Quoted:


DAY 1

Quoted:

I love seeing loopholes to NFA idiocy,but I'm curious: why wouldn't this just get tossed under the bus as a DD with the director directly exempting it from the sporting purposes clause?
The language allows the director to exempt shotguns firing shotgun ammunition from the DD list which is usually done as a matter of course for most shotguns,but it by no means prohibits him from making DD's out of any new shotguns that displease the ATF (the Striker 12 or USAS-12 for example).

A stroke of the directors pen,and every shotgun in the US no longer has a "sporting purpose". At least in theory, anyway.
Doing it with one new variant proposed by Mossberg or Remington would be a far easier task.

Quoted:


The transfer tax is $5 but there is still a $200 tax to make it.

Quoted:

The Serbu bbl is shorter than 14".  A C3 manufacturer doesn't pay any taxes to build a FFL item.  Only individuals.

Quoted:
This interests me greatly.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w216/brianlincoln/001-3.jpg

Quoted:


"not be an AOW requiring form 1 or form 4"

dont sbs' also require one of those forms?
 

Quoted:


The Serbu bbl is shorter than 14".  A C3 manufacturer doesn't pay any taxes to build a FFL item.  Only individuals.

Quoted:


So I take it Keith_J didn't take you up on your bet jrzy???

Quoted:
Any Other Weapon:
Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person
from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an
explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore
designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with
combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than
18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made
from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any
such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall
not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled
bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the
shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Pistol:
A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand,
and having(a)a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently
aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be
gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line
of the bore(s).

Revolver: A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading
chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement
of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with
the barrel for firing.


Shotgun:
A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade
to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire  
through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a
single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any
such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun
shell.

Could the same argument be made for an AR15 "pistol" that has a forward grip, so long as it is over 26" it would not be concealable?

If I am understanding the argument right that would fall into the same class as a 1919a4, not a rifle because it has no buttstock, not a pistol because it isn't designed to be held with one hand, and not an AOW because it is not concealable.

Am I being a fucktard?  How long is an AR receiver, how long would the barrel need to be?

A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand

Quoted:







LOL... you really believe that BATFE won't reverse their opinion?  You really think that it's "Locked in"?  Dude, you gotta be kidding me.  Why don't you go ask Bill Akins about THAT then come and talk to me.  



Discretion is the better part of dealing with the BATFE.  I'm betting that there will be a redetermination letter within a year on this.  Probably after a ton of these guns get sold or made then the BATFE will re-classify them and fuck the gun owning community again.  JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE AKINS.  



Basically, this thread is probably going to be viewed as a challenge or "in your face" to BATFE.

Quoted:







The transfer tax is $5 but there is still a $200 tax to make it.

Quoted:


How is it a challenge?
Stating fact on what they put out in a TB letter?
Come on "Dude" loosen the tin foil and stop demonizing the Tech branch , they are wrong sometimes and they are right a lot too.


 

Quoted:


Not for an 07FFL /SOT there isn't
We pay $500.00 per year for that.
 

Quoted:







Actually, some of us pay $1000.

Quoted:


Eh, the problem here is that the AR15 pistol, following the definition ATF applies to the pistol with a forward grip, is MOST CERTAINLY an AOW even without the grip at all.

You see, ATF chooses to call a pistol with a forward grip an AOW because it is .

Eventually, some chucklehead is gonna take a seat in a courtroom or maybe behind an ATF typewriter and decide that the AR or AK pistols were, in fact, designed to be fired with two hands and then they are all gonna be AOW's.

Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Quoted:


Not for an 07FFL /SOT there isn't
We pay $500.00 per year for that.
 

Quoted:
Why aren't pistol gripped 12 gauge guns not Destructive Devices?

I am guessing the BATFE should have classified them as DDs back in the 1980s?

Oh and definition of pistol:

Quoted:


Once a pistol always a pistol does apply thanks to the T/C Contender case (and likely others)!  



Even though you add a long barrel and a stock to a T/C Contender pistol to make it look like a rifle, it is STILL a pistol thus allowing you to reconfigure it back as a pistol!

Quoted:
I dare to disagree when you look at the oppinions rendered by the Justices but I have not read it in a year or so.  The issue came up with configuring as a rifle and then taking it back.  The status of the receiver does not change just like if you have a MG and convert it to semiauto and then back or a SBR and add a long barrel and take it back.

If it doesn't say it outright, it is clearly implied and I challange you likewise to show that a pistol configured as a rifle is not legally a pistol even though it might well be configured to look like say an AR-15 rifle with a 26-inch barrel!

Quoted:







This is a very valid argument.  DD could be applied to any shotgun (even a SBS) after the fact.  I think the key is to name it something sporty, like "the backpacker" and never mention this scenario on the internet EVER AGAIN.



ETA, they are also banned by model NAME.  Streetsweeper shotguns are available RIGHT NOW as title one weapons under a different model name.  Oh yeah, they are also WAY overpriced.

Quoted:


Playing with fire IMHO.

Quoted:


That is kind of the massive catch. As long as it was not sold in that condition originally, there should be no say on what you do to or how you configure your gun. This is why the ATF has been rather unsuccessful in prosecuting people with VFGs on their handguns. If it came that way from the factory is one thing, but if its something bolted on by the end user it's another thing entirely.

Once a pistol always a pistol? (Hey it works for machine guns right?)

Quoted:


Are you talking about a Saiga-12 w/ drum or something that more closely resembles a Streetsweeper?
 

Quoted:




The Thompson case was about the kit (which included at least three possible configurations of unassembled parts: handgun, carbine(rifle), or short barreled rifle) and whether the kit itself required the SBR paperwork/tax.  The court held that the paperwork/tax BS only had to be done if the firearm was assembled into a title II configuration.  It really doesnt address swapping back and forth between title I entities.  You could argue that it may lay the ground work for a court case about swapping firearms from rifle to handgun configuration, but it didnt outright find that.  

Quoted:


How is it a challenge?
Stating fact on what they put out in a TB letter?
Come on "Dude" loosen the tin foil and stop demonizing the Tech branch , they are wrong sometimes and they are right a lot too.


 

Quoted:







Actually, the funny thing of it is that everyone rushed to Akin's banner without ever learning that he basically fucked the whole thing up himself, personally, from the get-go, and it's really not ATF's fault.  Tech Branch has gotten a ton of shit from teh interwebz for what "they did to him" but I must be the only fucking person left in the world who's actually read ALL of their ruling letters to Akins, and understand what they said.



Quite simply, his first submission to Tech Branch was for an SKS stock.  They broke it while trying to determine how it worked and how to classify it.  Their letter back states in somewhat disingenuous terms: "This item is not a machine gun because it broke and doesn't work now.  So long as it doesn't work, it's not a machine gun."



Akins turned around and decided that "ruling" was sufficient basis to go into production on 10/22s using the same design principle...even if ATF had ruled the SKS stock to not qualify as a machinegun, such a ruling would have never qualified as a legal designation of a completely different product, which was never once submitted to them by Akins anyways.  It would be no different than if jrzy had decided to start producing these shotguns without any ATF ruling at all, not even the 1919 letter, but based simply on his own perceived definition of the GCA and NFA.



And as we all know, a customer sent in a 10/22 stock, ATF looked at it, someone finally wised up and realized what a massive blow to the entire structure of the NFA those things could potentially be, and promptly classified the stock as a machinegun.  Was it a bullshit ruling?  Of course.  Was it absolutely necessary for ATF's very existence, to classify the stock as a machinegun?  Arguably so, or else they machinegun portion of the NFA would cease to have any teeth, if anyone and their brother could effective convert most common rifles using a cheap plastic stock and a spring.  What kind of idiot would the Chief of the Tech Branch have to be, to sign a piece of paper certifying that an entire centerpiece of the entire ATF agency was no longer necessary?  Would anyone here really risk their own job and career for such a thing?  Many might, but far more would find it much simpler to call it an illegal machinegun and go home to a steady income, a family, a house, and a normal life, rather than throwing it all away for the sake of a technicality in a law passed three-quarters of a century ago.  Thus it is human weakness, and human nature to avoid such fates however possible.



But Akins was the one responsible for the whole fiasco in the first place by not doing his fucking homework right in the first place, and never bringing in an actual lawyer who knew how to interpret legalese.



As this thread shows, the vast, overhwelming majority of even the educated NFA community still have weak understandings of how the law actually functions, or where rulings ultimately spring from.  There's a handful of individuals in this country like jrzy who really know how to read through the clauses and sentence structures to find the legitimate loopholes floating out there in the darkness, and exploit them properly in such a way so as to prevent govenrmental interference.



Bravo, jrzy.  I may not wind up buying one of your new shotguns, for lack of an actual purpose, but I'm damn glad to see people out there paying attention to the NFA and poking at the gaps.  People who play the game properly and understand the law are rewarded by finding new and better ways of doing things.  People who think they're smarter than they really are tend to get butt-hurt when they find out the hard way that they're wrong...and their reactions do more to hurt us than anything Tech Branch has ever done.  Pushing through documented rulings that expand our rights and enable us to own new and different types of firearms are one of the best ways of innovating in our present circumstances, and they held codify reasonable interpretations of long-standing laws that should have been done ages ago.  I was telling FFLs years and years ago that pistol-gripped shotguns could not be sold to individuals under 21, but it took the ages for ATF to finally come out and explain a law that up until that point was only understood by a handful of people - not that ATF created the law, but they finally began educating dealers on how to avoid breaking a law that's been on the books for decades.



And for anyone curious to read the Akins rulings themselves, here they are (the last set of these documents available anywhere on the internet, as far as I can tell):



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech1p1.gif



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech1p2.gif



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech2p1.gif



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech2p2.gif

Quoted:



And for anyone curious to read the Akins rulings themselves, here they are (the last set of these documents available anywhere on the internet, as far as I can tell):



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech1p1.gif



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech1p2.gif



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech2p1.gif



http://www.majhost.com/gallery/WesJanson/ATF/batfetech2p2.gif

Quoted:







I'd say that is a fair observation of the situation LOL

 

Quoted:


Sterling Nixon sucks ass at writing letters. After commenting at length on the theory of the stock, he could have clearly stated "If it had worked as designed it would be a machinegun".