Is having a threaded barrel on your post-ban rifle a "bad feature" if it'll accept a flashhider or gernade launcher?

From what I understand it is. And if you want a threaded barrel it must be backwards, or using a non-standard thread. But why would it be illegal, since its not the thread that's bad, but the flashhider or gernade launcher.

Do they not trust us? I could buy a telescoping stock and still put it on my post-ban, but I dont. Or I could buy a pre-ban upper and install on my post-ban lower easilly, but I dont.

The reason I ask is I would like to install one of those Wilson Combat muzzlebrakes (birdcage A2 look-alike,) without a permanent weld or pin-on. With a standard threaded barrel I could also choose a vast variety of brakes and easilly install myself.

Thanks

The law actually says "Threaded Barrel Capable of accepting a Flash Suppressor".

So, as long as NO existing Flash suppresor will fit, then you are cool. The real problem is proving that. Expect the ATF to find some oddball custom made (By them) FS that fits your threads.

Oh that word "permanent" just makes me shiver. I was still young and lacked intrest in guns when these laws were placed. Not like I coulda stopped them, but they just P!$$ me off. They are just "chippin away" at us, slowly but surely.

...and 50 to 100 years from now, after they've banned and stripped all our favorite guns, and then decided to ban ALL guns whatsoever, were going to have to revolt with the only legal guns we have left. Our bolt-action .22 20" rifles with their 5 round max magazines.

Seriously, it is the time bomb theory.

California is a perfect example. They let the people who already owned ARs register them. What do you think will happen 50 or 100 years from now when all these registered AR owners are dead. There will be no more Legal ARs.

This is the government's surest bet.

What really pisses me off is when somebody comes out and says "Well, you should have stocked up before the ban."

Well, if I had been 18 in 1994 I would have. Short answer was I wasn't old enough to horde guns before the 1994 ban. I sure as hell wasn't 21 in 1986 to stock up before the MG Ban.

This is how the time bomb works. The current supply keeps getting smaller, the prices go up, and eventually the pool dries up and there are no more legal guns.

cc48510,

Well said.  I was 11 years old when the MG making ban went into effect.  There's no way my budget can justify the $4000+ cost of an M16 registered receiver.  It burns me when people say "shoulda bought one in '85" or "gotta pay to play." Why should I have to pay high prices for a commodity that is of [b]artificially[/b]restricted supply?  If a corporation does it, the government calls it anti-trust.  If the government does it, they call it "for my own good."

As an aside, how come nobody ever tries to revive the cases where federal courts ruled that the MG making ban actually nullified parts of the NFA? (And how come pro-rights types don't even KNOW about them?)

[url=http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/rock_island.txt]US v. Rock Island Armory[/url] and
[url=http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/dalton1.txt]US v. Dalton[/url]

Let me get back up on my soapbox...

[soapbox]

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it:

Nationwide, gun owners are actually the majority in the US.  The only reason why we're not in control of the situation is because too many of us are asleep, complacent, or don't care because OUR particulary favorite weapon isn't under attack yet.    That's a bullshit attitude. Hell, even though I personally question the wisdom of very cheap guns being very readily available, and hence being quite attractive to punks and hoodlums, I'll still fight for the right of a law-abiding gun owner to buy them!

If your favorite gun is a bolt-action 12 gauge shotgun and all you do is hunt geese with it once a year, and you don't care for ANY other guns at all, you should STILL support gun ownership of ALL other gun types including full auto assault rifles, because the antis are using a process of systematic erosion.  Where will it all end?  When the last gun is taken away from us.

That CAN'T happen IF EVERY GUN OWNER VOTES FOR HIS RIGHTS.

Voting is your best voice, though violence is the loudest.

If you are pro-gun but don't vote, you're effectively taking an anti-gun position.   I know that it can be hard to choose a candidate that's worth voting for in some elections, but in that case vote on this one issue alone, and vote for the candidate that is most for (or least against) your rights.

There are more gun owners in this country than the total number of votes that were cast in the last Presidential election.    Think about that for a moment.

If every gun owner voted, and voted for a pro-gun candidate,we'd be unstoppable.

If there IS no pro-gun candidate, consider running for office yourself.  Why SHOULDN'T it be you to run in opposition to your local gun-grabbing asshole?

Become a ONE ISSUE voter.  Vote on the GUN ISSUE, and NO OTHER.   Once our gun rights are assured and safe, THEN other issues can be dealt with.

Short and simple, ONLY VOTERS MATTER.  If you don't vote, you don't matter.

NEVER REGISTER YOUR GUNS.  Move away from any place that requires gun registration. That's not America and you're not protected there, no matter what it says on the map.

CJ



The power is yours to take, by voting.

[size=6][b]WELL SAID CM[/size=6][/b]

Thanks, Redbone.

Now, concerning the threaded muzzle issue:  Postban rifles may not have ANY threads on the muzzle, regardles of thread type, size, or handedness.    This is because while there is a 'standard' thread for NATO spec compensators, flash hiders, and particularly silencers and rifle grenade launchers, it is possible to obtain these items in custom threadings to fit a custom barrel thread.  

CJ

Some people just don't get it... the AW law has nothing to do with preventing crime, or making a gun less dangerous... pistol grips, bayonet lugs, threaded barrels... none of these features make a rifle more powerful, or a more dangerous gun.  What they are are a collection of features of the guns they don't like, and don't want you to have.  The idea is to take certain rifles away, to make you afraid to have them, for fear of getting tripped up in an insane law.  

Don't look for logic or common sense in these laws.

And yes, the grandfathering thing is dangerous.  It lulls owners into not fighting back.  But it forbids others from obtaining what you and I have already legally.  So, why the hell should I be able to have a CAR-15 made in 1988, but cannot own one made in 1995?  Am I more dangerous with one than the other?  If it is so bad, why not ban the preban guns, too?  

The reason is, they know we will fight back, will not give them up without bloodshed.  And we  far outnumber all the military, ATF, local and state police.  The don't have a chance in a door to door roundup.  So, the choose a war of attrition.  The pick us off a few at a time, put fear in the rest of us.

So, we need to reverse this situation.  We need to make damn sure they do not renew this law.  If they do, we need to hold a mass rally.  Let them know they cannot win head to head.

Imagine 100,000 AR owners holding AR-15s overhead, like Chuck Heston, "From my cold dead fingers".  I would think that would make them think twice.

A "Million Angry Gunowner March", all openly and conspicuously armed, heading for Pennsylvania Avenue.   Arranged in regiments, state by state.

I can just see it now...and wouldn't I LOVE to see it!

As a low-key demonstration, we could make a brief stopover at the headquarters building of Sarah and Gork Brady, disassemble the building BY HAND, and each take home one brick as a souvenir.  All very peacefully.

CJ

So why hasnt this happened already. What are people waiting for? I personally think we should all write Charles at the NRA, who's "supposed" to be defending guns and organize a much needed rally. Because your absolutly right. WE are the majority, and WE can change the gun laws VERY quickly. Why wait years, or decades for the laws to change (IF they even get better that is) when we could change them back NOW.

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."
- Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Actually, I've addressed this issue before. RIA was overruled by US v. Ross.  Daulton was very poorly prosecuted and the logic used by the defense in Daulton has been trashed in almost every other circuit in subsequent cases. The only reason Daulton still stands is because the court has not had the opportunity to revisit the issue.  If/when the 10th has opportunity to address the issue again, you can bet your ass they will overrule Daulton. My guess is that the judges who heard Daulton simply weren't as sharp as those who heard cases such as Hunter v. US and US v. Ardoin and couldn't figure a way a way to reconcile the NFA and 922(o).  Now that other circuits have found a way to justify it, the 10th will almost certainly fall in line when the issue comes up again.

Isn't Virginia an Open Carry State ? So, how about this, a march of gun owners armed to the teeth just over the Potomac in Virginia so we don't get busted for having guns in the People's Republik of DC.

Do you think anyone in their right mind would attempt to arrest anyone carrying a gun if they were part of a million man march, all ALSO carrying guns?

Short of a strike by the Air Force, such a march would have little to worry about, and such an event as an air strike would spell the doom of the current administration immediately.  No way the public would put up with that.    I doubt that many AF pilots would obey that order, anyway.

CJ

Sure.  Give the liberalist anti-gun Nazi's more ammo to use against us.

"800,000 slobbering, militant gun toting militia members surround the White House in protest, armed with assult rifles and cop killer hollow point ammunition."

Yeah.  That would go over like a lead brick shithouse.  Although, wait 50 years and it will be....

"800,000 slobbering, militia members surround the White House in protest to current gun laws, armed with deadly Nerf whiffle ball bats and Super Soaker full automatic squirt guns.  Timmy, age 7, was walking past the group when one person opened fire, soaking Timmy.  Timmy could have choked on this water, so with brave retort, the police returned fire with phaser guns, subduing all 800,000 militants, after which they received life in jail.  All that is left is a pile of blue foam, plastic pieces, and 900 gallons of water.  Due to the biological hazard this caused, all 800,000 will be charged with littering and reckless use of a unregistered short barrel water pistol."

Given that the gun-grabbing liberals (isn't it odd that liberals are against this LIBERTY?) would freak over such a million gun owner march, what do you think would be the political effect of an actual gun owner's march that actually had at least one million people in attendance?

Farrakhan's million man march fell far short of a million.  The million mom march also fell far short of a million, as well.     If gun owners could deliver a million marching bodies, that would have a significant psychological impact...we can deliver more for our cause than others can for theirs.  It would be an unparallelled show of strength.

Actually, it would not be necessary to march with guns in hand.   Politically speaking, that might be a misstep.   But if each participant carried a sign declaring their gun ownership, or a plastic, wooden, or cardboard replica for effect, that would be beneficial.    That might be the way to go, because upon further consideration, marching on Washington, DC with guns in hand would be a notorious example of breaking the law en masse, and the media would probably at least try to have a field day with that.   We wouldn't want to portray ourselves as scofflaws, which would be counterproductive.

CJ