User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:45:51 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should classify baseball bats under the NFA. The 1930s gangsters used them as weapons. http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/ox11fp097jhz0zoya4wb.gif Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A Baseball Bat is designed to Hit a Baseball. If you beat someone with it you can be charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Did the design of the Bat change or is it being used in a way other than what it was designed for? They should classify baseball bats under the NFA. The 1930s gangsters used them as weapons. http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/ox11fp097jhz0zoya4wb.gif Anybody can buy one without a background check! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 7:46:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit. That defense will go far in Court.  Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that This http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg Is different than this. http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it. You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:00:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anybody can buy one without a background check! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Baseball Bat is designed to Hit a Baseball. If you beat someone with it you can be charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Did the design of the Bat change or is it being used in a way other than what it was designed for? They should classify baseball bats under the NFA. The 1930s gangsters used them as weapons. http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/ox11fp097jhz0zoya4wb.gif Anybody can buy one without a background check! Good Lawd, the Children |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:02:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep,ignorance of the law is only an acceptable defense if you are an LEO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:22:45 PM EDT
[#5]
You know what we need,
MORE PEOPLE SUING THE ATF FOR THERE FLIP FLOPPITY CRAP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 8:24:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Ebola! Ebola! Ebola!...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:02:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Joe buys a screw driver with the intent of turning screws with it.
Joe gets in an argument with his wife while he is driving screws. She upsets him, and without thinking he kills her with the screw driver. Did Joe redesign his screw driver? He didn't even think about it. What is illegal is that Joe committed a murder. The use of a screw driver is immaterial unless necessary to connect Joe to the crime. It was not redesigned, and did not have to be redesigned to be used for murder. Same with the rock he bought for landscaping. The BATFE is trying to outlaw certain conduct by creating a new definition of "designing." Like most of the idiotic gun laws, the (stated) intent was to minimize the use of firearms in crimes. Getting tax revenue and gun control, as well as power hungry bureaucrats that know better than the peasants became the reality. The original tax stamp was steep compared to today's dollar. How about sticking with the basic crimes and adding penalty enhancers if firearms are used in the commission of crimes -- rather than randomly making law-abiding citizens criminals for owning objects (that are not inherently dangerous just sitting there - like radioactive waste)? Murder is murder, whether done with a gun with a Sig brace or a screw driver. What if I make a shirt that has an integrated butt stock on the shoulder? It would never be attached to the AR pistol, but it would have a cavity that the end of the lower receiver extension tube could rest on or in. I didn't redesign my AR pistol -- just my shirt. It really isn't a problem until I harm someone with pistol. ETA: I see someone discussed the baseball bat analogy above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:07:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Joe buys a screw driver with the intent of turning screws with it. Joe gets in an argument with his wife while he is driving screws. She upsets him, and without thinking he kills her with the screw driver. Did Joe redesign his screw driver? He didn't even think about it. What is illegal is that Joe committed a murder. The use of a screw driver is immaterial unless necessary to connect Joe to the crime. It was not redesigned, and did not have to be redesigned to be used for murder. Same with the rock he bought for landscaping. The BATFE is trying to outlaw certain conduct by creating a new definition of "designing." Like most of the idiotic gun laws, the (stated) intent was to minimize the use of firearms in crimes. Getting tax revenue and gun control, as well as power hungry bureaucrats that know better than the peasants became the reality. The original tax stamp was steep compared to today's dollar. How about sticking with the basic crimes and adding penalty enhancers if firearms are used in the commission of crimes -- rather than randomly making law-abiding citizens criminals for owning objects (that are not inherently dangerous just sitting there - like radioactive waste)? Murder is murder, whether done with a gun with a Sig brace or a screw driver. What if I make a shirt that has an integrated butt stock on the shoulder? It would never be attached to the AR pistol, but it would have a cavity that the end of the lower receiver extension tube could rest on or in. I didn't redesign my AR pistol -- just my shirt. It really isn't a problem until I harm someone with pistol. You do realize that once the ATF ruled a shoe lace was a machine gun, right?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:09:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize that once the ATF ruled a shoe lace was a machine gun, right?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Joe buys a screw driver with the intent of turning screws with it. Joe gets in an argument with his wife while he is driving screws. She upsets him, and without thinking he kills her with the screw driver. Did Joe redesign his screw driver? He didn't even think about it. What is illegal is that Joe committed a murder. The use of a screw driver is immaterial unless necessary to connect Joe to the crime. It was not redesigned, and did not have to be redesigned to be used for murder. Same with the rock he bought for landscaping. The BATFE is trying to outlaw certain conduct by creating a new definition of "designing." Like most of the idiotic gun laws, the (stated) intent was to minimize the use of firearms in crimes. Getting tax revenue and gun control, as well as power hungry bureaucrats that know better than the peasants became the reality. The original tax stamp was steep compared to today's dollar. How about sticking with the basic crimes and adding penalty enhancers if firearms are used in the commission of crimes -- rather than randomly making law-abiding citizens criminals for owning objects (that are not inherently dangerous just sitting there - like radioactive waste)? Murder is murder, whether done with a gun with a Sig brace or a screw driver. What if I make a shirt that has an integrated butt stock on the shoulder? It would never be attached to the AR pistol, but it would have a cavity that the end of the lower receiver extension tube could rest on or in. I didn't redesign my AR pistol -- just my shirt. It really isn't a problem until I harm someone with pistol. You do realize that once the ATF ruled a shoe lace was a machine gun, right?? No, I did not know that. But, ask me why I am not shocked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:10:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know what we need, MORE PEOPLE SUING THE ATF FOR THERE FLIP FLOPPITY CRAP. I actually think it's funny that on one hand we have most people in GD supporting the lawsuit for Form 1 trust machine guns, but here we have two factions fighting over what comes down to the definition of "is." I have a very close friend that is an inspector in FL for the ATF and his exact phrase on virtually every NFA question - "We have no fucking clue and if you call WV 101 times you will get 101 conlicting answers. As long as you don't stick it in our eye we on the investigations end, don't know if we will get an pat on the back for being aggressive by arresting your ass or get sent to Fargo for fucking up so bad." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:10:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Joe buys a screw driver with the intent of turning screws with it. Joe gets in an argument with his wife while he is driving screws. She upsets him, and without thinking he kills her with the screw driver. Did Joe redesign his screw driver? He didn't even think about it. What is illegal is that Joe committed a murder. The use of a screw driver is immaterial unless necessary to connect Joe to the crime. It was not redesigned, and did not have to be redesigned to be used for murder. Same with the rock he bought for landscaping. The BATFE is trying to outlaw certain conduct by creating a new definition of "designing." Like most of the idiotic gun laws, the (stated) intent was to minimize the use of firearms in crimes. Getting tax revenue and gun control, as well as power hungry bureaucrats that know better than the peasants became the reality. The original tax stamp was steep compared to today's dollar. How about sticking with the basic crimes and adding penalty enhancers if firearms are used in the commission of crimes -- rather than randomly making law-abiding citizens criminals for owning objects (that are not inherently dangerous just sitting there - like radioactive waste)? Murder is murder, whether done with a gun with a Sig brace or a screw driver. What if I make a shirt that has an integrated butt stock on the shoulder? It would never be attached to the AR pistol, but it would have a cavity that the end of the lower receiver extension tube could rest on or in. I didn't redesign my AR pistol -- just my shirt. It really isn't a problem until I harm someone with pistol. ETA: I see someone discussed the baseball bat analogy above. Do you have pics of the shirt? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2015 9:49:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I did not know that. But, ask me why I am not shocked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Joe buys a screw driver with the intent of turning screws with it. Joe gets in an argument with his wife while he is driving screws. She upsets him, and without thinking he kills her with the screw driver. Did Joe redesign his screw driver? He didn't even think about it. What is illegal is that Joe committed a murder. The use of a screw driver is immaterial unless necessary to connect Joe to the crime. It was not redesigned, and did not have to be redesigned to be used for murder. Same with the rock he bought for landscaping. The BATFE is trying to outlaw certain conduct by creating a new definition of "designing." Like most of the idiotic gun laws, the (stated) intent was to minimize the use of firearms in crimes. Getting tax revenue and gun control, as well as power hungry bureaucrats that know better than the peasants became the reality. The original tax stamp was steep compared to today's dollar. How about sticking with the basic crimes and adding penalty enhancers if firearms are used in the commission of crimes -- rather than randomly making law-abiding citizens criminals for owning objects (that are not inherently dangerous just sitting there - like radioactive waste)? Murder is murder, whether done with a gun with a Sig brace or a screw driver. What if I make a shirt that has an integrated butt stock on the shoulder? It would never be attached to the AR pistol, but it would have a cavity that the end of the lower receiver extension tube could rest on or in. I didn't redesign my AR pistol -- just my shirt. It really isn't a problem until I harm someone with pistol. You do realize that once the ATF ruled a shoe lace was a machine gun, right?? No, I did not know that. But, ask me why I am not shocked. Why are you not shocked? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:09:42 AM EDT
[#13]
The determination is correct.
A guy makes an arm brace to help someone be better able to shoot with one hand. It is submitted to the ATF. They determine...sure makes sense for one armed use to control an AR style pistol. Retards do not use it per design. Retards ask if it is ok to use it like a stock. Retards know it equals a SBR.... Retards ask ATF if it is ok...ATF says no. How is this hard to understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:15:26 AM EDT
[#14]
Can we please just stop, please I beg of you. No one fucking cares anymore and these threads are stupid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 1:10:25 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does if I'm on the jury. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.
It does if I'm on the jury. ^^^^^ This |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:17:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Nothing spreads faster online than a funny meme
Make your own and tag them with on social media #AccordingToTheATF Here's a few to get it started 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:29:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Someone in here said the NFA is constitutional. Lulz.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:41:17 PM EDT
[#18]
A short stock, designed to be fired by one hand.
My 357 Ranch Hand pistol: 
It's sold as a pistol from the factory. Has "THIS IS A PISTOL" written on the box in big bold letters. Take an 1892 carbine, cut the barrel and stock off, now you've got an SBR. 
They don't give two shits about logic or consistency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:46:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone in here said the NFA is constitutional. Lulz. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1700566_Sig_Brace_ruled_ILLEGAL_TO_SHOULDER_by_ATF.html&page=16#i51171049 At least he's consistent in not understanding the Constitution or the meaning of the word "infringement". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:49:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That defense will go far in Court.
Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that This http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg Is different than this. http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit. That defense will go far in Court.
Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that This http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg Is different than this. http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg Top pic is an AOW, already a "No No". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:57:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Top pic is an AOW, already a "No No". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit. That defense will go far in Court.
Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that This http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg Is different than this. http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg Top pic is an AOW, already a "No No". Not if it's >= 26" not counting any non fixed muzzle devices. (Don't know if it is, but it looks close.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 10:59:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if it's >= 26" not counting any non fixed muzzle devices. (Don't know if it is, but it looks close.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit. That defense will go far in Court.
Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that This http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg Is different than this. http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg Top pic is an AOW, already a "No No". Not if it's >= 26" not counting any non fixed muzzle devices. (Don't know if it is, but it looks close.) Top picture is a registered SBR, so you're both wrong. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/08/18/sig-sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace-review/ Anyways, instead of risking breaking the law I asked my friend CJ if we could put a pistol buffer on his registered AR15 SBR (this explains the foregrip as well) and test this thing out by using it as both an arm brace and a stock. So here goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:12:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bullshit. This is an issue for "gun enthusiasts", not citizens engaged in the practice of liberty. The NFA and regulation of SBR's is perfectly constitutional. Unless you can't read english, and then too bad Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who designes the pistol with sig brace? A vendor that sold a complete assembled firearm or the "gun enthusiast" citizen who ordered the parts and assembled it, intending to circumvent exercise their constitutional rights in spite of the unconstitutional NFA? FIFY Bullshit. This is an issue for "gun enthusiasts", not citizens engaged in the practice of liberty. The NFA and regulation of SBR's is perfectly constitutional. Unless you can't read english, and then too bad 
Back to remedial English class for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:20:13 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A short stock, designed to be fired by one hand. My 357 Ranch Hand pistol: http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg482/verticalgain/misc/20140807_022222_zpsvt2rdkbk.jpg It's sold as a pistol from the factory. Has "THIS IS A PISTOL" written on the box in big bold letters. Take an 1892 carbine, cut the barrel and stock off, now you've got an SBR.
They don't give two shits about logic or consistency. Do you have an SBR? Or is it an exceptionally long barreled pistol? For that matter, do not all modern pistols and revolvers have rifled barrels? Therefore are they not in actuality SBRs? Of course nobody, even ATF, would be stupid enough to try to assert that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:21:00 PM EDT
[#25]
So is a sig brace illegal to put on a pistol now?
Should be a simple yes or no question. If yes. Then oh well... If no everyone carry on and stop clicking on these stupid threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:30:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Back to remedial English class for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who designes the pistol with sig brace? A vendor that sold a complete assembled firearm or the "gun enthusiast" citizen who ordered the parts and assembled it, intending to circumvent exercise their constitutional rights in spite of the unconstitutional NFA? FIFY Bullshit. This is an issue for "gun enthusiasts", not citizens engaged in the practice of liberty. The NFA and regulation of SBR's is perfectly constitutional. Unless you can't read english, and then too bad
Back to remedial English class for you. Oh LOOK! Another gun enthusiast!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:34:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
citizens engaged in the practice of liberty. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:46:14 PM EDT
[#28]
I'll give a shit about their ruling about the same level as they did with the law in Fast & Furious.
Originally written in Judges 21:25
every man did that which was right in his own eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 12:07:32 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize that once the ATF ruled a shoe lace was a machine gun, right?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Joe buys a screw driver with the intent of turning screws with it. Joe gets in an argument with his wife while he is driving screws. She upsets him, and without thinking he kills her with the screw driver. Did Joe redesign his screw driver? He didn't even think about it. What is illegal is that Joe committed a murder. The use of a screw driver is immaterial unless necessary to connect Joe to the crime. It was not redesigned, and did not have to be redesigned to be used for murder. Same with the rock he bought for landscaping. The BATFE is trying to outlaw certain conduct by creating a new definition of "designing." Like most of the idiotic gun laws, the (stated) intent was to minimize the use of firearms in crimes. Getting tax revenue and gun control, as well as power hungry bureaucrats that know better than the peasants became the reality. The original tax stamp was steep compared to today's dollar. How about sticking with the basic crimes and adding penalty enhancers if firearms are used in the commission of crimes -- rather than randomly making law-abiding citizens criminals for owning objects (that are not inherently dangerous just sitting there - like radioactive waste)? Murder is murder, whether done with a gun with a Sig brace or a screw driver. What if I make a shirt that has an integrated butt stock on the shoulder? It would never be attached to the AR pistol, but it would have a cavity that the end of the lower receiver extension tube could rest on or in. I didn't redesign my AR pistol -- just my shirt. It really isn't a problem until I harm someone with pistol. You do realize that once the ATF ruled a shoe lace was a machine gun, right?? Are you aware of what happened to that ruling? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 1:01:33 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have an SBR? Or is it an exceptionally long barreled pistol? For that matter, do not all modern pistols and revolvers have rifled barrels? Therefore are they not in actuality SBRs? Of course nobody, even ATF, would be stupid enough to try to assert that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A short stock, designed to be fired by one hand. My 357 Ranch Hand pistol: http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg482/verticalgain/misc/20140807_022222_zpsvt2rdkbk.jpg It's sold as a pistol from the factory. Has "THIS IS A PISTOL" written on the box in big bold letters. Take an 1892 carbine, cut the barrel and stock off, now you've got an SBR.
They don't give two shits about logic or consistency. Do you have an SBR? Or is it an exceptionally long barreled pistol? For that matter, do not all modern pistols and revolvers have rifled barrels? Therefore are they not in actuality SBRs? Of course nobody, even ATF, would be stupid enough to try to assert that. If I'd made it from an 1892 it would be an SBR. Since Rossi made it from an 1892, it's a pistol. |
|
|
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.
