Possibly, then again my counter was stuck at 10 posts for awhile, I think I have a total around 30 even though the counter only shows 15 (16 now?)

GarandShooter,
  I think thats when most people are curious. Thats when I first asked most my legality questions, 10-20 post, when you start hearing about this AW Ban, Sunsets, and so so forth.. Still makes ya wonder though.

-Jared

I've been in and out of ar's for 15 or more years.I am always asking of what is and is not legal. Seems as though everytime we turn around they have added more restrictions. I first came here with questions. I believe most people want to avoid any problems. You can find alot of info here.I would like to see more people get in here.

Garand Shooter,

I understand.  
We have rufusjones telling us about his pre-ban in Kal.  Now, here is a guy that lives in a state that if the southern third was nuked the U.S. would be better off? Yes.  He owns or has access to a computor and the net?  Yes.  And he doesn't have one damn idea of the "news" (sure as hell doesn't watch FoxNews) or laws being passed in his part of the world?  Evidamndently.  A member of a 2nd Amend org. or the NRA(KNOX ROCKS)?  Evidamndently Not.  Is he civilian slime, Fed lookin' for a hook-up or Rip Van Winkle?  I don't know....but if he is for real.....glad he's starting to smell the coffee even if he doesn't have time for breakfast.

Dave S  

I was wondering the same thing as Garand Shooter.  Troy hit it on the head IMHO.  What we're observing is the slow trickling in of gun owners or people thinking about obtaining an AR who missed the bus on the CA bans or are just coming of age and were too young to be aware of what was going on in '94.

It's important for those of us who know a little to be helpful to people who are honest and wise enough to admit that they know nothing, and have the courage to approach heavily armed strangers and ask for information. [uzi]

I gotta say, that this place has to be pretty boring for BATF trolls.  Ask a question, get the right answer. No big deal.

Sure, you get a few, "Screw the Law" types, but on the whole, the info is good.

Then, there's McUzi..........

Gotta agree with FatMan on this one.  Not very exciting stuff if your working the net as LE. I think the most frequently asked questions we get here pertains to Form 1 SBR paperwork and how to legally jump through all the hoops.  Woo hoo!

I guess I am one of those types. I don't get much outa hanging around and answering questions to prove that I know every nitpicky little rule of the BATF and what they will do (you guys know about Bubba don't you)if you violate the LAW! I'm not that interested in advertising the rediculous law for them. Let them try to educate 50 milion people and enforce their laws. That oughta keep 'em pretty busy for a few years. They won't have time to do anything else. Why, maybe after a few years, they will do what they did with the 55 mile per hour speed limit......recognize that it is unenforceable, making criminals of half the population, and a waste of time and finally repeal it.

I don't recallpeople riding down the interstate highway with signs on there cars describing the law and Bubba then.


PigPen

What the hell are you talking about?  Look, we understand how frustruating some of these laws are to you, but this is the second time you've criticized this forum by, illogically, claiming we brow beat the posters with threats of "bubba" and demands to obey the law.  We do no such thing.  If you ask a question, we will try and give you an answer.  If you don't like it or you just want to be a rebel and not follow the law, good for you, we really don't care- knock yourself out.  Believe it or not, most of the people who ask compliance questions have real jobs, families and a life and simply want to know what is legal so that they can actively preserve their own RKBA.  If you think that makes them sheep or those answering the questions pawns of "the man", then perhaps you need to get a life of your own.

I have no problem with stating what the law says....or more correctly what the BATF says it says.

It's the gotcha attitude of some of the posters that is a bit irritating to me until I consider the source. I have also read a lot of posts, which tend to state with glee, unrealistic outcomes for minor infractions. I am sure everybody here has read what they do to people who put a FH on a postban AR15. Why that's a Federal offense!! Prison, Bubba, Black helicopters. Oh dread, dread, dread! Propaganda like this is common in totalitarian countries. The difference is that in those countries the government has to do it. They do not have helpful friends to do it for them.

While simply stating the BATF position is OK, overstating it and exaggerating the extent to which they will go to enforce those regulations is not helpful. For instance, I will bet the farm that nothing happens if some one moves to AZ, gets a drivers license and then buys a firearm in less than 30 days......Unless the bloak robs a convenient store or shoots up a school with the firearm. Then circumstances surrounding his admission to first grade may become an issue but at that point what does it matter?

It's true; I do not have to read or respond to these posts but I do have a vested interested in the outcome of the issue being discussed. Terrorizing neophytes into total compliance with even gray areas of the law is not in my best interest. Nor is it in your best interest if you support the second ammendment. Informing them of the regulations, how to skirt them and what the “realistic” expectations are if they do not follow them would be helpful.

Attorneys get paid to advise clients of the law and they are punished (one  way or another) for neglecting to point out actions which "may" be illegal. No one here has a legal responsibility to advise total compliance with the regulations much less to intimidate those who do not wish to comply with every nuance. How many people have been guilty of speeding, tax evasion, violation of the clean air acts by modifying they emission control on their car or not getting a tune-up at the regularly scheduled interval. Yes, its a violation of Federal law, but have you been put into a prison cell for 10years and fined $100,00.00? Get a grip.

My point is this: I do not advocate violation of Federal law. They shoot them first! I simply wish to give people sound advice, based on my life’s experiences, which includes what the law is and a realistic impression of what to expect if they do not do comply. This realistic impression includes the probability of whether they are likely to be prosecuted or not and in some cases what the punishment will likely be if convicted, instead of the worst possible thing that could happen if convicted.

I sense that I have irritated some members of the forum with my disention. That was not my intention.  I will continue to try persuade them by the use of reason and logic to my point of view instead of emotionalism (although I am passionate about the subject). If disention is not tolerated here, I guess I will have to move along to Siberia.

PigPen

The "law" discussed here rarely includes ATF positions (Tech Branch) for the simple reason that their positions are not the law.  I have posted only one Tech Branch letter (last year) I recieved regarding the question of whether or not the pre-ban status of an SBR created after Sept. 94 remains "pre-ban".  I did that because a paranoid, mis-informed FFL told a member that the pre-ban status would be lost since the "making" of the SBR per a Form 1 would occur post-ban.  ATF interpreted the law correctly and so I posted their position.  Based on my real life experience with ATF, both agents and Tech Branch members, they devote the majority of their time on real criminals (my HO only).

Otherwise, I usually talk about federal law (and sometimes VA state law) and often discuss the [i]lack[/i] of federal prosecutions based solely on pre-ban/post-ban config violations.  If anything, based on your last post, you, I and most posters here share the same pragmatic attitude towards potential criminal liability for such violations; along with the underlying theme that no one should chance illegal conduct under any circumstances (and no, not because of your beloved "Bubba").  No one should break the law simply based on the odds of not getting caught nor on the odds of not being a potential target of a criminal investigation for certain behavior.  That's  extemely short-sighted thinking.



I just disagree with your assertion that this goes on here.  I just don't see it- maybe I missed a post or two (in all seriousness).



Agreed, but again, not a practice here.



"How to skirt them . . ."?  Telling members how to "skirt" the law is not helpful, under any circumstances.  I don't know why you would say this, given your comment about not advocating breaking the law- I assume you meant something else here?  Other than this statement, I think I have a better sence of where you are coming from and I apologize for the "get a life" comment of my earlier post.  

Take care and please stick around.