems to be) and making one from scratch isn't trivial either, then gun manufacturers seem to have gone to reasonable lengths to prevent their guns from being converted to full auto.

[bmelton]

A sear is, basically, a piece of metal. It's part of the trigger assembly. Speaking simplistically, it is the thing that gives the trigger pressure -- it holds back the striking mechanism until your trigger pull releases it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sear_(firearm)

This is an animation of a semi-automatic sear (in which the sear is the green part): http://mcb-homis.com/blog/trigger-animation.gif

This is an animation of a fully automatic sear (in which the sear is blue): http://mcb-homis.com/blog/m16animation1ww1.gif

Taking out a semi-automatic sear and replacing it with a fully automatic sear is trivial. Converting a semi-automatic sear is slightly more difficult, as it requires precision, and a supplementary catch (to keep the firearm from always firing always).

If people aren't committing crimes with fully automatic firearms, it isn't because the process of obtaining fully automatic firearms is difficult, because it isn't. You can get butt stocks that replicate fully automatic fire for less than $50. Fully automatic fire is just silly to use. If you miss with the first shot, you're almost certainly going to miss with subsequent shots, so for anything requiring accuracy (which is almost everything you would do with a firearm short of perhaps intimidation), converting to full auto makes it less effective.

[bcg1]

This is true, and a good comment. It sort of supports what I am saying though; there actually aren't a lot of gun owners who think it is tyrannical to have regulation around this. And besides, the percentage of crimes committed in the US with an AR-15 (let alone an AR-15 modified in that way) is so low that the actual problem could almost be classified as non-existent, so it is not a surprise that there is not an uproar about it. Your point is taken however, thank you for the info.