User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 3:21:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They took the wipes off of their website. I have a Ghost in jail right now, I was on the website earlier this week ant they had the wipes for sale. Not sure if I would have bought the wipes or not, but this is some BS. This is what happens when some pencil pusher bureaucrat can regulate from his desk. No law, no ruling, no vote, just some jackass in an office in DC. WTF. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 4:23:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Bummer, I'm waiting on a Ghost M. I was hesitant on the Ghost M because I wondered if this would happen.
Too bad Dead Air stopped including the flat end cap. Guess they'll start putting them out now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 5:34:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an internet myth. The letters are legally meaningless. They merely give guidance as to how ATF would enforce the law. ATF cannot write a letter allowing you to break the law. We have seen what happens when they give you an approved, tax-stamped Form 1 to make a machine gun. It does not work out the way the named recipient thinks it will. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 5:35:26 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SiCO?   There is only one manufacturer on this forum that I know of that has thrown us under the ATF short bus, and it wasn't Silencerco...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 5:38:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing in the law says anything about silencers being able to be taken apart though. If so, we'd only have sealed cans.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wipes, swappable endcaps, modular silencers, it is only a matter of time before ATF reacts. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 5:43:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"G" what makes you say that... There is only one manufacturer on this forum that I know of that has thrown us under the ATF short bus, and it wasn't Silencerco... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 5:51:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you act in accordance with a letter issued to you, you are legally protected under the "reasonable reliance" doctrine. Same thing applies if you act in accordance with a letter issued to someone else. JPK eta if you know of someone given a letter allowing action that is illegal, and ATF later came after them and they were protected, please post. I would like to be able to cite it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 6:24:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah "G" saved a lot of folks from possession an illegal silencer, more like getting pulled from under the bus. That shit AAC was doing was pure stupid. Sadly, there is a lot of underhanded shit going on and there is obviously a back story to this GhostM that has not been made public. I know of other instances where someone is furious at a denial to do something and someone else brought a similar product to market. This is not the end. Loop Holes, and grey areas suck anyways maybe we could write the atf to clarify, ya know its cool, its fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 6:30:24 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm really glad doing alittle good covers inviting the GOV into someones elses business. Its like the movies always say, "Its was just business". Doesn't make it any less doushey of a move, AAC being stupid or workin the grey. Just sayin,. 
The old AAC just had a history of fighting with everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 6:39:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The douche moves between AAC and Gemtech, AAC and ian187, AAC and LaRue, AAC and SWR, AAC & ARFCOM, AAC and well you get the picture, go back long before Gemtax. http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/cd/cd1d8701698bb491cef51324437efb58847a3dfde23fbe152267200b771b61d4.jpg The old AAC just had a history of fighting with everyone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 6:50:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The douche moves between AAC and Gemtech, AAC and ian187, AAC and LaRue, AAC and SWR, AAC & ARFCOM, AAC and well you get the picture, go back long before Gemtax. http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/cd/cd1d8701698bb491cef51324437efb58847a3dfde23fbe152267200b771b61d4.jpg The old AAC just had a history of fighting with everyone. AAC can be douchey too, maybe even more so since they are apart of freedom. I just really hope a company didn't screw Dead Air and us by pulling a "gemtech". Or maybe it was just a person being "AAC stupid" and asked for clarification. . Thats all I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 6:58:28 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You forgot AAC vs Surefire ad. AAC can be douchey too, maybe even more so since they are apart of freedom. I just really hope a company didn't screw Dead Air and us by pulling a "gemtech". Or maybe it was just a person being "AAC stupid" and asked for clarification. . Thats all I'm trying to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 8:08:25 PM EDT
[#13]
So much bitch slapping amoungst the silencer industry. Dont care........so, What else is there to talk about
.........I remove mattress tags
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 8:43:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Love my Ghost wipe or no wipe. It's a great can and I am confident Dead Air will get around it in a way that is beneficial to current and future owners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 8:52:32 PM EDT
[#15]
dont care,
ill file this one with 922r, trip tickets and dog licenses |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 9:10:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How did that work out for Wayne Daniels? eta if you know of someone given a letter allowing action that is illegal, and ATF later came after them and they were protected, please post. I would like to be able to cite it. In the few minutes I looked I didn't find a federal case where a reasonable reliance defense was based on an ATF letter to the defendant or others - but, that is what I expected since no US Attorney would prosecute someone relying on a letter from the ATF. I did find a couple of instances when the ATF had issued an opinion and then reversed their opinion. The gave notice and a period of time for compliance rather than attempt to prosecute, as one would expect. I did find a couple of state court cases where a letter or other communications from the ATF was sufficient to beat a state firearms charge. People vs. Studifin in NY was one example. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 9:18:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
dont care, ill file this one with 922r, trip tickets and dog licenses |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 9:51:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryAnd that's the more interesting question.
There's no way the ATF can rule that washers are silencer parts as they have many other uses. Therefore, if someone were to put washers in a registered suppressor, would that constitute a redesign of the washer? I believe the ATF would say yes, but then where does one draw the line, particularly wrt consumables? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 9:54:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, who wrote the letter? Fess Up. In seriousness, this only applies to the Ghost M. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 11:44:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I found nothing showing Daniels based a defense on an ATF letter to him or to someone else. I would appreciate a cite or reference I could look up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I found nothing showing Daniels based a defense on an ATF letter to him or to someone else. I would appreciate a cite or reference I could look up. Wayne Daniel went on to manufacture a semi-automatic version of the MAC-10, which led to his first confrontation with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The agency approved the assault pistol, but reassessed its position following reports that it was easily converted to full-auto. In 1982 ATF banned it. Daniel sued and lost. So much for that approval letter. http://www.vpc.org/studies/smalrpb.htm Many more examples throughout the years, Akins Accelerator was another approval letter which turned out to be worthless. Tha MAC 10 thing Steven Tyler bought, and the XMG also had their approval letters made worthless. I could go on and on there are so many. Quoted:
In the few minutes I looked I didn't find a federal case where a reasonable reliance defense was based on an ATF letter to the defendant or others - but, that is what I expected since no US Attorney would prosecute someone relying on a letter from the ATF. Quoted:
I did find a couple of instances when the ATF had issued an opinion and then reversed their opinion. The gave notice and a period of time for compliance rather than attempt to prosecute, as one would expect. Quoted:
I did find a couple of state court cases where a letter or other communications from the ATF was sufficient to beat a state firearms charge. People vs. Studifin in NY was one example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 11:48:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The specific ones we are talking about look like this: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IMG_6657.png But in short wipes are generally made of a rubber or some other poly compound and put into a silencer tube. They are "disposable" and only last 10-20 rounds. They need to be replaced after that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2017 11:57:56 PM EDT
[#22]
dt.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 12:09:23 AM EDT
[#23]
Given that an 14" piece of string is a machinegun, I guess I have no problem with a rubber washer being a silencer.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 12:09:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Daniels and his business partners along with many others, were constantly pushing the boundaries back in the 70s/80s. They all had approval letters, rulings, whatever, and they were all shown to be worthless when ATF ignored the letters/rulings and shut them down anyway. I cannot cite a lot of this stuff as I know it by living through it, but some of the examples are on bardwell or if you can find the Knox Report Archives from the Shotgun News. Some background info on a couple of cases later into the 80s is available. Wayne Daniel went on to manufacture a semi-automatic version of the MAC-10, which led to his first confrontation with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The agency approved the assault pistol, but reassessed its position following reports that it was easily converted to full-auto. In 1982 ATF banned it. Daniel sued and lost. So much for that approval letter. http://www.vpc.org/studies/smalrpb.htm Many more examples throughout the years, Akins Accelerator was another approval letter which turned out to be worthless. Tha MAC 10 thing Steven Tyler bought, and the XMG also had their approval letters made worthless. I could go on and on there are so many. There are lots of cases. One of the more recent was George Dodson, who for 30 years sold pre-81 DIAS, which he had multiple letters/rulings from ATF stating they were not machine guns, was arrested and convicted. He asserted "reasonable reliance" and the Appeals Court invented a bunch of legal gobbley-gook to tell him 30 years of accepted interpretation was now wrong. Enjoy your stay in FPMITA Prison. Yeah there are plenty of those. ATF have lots of ways to make the letter you hold in your hand worthless. Reversals are one of them and very effective. Bizarre case which is opposite of what I am looking for. Instead of ATF giving permission to break law, they gave guy guidance on how to follow it. ATF told him he needed a NY license, he ignored it, then blamed ATF for not telling him clearly. ATF had no obligation whatsoever tell him he needed a NY license, it was strictly a courtesy. And somehow he convinces court it was ATF fault he broke law. If ever arrested in NY, I want his lawyer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I found nothing showing Daniels based a defense on an ATF letter to him or to someone else. I would appreciate a cite or reference I could look up. Wayne Daniel went on to manufacture a semi-automatic version of the MAC-10, which led to his first confrontation with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The agency approved the assault pistol, but reassessed its position following reports that it was easily converted to full-auto. In 1982 ATF banned it. Daniel sued and lost. So much for that approval letter. http://www.vpc.org/studies/smalrpb.htm Many more examples throughout the years, Akins Accelerator was another approval letter which turned out to be worthless. Tha MAC 10 thing Steven Tyler bought, and the XMG also had their approval letters made worthless. I could go on and on there are so many. Quoted:
In the few minutes I looked I didn't find a federal case where a reasonable reliance defense was based on an ATF letter to the defendant or others - but, that is what I expected since no US Attorney would prosecute someone relying on a letter from the ATF. Quoted:
I did find a couple of instances when the ATF had issued an opinion and then reversed their opinion. The gave notice and a period of time for compliance rather than attempt to prosecute, as one would expect. Quoted:
I did find a couple of state court cases where a letter or other communications from the ATF was sufficient to beat a state firearms charge. People vs. Studifin in NY was one example. Daniel's plead guilty to a single misdemeanor, was fined $900 and did not use or attempt to use reasonable reliance as a defense. Perhaps there are a good number of ATF reversals, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that ATF issuance of an advisory letter is the sound basis of a reasonable reliance defense. It is. And a letter issued to another is also since the letter is in the public domain. If the ATF changes its regs or alters its rulings or its guidance it cannot do it retroactively. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution. In Studifin, the ATF did not speak to NY liscense requirements. Rather, the ATF affirmatively informed Studifin that he needed "one additional liscense." (That may not be a direct quote, but the gist is accurate.) That affirmative action by ATF proved sufficient basis for Studifin's successful reasonable reliance defense. Every letter the ATF issues is guidance. If they are wrong, it is still guidance from an appropriate authority and so actions taken in accordance with that guidance are protected by a reasonable reliance defense. ETA required disclaimer: Nothing I write is legal advice. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 12:33:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every letter the ATF issues is guidance. If they are wrong, it is still guidance from an appropriate authority and so actions taken in accordance with that guidance are protected by a reasonable reliance defense. Is Dodson still selling DIAS? Was Daniels allowed to continue sell Open Bolts? Is Akins still selling his accelerator? Answer to all these is NO. The letters they held were meaningless. Whether they got prosecuted or not is irrelevant to the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 12:39:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dodson did not have a letter or rely on a letter issued to another person. His reasonable reliance arguement was based on an ATF ruling which he misunderstood, which cannot be reasonable reliance. While the court did say he misunderstood the ruling, so did everybody else in the USA. ATF continued to issues letters AFTER 81-4 stating pre-81 DIAS was NOT a machine gun. It was only till Cash and the court, NOT ATF re-interpreted the meaning of 81-4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:01:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is factually incorrect. Not only did he have a letter, he shared it with every buyer. While the court did say he misunderstood the ruling, so did everybody else in the USA. ATF continued to issues letters AFTER 81-4 stating pre-81 DIAS was NOT a machine gun. It was only till Cash and the court, NOT ATF re-interpreted the meaning of 81-4. The minutiae is critical. For example, if Dodson had an ATF letter he never brought it up in the trial court as a reserved appellate issue in his guilty plea or on appeal. Apparently you continue to believe that an ATF letter was an issue in the case, when it was not. Likewise Daniels, the minutiae reveals that no ATF letter on the topic at issue in his misdemeanor plea was brought up. You have contended that an ATF letter is legally meaningless, and that is simply incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:09:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have contended that an ATF letter is legally meaningless, and that is simply incorrect. So the letter I have saying my Open Bolt Semi is not a machine gun is valid? So the letter I have saying my StreetSweeper is not a DD is valid? So the letter I have saying my silencer parts kit is legal is valid? So the letter I have saying I do not have to engrave maker info on my SBR is valid? So the letter I have saying my Akins Accelerator is not a machine gun valid? So the letter I have saying my pop bottle thread is not a silencer is valid? So the letter I have saying my my shoe lace is a machine gun is valid? So the letter I have saying my wipes are not silencer parts is valid? So the letter I have saying my married pre-81 DIAS + AR-15 is legal is valid? No, all of these letters are legally meaningless. The simple fact is, if what you are doing is legal, you do not need a letter, and if what you are doing is illegal, the letter is meaningless. So there is no need to write any FUCKING letters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:13:29 PM EDT
[#29]
They are now, the guidance they offered has been superseded. But they were not meaningless when they were issued.
"No, all of these letters are legally meaningless. The simple fact is, if what you are doing is legal, you do not need a letter, and if what you are doing is illegal, the letter is meaningless. So there is no need to write any FUCKING letters" This is just wrong. If all laws, rulings and regs were black and white, easy to read and understand, guidance wouldn't be required. They are not, for many reasons, some reasonable, some not, and that is why the gov't issues guidance on all manner of laws, rulings and regs. Nice temper tantrum, btw... JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:20:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read the entire Dodson case. No ATF letter raised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:21:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are now, the guidance they offered has been superseded. But they were not meaningless when they were issued. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:23:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well of course not. The purpose of the letter is to avoid going to trial. The DA/Judge did not accept the letter, because it is meaningless. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:27:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is the whole POINT! You do not need a letter when it is accepted the act is legal, and when it is superceded, the letter becomes worthless. In the meantime, until it is superseded, it provides you will an affirmative defense. The gov't cannot change a law, reg or ruling or even guidance retroactively. If all laws, regs and rulings were plain, simple, easily understood then no guidance would be required. That isn't and never has been the case. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 1:47:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, all of these letters are legally meaningless. The simple fact is, if what you are doing is legal, you do not need a letter, and if what you are doing is illegal, the letter is meaningless. So there is no need to write any FUCKING letters. 
Is there a way to just subscribe to your posts? I love when class is in session. What was the deal between AAC and SWR? I'm familiar with the rest of the...disagreements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 2:58:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Maybe someone can explain this to me. Why does this whole "Silencer Parts" debacle even exist? Why can't the end user, with his approved stamp, do anything he wants in the internals of his muffler? Why can't he replace things, modify things, improve things?
Let's say I have an approved Machine Gun. Pre-86, all that. With this MG, legally I can do whatever I want with it. Replace internals that wear out, adjust the rate of fire, remove/add accessories etc, etc etc. As long as I don't mess with the SERIALIZED part. WHY THE HELL AREN'T SUPPRESSORS THE SAME? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 3:28:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. Why does this whole "Silencer Parts" debacle even exist? Why can't the end user, with his approved stamp, do anything he wants in the internals of his muffler? Why can't he replace things, modify things, improve things? Let's say I have an approved Machine Gun. Pre-86, all that. With this MG, legally I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Replace internals that wear out, adjust the rate of fire, remove/add accessories etc, etc etc. As long as I don't mess with the SERIALIZED part. Additionally, the laws are flawed in their conception. A 'silencer', as the law calls it, is simply a muffler. Any idiot with more than two brain cells can tell you that a muffler does not have to be very complex. A plastic bottle and some duct tape may even be effective, though I have not tried it myself. Trying to regulate such minor and trivial parts as foregrips, flash suppressors, metal boxes with springs in them, barrel shrouds, and "shoulder things that go up", is an exercise in futility. I can construct a shotgun with two metal pipes, a pipe end, and a steel BB. Takes about one minute to assemble. I can construct a machinegun within a few hours if I add a hacksaw, a file, and a welder. Destructive devices can be made with a bowl, some easy-to-find chemicals, and some paper. These are some pretty stupid things to try to control. Criminals will ignore the rules completely. These laws ONLY serve to disarm the law-abiding citizen and prevent us from interfering with government control of our lives. They use criminal activity as an excuse, but the real aim is to disarm the LAW ABIDING populace. It is a power grab. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 3:35:05 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The douche moves between AAC and Gemtech, AAC and ian187, AAC and LaRue, AAC and SWR, AAC & ARFCOM, AAC and well you get the picture, go back long before Gemtax. http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/cd/cd1d8701698bb491cef51324437efb58847a3dfde23fbe152267200b771b61d4.jpg The old AAC just had a history of fighting with everyone. One certainly could run into them throughout the day and not be in the same classification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 3:41:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, Dodson plead guilty and by plea agreement reserved his appeal, but limited his appeal to three issues - which was a FU. Dodson did not have a letter or rely on a letter issued to another person. His reasonable reliance arguement was based on an ATF ruling which he misunderstood, which cannot be reasonable reliance. He did't argue unConstitutionally vague, but should have, based on the court's opinion. (In fact, though appellate courts rarely act sua sponte, I am a little put off that this court didn't since their opinion rehashed how widely misinterpreted the ATF ruling was on the issue of exemption from tax v exemption from registration. Likewise the trial court. If a ruling is as widely misinterpreted as the court asserts this ruling was, it is de facto unContitutionally vague, imo.) Daniel's plead guilty to a single misdemeanor, was fined $900 and did not use or attempt to use reasonable reliance as a defense. Perhaps there are a good number of ATF reversals, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that ATF issuance of an advisory letter is the sound basis of a reasonable reliance defense. It is. And a letter issued to another is also since the letter is in the public domain. If the ATF changes its regs or alters its rulings or its guidance it cannot do it retroactively. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution. In Studifin, the ATF did not speak to NY liscense requirements. Rather, the ATF affirmatively informed Studifin that he needed "one additional liscense." (That may not be a direct quote, but the gist is accurate.) That affirmative action by ATF proved sufficient basis for Studifin's successful reasonable reliance defense. Every letter the ATF issues is guidance. If they are wrong, it is still guidance from an appropriate authority and so actions taken in accordance with that guidance are protected by a reasonable reliance defense. ETA required disclaimer: Nothing I write is legal advice. JPK Every single law/regulation on arms is an infringement. This is one of the few instances in life that is quite black and white. Despite what the left and traitors would have us believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 5:05:15 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's funny that people still think these traitors care about the Constitution. Every single law/regulation on arms is an infringement. This is one of the few instances in life that is quite black and white. Despite what the left and traitors would have us believe. On the other hand, I do think there is a valid reason for at least one firearms regulation, and that is making possession by a felon illegal. As far as caring about the Constitution, they care. The problem is that when they read the Constitution is doesn't mean what the Constitution says and was meant to say, it means whatever they want it to mean at that moment. Did you hear Feinstein's comment to Gorsuch about a "living Constitution?" To the most originalist, strict constructionist out there, it IS a living document, it contains the provisions to be amended. In the meantime, let's hope Judge Gorsuch survives the Senate and President Trump fills every federal judgeship vacancy with originalists. I have thought that we ought to implement a five strikes rule for federal judges. Five decisions overturned by SCOTUS on Constitutional ground leads to impeachment. District and appellate judges alike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 6:18:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The letter was not presented at the trial court. Moreover, it wasn't an element of the appeal. JPK You do not need the letter to do something legal. If what you are doing becomes illegal, the letter is superceded and will not prevent a prosecution or be admitted as evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 6:21:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the meantime, until it is superseded, it provides you will an affirmative defense. Anybody got a letter stating a 2 stage trigger is legal? No. Anybody think they need one for an affirmative defense? No. Because 2 stage triggers are legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 6:26:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe someone can explain this to me. Why does this whole "Silencer Parts" debacle even exist? Why can't the end user, with his approved stamp, do anything he wants in the internals of his muffler? Why can't he replace things, modify things, improve things? Let's say I have an approved Machine Gun. Pre-86, all that. With this MG, legally I can do whatever I want with it. Replace internals that wear out, adjust the rate of fire, remove/add accessories etc, etc etc. As long as I don't mess with the SERIALIZED part. WHY THE HELL AREN'T SUPPRESSORS THE SAME? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 6:31:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a way to just subscribe to your posts? I love when class is in session. What was the deal between AAC and SWR? I'm familiar with the rest of the...disagreements. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a way to just subscribe to your posts? I love when class is in session. What was the deal between AAC and SWR? I'm familiar with the rest of the...disagreements. Quoted:
Well it sounds like I've got an entire evening of reading ahead of me https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/155682_As-The-Lathe-Turns----The-AAC---ST---MIRROR-MIRROR-Suppressor-Forum.html&page=1 Note this almost 10 yo comment, echoing what I said above: Kevin Brittingham loves to fight; he did it with Gemtech, Joe Gaddini, ar15.com, subguns.com, SRT suppressors, and now Larue. And who knows who else. In addition to Surefire, I also forgot the fights with SRTArms/Doug subguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 7:18:04 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it is not superceded, then what you are doing continues to be legal, and there is no need for the letter or for an affirmative defense. Anybody got a letter stating a 2 stage trigger is legal? No. Anybody think they need one for an affirmative defense? No. Because 2 stage triggers are legal. Dobson is the perfect example. If Dobson had a letter (ETA: and acted in accordance with the guidance provided,) if he had used one in his defense he would have been protected... but he didn't have one, or if he did, he didn't use it in his reasonable reliance defense. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 7:28:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dobson is the perfect example. If Dobson had a letter, if if he had used on in his defense he would have been protected... but he didn't have one, or if he did, he didn't use it in his reasonable reliance defense. As I said I know for a FACT he had them and supplied them with each sale. He did try to use it, the ADA rejected the letter and your "reasonable reliance defense" and prosecuted him anyway. He also got hosed on the Grease Gun Reweld also. Not everybody gets to hire Jerry Spence to defend them. If tomorrow Joe Sixpack gets busted for possession of DIAS discovered because he sells them to "anti-government extremist organizations advocating killing of Federal Law enforcement." You really think ADA is going to drop case when Joe shows them a 30 year old letter? Of course not, is full bore prosecution just like Dodson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 8:01:28 PM EDT
[#46]
With this logic from the ATF it would be the equivalent of swapping out muzzle devices, hand guards, and other various parts on a SBR. Am I right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 8:36:02 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With this logic from the ATF it would be the equivalent of swapping out muzzle devices, hand guards, and other various parts on a SBR. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 9:02:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umpteenth time: As I said I know for a FACT he had them and supplied them with each sale. He did try to use it, the ADA rejected the letter and your "reasonable reliance defense" and prosecuted him anyway. He also got hosed on the Grease Gun Reweld also. Not everybody gets to hire Jerry Spence to defend them. If tomorrow Joe Sixpack gets busted for possession of DIAS discovered because he sells them to "anti-government extremist organizations advocating killing of Federal Law enforcement." You really think ADA is going to drop case when Joe shows them a 30 year old letter? Of course not, is full bore prosecution just like Dodson. From the 6th Circuit's opinion: "... Dodson additionally argues that the district court erred in failing to consider his reasonable-mistake-of-law and good-faith-reliance defenses. To the extent that Dodson argues that his trial rights were violated by this error, he waived the right to make such a challenge in his plea agreement." So, again, no ATF guidance letter was ever an issue in the Dobson case. He didn't litigate the issue and failed to reserve the issue for appeal in his plea agreement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 9:16:07 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you write about Dobson, a letter, an ADA is plainly wrong. If he had a letter or letters, he never used them in a reasonable reliance defense nor did he reserve the right to appeal the JUDGE's finding on that defense. I am done explaining it, as any further explanation is just a repeat of what I have already said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2017 9:44:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He had one, he offered it up to prevent prosecution, it was rejected, it was not entered into evidence at his trial, hence why you cannot find it. I am done explaining it, as any further explanation is just a repeat of what I have already said. JPK |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
