User Panel
Quoted:
My statement applies equally to your SBRs. Piss off the wrong person and the ATF will find something to stick up your ass, they have a long track record of it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand that very well which is why I SBR most of my stuff. I asked because that poster made it sound commonplace and this case is the first I had heard of it that I can remember. |
|
Quoted:
Can you point me to some of those examples? View Quote Feel free to search around for that case. He was eccentric, but IIRC, the rifle was a legal rifle otherwise. There's the other cases where the ATF modifies the fuck out of guns trying to make them go FA, even though their modifications are outside of what the owner had done. Point being....if the govt wants to make a point out of you, they have zero reason to not just throw the book at you and hope for a plea. There's no accountability for malicious prosecution, there's no accountability for not following the law. Just because you have SBR stamps doesn't preclude you from being prosecuted for some other crime because they don't like you that day. It just precludes them from prosecuting you for a short barrel......plenty of other gun laws to throw at you. And even if they don't win, they financially ruined you along the way. Best way to keep your ass out of jail is to not blatantly break the law, and don't piss in people's wheaties if at all possible. I'm betting the "test case" guy got "noticed" somehow. |
|
Quoted:
The board member here who borrowed an AR, it malf'd and doubled. Was one of those old Olympic Arms guns with the modified FA triggers that was supposed to be semi-auto only. Prosecuted him for illegal FA. Feel free to search around for that case. He was eccentric, but IIRC, the rifle was a legal rifle otherwise. There's the other cases where the ATF modifies the fuck out of guns trying to make them go FA, even though their modifications are outside of what the owner had done. Point being....if the govt wants to make a point out of you, they have zero reason to not just throw the book at you and hope for a plea. There's no accountability for malicious prosecution, there's no accountability for not following the law. Just because you have SBR stamps doesn't preclude you from being prosecuted for some other crime because they don't like you that day. It just precludes them from prosecuting you for a short barrel......plenty of other gun laws to throw at you. And even if they don't win, they financially ruined you along the way. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you point me to some of those examples? Feel free to search around for that case. He was eccentric, but IIRC, the rifle was a legal rifle otherwise. There's the other cases where the ATF modifies the fuck out of guns trying to make them go FA, even though their modifications are outside of what the owner had done. Point being....if the govt wants to make a point out of you, they have zero reason to not just throw the book at you and hope for a plea. There's no accountability for malicious prosecution, there's no accountability for not following the law. Just because you have SBR stamps doesn't preclude you from being prosecuted for some other crime because they don't like you that day. It just precludes them from prosecuting you for a short barrel......plenty of other gun laws to throw at you. And even if they don't win, they financially ruined you along the way. |
|
Quoted:
I don't trust the ATF in the slightest however I was asking for a example of a legal SBR owner getting jacked up as that is what you implied. View Quote Your stamp is only going to make them prosecute you from a different angle, but since all gun crimes carry a stiff penalty....does it matter if they hit you up for an illegal sbr, illegal MG, or any other gun crime? Not really. If you feel better with SBR stamps, fine. SBR away. But you aren't going to convince me that dealing with NFA bullshit for a short barrel when I can get a pistol to do exactly the same thing, with my opinion being that (as long as I don't modify anything about the brace or use a VFG) there is zero increased risk (since you and I both do not trust the ATF) of prosecution for it. Remember, dude in this case modified the brace....which was how the ATF attempted to angle in on him. The only thing this case proves is that the ATF will use ANYTHING they can to get you if they want. We can pontificate all day long about what that will be, but I never thought I'd see the day when the ATF tried to use a cane piece (i had not even thought of doing that, let alone being prosecuted for it) to prosecute an illegal SBR case. I'm sure as shit going to be surprised with the next bullshit they pull. Just like the shoestring thing. Sure....was an illegal MG, but to classify a shoestring as a MG (rather than the gun + shoestring)....they will create a bullshit way to get you and we won't know what it is until it happens. |
|
Quoted:
My point is that the guy I referenced wasn't in need of a SBR stamp. If that guy's rifle was a legal SBR instead of just a rifle with the malf he had, he'd have gone down just the same. Your stamp is only going to make them prosecute you from a different angle, but since all gun crimes carry a stiff penalty....does it matter if they hit you up for an illegal sbr, illegal MG, or any other gun crime? Not really. If you feel better with SBR stamps, fine. SBR away. But you aren't going to convince me that dealing with NFA bullshit for a short barrel when I can get a pistol to do exactly the same thing, with my opinion being that (as long as I don't modify anything about the brace or use a VFG) there is zero increased risk (since you and I both do not trust the ATF) of prosecution for it. Remember, dude in this case modified the brace....which was how the ATF attempted to angle in on him. The only thing this case proves is that the ATF will use ANYTHING they can to get you if they want. We can pontificate all day long about what that will be, but I never thought I'd see the day when the ATF tried to use a cane piece (i had not even thought of doing that, let alone being prosecuted for it) to prosecute an illegal SBR case. I'm sure as shit going to be surprised with the next bullshit they pull. Just like the shoestring thing. Sure....was an illegal MG, but to classify a shoestring as a MG (rather than the gun + shoestring)....they will create a bullshit way to get you and we won't know what it is until it happens. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't trust the ATF in the slightest however I was asking for a example of a legal SBR owner getting jacked up as that is what you implied. Your stamp is only going to make them prosecute you from a different angle, but since all gun crimes carry a stiff penalty....does it matter if they hit you up for an illegal sbr, illegal MG, or any other gun crime? Not really. If you feel better with SBR stamps, fine. SBR away. But you aren't going to convince me that dealing with NFA bullshit for a short barrel when I can get a pistol to do exactly the same thing, with my opinion being that (as long as I don't modify anything about the brace or use a VFG) there is zero increased risk (since you and I both do not trust the ATF) of prosecution for it. Remember, dude in this case modified the brace....which was how the ATF attempted to angle in on him. The only thing this case proves is that the ATF will use ANYTHING they can to get you if they want. We can pontificate all day long about what that will be, but I never thought I'd see the day when the ATF tried to use a cane piece (i had not even thought of doing that, let alone being prosecuted for it) to prosecute an illegal SBR case. I'm sure as shit going to be surprised with the next bullshit they pull. Just like the shoestring thing. Sure....was an illegal MG, but to classify a shoestring as a MG (rather than the gun + shoestring)....they will create a bullshit way to get you and we won't know what it is until it happens. It's absolute bullshit that a legitimate malfunctioning gun can be used to prosecute but that's a entirely different issue in my mind. While it obviously reinforces the fact that not only are they not our friends but out to get us at least in my opinion which is why I go out of my way to make sure I stay on the right side. I don't have a lot but I want to keep it. |
|
It's worth making this point again: in the case brought up by the OP, it was local cops who arrested the guy at home. In addition to the SBR federal charges, the cops included the (later dropped) charge of "making an unregistered firearm". That was not a crime in Ohio (but of course an unregistered SBR is). The cops thought it was illegal to manufacture a firearm at home.
Local police don't know the law on this issue. They didn't believe (at the time of the arrest) that there really was such a thing as a braced pistol. It was "obviously" a stock (and of course the short barrel was "meant" to go on his regular AR rifle). Remember that Wright's AR pistol receiver didn't arrive at Dan's Gunstore until the day after the arrest (he had ordered it several weeks before). I've had this friendly debate with local sheriff's that I'm friends with (including one who was an E-7 when I worked for DoD), AND these guys are firearms enthusiasts. Their words to me: "G., you can't own a firearm that doesn't have a serial number!" I've shown them the Federal statute. They acknowledge it. Their comment was they would arrest anyone with a firearm (of any type) that didn't have a serial number. My point is that all of us here in this forum are at potential risk for arrest for possession of legal firearms by local LEOs who don't know the law. I put my own (random) serial numbers on builds just for that reason. I now keep all of my firearms locked in cases on the way to and from the range. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but I can't afford the cost of a good legal defense for a case like this, AND I'm not giving up the guns I enjoy. We can bitch all we want, but the rain keeps falling. Get an umbrella. P.S. I tried to look up this case on Westlaw. Parts of it are sealed (and not the evidence stuff that the ATF tried to hide). It appears the court was sympathetic to Wright's privacy. |
|
BTW, I notice the comment about "domestic abuse" in this case.
Wright was never charged with domestic abuse. The neighbors reported loud arguing. The cops showed up and found the front door either "unlocked" or "open" (they claimed both). They came inside and saw the 11.5" upper on the coffee table, asked if it was registered as an SBR. Wright said "no, it's a pistol", but didn't have the pistol receiver yet (it arrived the next day). He had the receipt for the receiver, and showed it to the cops. That's how this ball got started rolling. PSA: Keep your front door locked even if it's a nice neighborhood. It's not just your "stuff" you're protecting with a lock. It's also your rights. |
|
Quoted:
You really have only two choices if you want to stay off the NFA with a barrel less than 16" and/or an overall length of less than 26": pistol/handgun or (only if over 26" OAL) "Firearm" (talking about loopholes, the latter is a firearm that does not meet any of the defining characteristics of pistol/handgun, rifle, shotgun, AOW or machine gun). The Mossberg Shockwave and Remington TAC-14s are two examples of "Firearms". The ATF has already classified complete AR15s manufactured without stocks as pistols.... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
It's worth making this point again: in the case brought up by the OP, it was local cops who arrested the guy at home. In addition to the SBR federal charges, the cops included the (later dropped) charge of "making an unregistered firearm". That was not a crime in Ohio (but of course an unregistered SBR is). The cops thought it was illegal to manufacture a firearm at home. Local police don't know the law on this issue. They didn't believe (at the time of the arrest) that there really was such a thing as a braced pistol. It was "obviously" a stock (and of course the short barrel was "meant" to go on his regular AR rifle). Remember that Wright's AR pistol receiver didn't arrive at Dan's Gunstore until the day after the arrest (he had ordered it several weeks before). I've had this friendly debate with local sheriff's that I'm friends with (including one who was an E-7 when I worked for DoD), AND these guys are firearms enthusiasts. Their words to me: "G., you can't own a firearm that doesn't have a serial number!" I've shown them the Federal statute. They acknowledge it. Their comment was they would arrest anyone with a firearm (of any type) that didn't have a serial number. My point is that all of us here in this forum are at potential risk for arrest for possession of legal firearms by local LEOs who don't know the law. I put my own (random) serial numbers on builds just for that reason. I now keep all of my firearms locked in cases on the way to and from the range. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but I can't afford the cost of a good legal defense for a case like this, AND I'm not giving up the guns I enjoy. We can bitch all we want, but the rain keeps falling. Get an umbrella. P.S. I tried to look up this case on Westlaw. Parts of it are sealed (and not the evidence stuff that the ATF tried to hide). It appears the court was sympathetic to Wright's privacy. View Quote The ATF's case centered on the fact that Wright added a cane tip to a Maxim cheek rest and thus redesigned the rest to be fired from the shoulder. Look at Wright's expert report I linked to on p. 1. I can't square what you're saying about not having the receiver at the time of the arrest with the report or anything else on the docket I looked at. Wright was not charged with constructive possession of an SBR. He was charged with actual possession. Your account also contradicts the facts reported in Dan Zimmerman's TTAG article. |
|
Quoted: In a literal sense, then, when I am assembling an AR rifle, I must attach the buttstock to the buffer tube BEFORE I screw the buffer tube into the lower receiver; other wise as soon as I screw the buffer tube into the lower I have built a pistol. View Quote Also, a pistol must be originally designed and intended to be made as a pistol to fit the definition. If your building a rifle and have not yet added a shoulder stock, you still are not intending to make a pistol so technically it would not fit the definition and therefor not be a pistol. Confused enough yet ? |
|
Quoted:
In a literal sense, then, when I am assembling an AR rifle, I must attach the buttstock to the buffer tube BEFORE I screw the buffer tube into the lower receiver; other wise as soon as I screw the buffer tube into the lower I have built a pistol. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
You really have only two choices if you want to stay off the NFA with a barrel less than 16" and/or an overall length of less than 26": pistol/handgun or (only if over 26" OAL) "Firearm" (talking about loopholes, the latter is a firearm that does not meet any of the defining characteristics of pistol/handgun, rifle, shotgun, AOW or machine gun). The Mossberg Shockwave and Remington TAC-14s are two examples of "Firearms". The ATF has already classified complete AR15s manufactured without stocks as pistols.... |
|
Quoted:
I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on my point. Cane tips are nothing new with pistols. Guys were sticking them on the end of the buffer tubes long before the braces were a thing and plenty of people on here worried about how they would be treated. It's absolute bullshit that a legitimate malfunctioning gun can be used to prosecute but that's a entirely different issue in my mind. While it obviously reinforces the fact that not only are they not our friends but out to get us at least in my opinion which is why I go out of my way to make sure I stay on the right side. I don't have a lot but I want to keep it. View Quote However, do I think that if the ATF wanted to prosecute me for something to make a point of me....do you think that having a pistol vs SBR is really going to change the fact that they will prosecute me (for any gun crime)? I don't think it will. I don't believe in "get out of jail free stamps" and I don't believe in paying the man a tax in what amounts to a protection $ scam for a right. You are free to do what you think is best and I support your decisions for yourself. But I do not believe getting stamps is going to protect me from the ATF's might, only protect me from a particular avenue of prosecution. Do what you think is best, but IMHO, AR pistols are as legal as SBRs. Braces are legal and in common use. I do not think that having an AR pistol w/ brace makes me any more probable for getting prosecuted than any other gun, especially now that they lost a case on it. It just makes me trust the ATF less, but stamps are not a prosecution shield when the ATF has what amounts to unlimited $, power, and a history of playing fuck-fuck games. They will just find something else to nail you with, that's all. |
|
Quoted:
I guess I am not getting my point across well enough. I don't trust the ATF. Sure, getting a SBR stamp might preclude them from prosecuting me for the SBR. Fine, we agree. However, do I think that if the ATF wanted to prosecute me for something to make a point of me....do you think that having a pistol vs SBR is really going to change the fact that they will prosecute me (for any gun crime)? I don't think it will. I don't believe in "get out of jail free stamps" and I don't believe in paying the man a tax in what amounts to a protection $ scam for a right. You are free to do what you think is best and I support your decisions for yourself. But I do not believe getting stamps is going to protect me from the ATF's might, only protect me from a particular avenue of prosecution. Do what you think is best, but IMHO, AR pistols are as legal as SBRs. Braces are legal and in common use. I do not think that having an AR pistol w/ brace makes me any more probable for getting prosecuted than any other gun, especially now that they lost a case on it. It just makes me trust the ATF less, but stamps are not a prosecution shield when the ATF has what amounts to unlimited $, power, and a history of playing fuck-fuck games. They will just find something else to nail you with, that's all. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on my point. Cane tips are nothing new with pistols. Guys were sticking them on the end of the buffer tubes long before the braces were a thing and plenty of people on here worried about how they would be treated. It's absolute bullshit that a legitimate malfunctioning gun can be used to prosecute but that's a entirely different issue in my mind. While it obviously reinforces the fact that not only are they not our friends but out to get us at least in my opinion which is why I go out of my way to make sure I stay on the right side. I don't have a lot but I want to keep it. However, do I think that if the ATF wanted to prosecute me for something to make a point of me....do you think that having a pistol vs SBR is really going to change the fact that they will prosecute me (for any gun crime)? I don't think it will. I don't believe in "get out of jail free stamps" and I don't believe in paying the man a tax in what amounts to a protection $ scam for a right. You are free to do what you think is best and I support your decisions for yourself. But I do not believe getting stamps is going to protect me from the ATF's might, only protect me from a particular avenue of prosecution. Do what you think is best, but IMHO, AR pistols are as legal as SBRs. Braces are legal and in common use. I do not think that having an AR pistol w/ brace makes me any more probable for getting prosecuted than any other gun, especially now that they lost a case on it. It just makes me trust the ATF less, but stamps are not a prosecution shield when the ATF has what amounts to unlimited $, power, and a history of playing fuck-fuck games. They will just find something else to nail you with, that's all. |
|
The length of pull of Wright's pistol measured just under 13.5" with the crutch tip on it.
Where the ATF came up with the longer length of pull came from their "firearms expert" measuring the length of pull diagonally. If you saw the photographs used as demonstrative exhibits in the case, the measurement from the crutch cap diagonally to the forward most aspect of the bottom of the trigger, it was well over 14" The ATF "expert" conceded that if the LOP was measured in the standard fashion it was under 13.5". He also stated that he wasn't required to measure the LOP the way that most people do. His "special technique" was more accurate. |
|
Quoted:
The length of pull of Wright's pistol measured just under 13.5" with the crutch tip on it. Where the ATF came up with the longer length of pull came from their "firearms expert" measuring the length of pull diagonally. If you saw the photographs used as demonstrative exhibits in the case, the measurement from the crutch cap diagonally to the forward most aspect of the bottom of the trigger, it was well over 14" The ATF "expert" conceded that if the LOP was measured in the standard fashion it was under 13.5". He also stated that he wasn't required to measure the LOP the way that most people do. His "special technique" was more accurate. View Quote On an AR rifle or pistol, it's pretty much a straight plane from the barrel/receiver to the end of the buttstock. Regardless, it sounds a little fishy. I'd like to know if his testimony actually used the words "standard fashion" or "manner" as opposed to his technique. |
|
I'd like to know the name of this "expert” and send him a ruler. I bet a lot of folks would send him rulers.
|
|
Gray man. Give no reason for anyone to be looking hard at you and run the brace inside the limits of the final determination letter with absolutely no perceived modifications. I run them exactly as they came out of the box well inside of 13.5" LOP if measured from the trigger in any manner, straight or angled. Anything ese just isn't worth the risk and I'm not trying to get anywhere near adding room for speculation. I like the brace and want to run it happily ever after... just like in the brace fairy tales.
I'd like to see some production numbers on how many braces and brace equipped factory firearms have been made. Seems like there would at least be 1,000,000 of them out there by now and I don't see it going away anytime soon. However, I do see a lot of people getting stupid and getting hammered on running braces with too great a LOP. By the way, the Glock/Roni combo looks like a really easy way to bust the 13.5" LOP wide open. A lot of people have absolutely no clue about the 13.5" determination. Educate anyone around you who is running or may run a brace on a firearm. |
|
Quoted:
It was the Maxim extension, and it looks like the cane tip not only modified it, but also pushed it over the 13.5" LOP into magical stock territory. https://www.scribd.com/document/391881746/Vasquez-Expert-Report https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66797/maximpdw_PNG-721064_png-721090.JPG View Quote That's case law right there. The regular Maxim PDW brace with wrap for your arm needs no modification. With enough of these in the hands of old and new AR15 owners alike, especially those who want to be able to fit the firearm to their body size or application for any legal purposes, the NFA SBR law is exposed for being more and more dubious. |
|
Quoted:
Even with him modifying the brace outside of the manufacturer's design intent and configuration that is "ATF-approved", they still couldn't get a conviction. That's case law right there. The regular Maxim PDW brace with wrap for your arm needs no modification. With enough of these in the hands of old and new AR15 owners alike, especially those who want to be able to fit the firearm to their body size or application for any legal purposes, the NFA SBR law is exposed for being more and more dubious. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It was the Maxim extension, and it looks like the cane tip not only modified it, but also pushed it over the 13.5" LOP into magical stock territory. https://www.scribd.com/document/391881746/Vasquez-Expert-Report https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66797/maximpdw_PNG-721064_png-721090.JPG That's case law right there. The regular Maxim PDW brace with wrap for your arm needs no modification. With enough of these in the hands of old and new AR15 owners alike, especially those who want to be able to fit the firearm to their body size or application for any legal purposes, the NFA SBR law is exposed for being more and more dubious. They were in on this process and aware of it all from the beginning. Too late for regrets. And now there is precedent. |
|
|
Quoted: The definition of "designed to fire with one hand" or whatever for pistols comes from the Gun Control Act of 1968. It doesn't apply to the National Firearms Act of 1934. These are two different laws. The risk with AR pistols is violating the NFA. Proving that whatever you have is a pistol as defined by the GCA will not be a defense to an NFA violation. Evidence about the GCA's pistol definition wouldn't even be admissible at an NFA trial. The GCA's definition of pistol just doesn't have anything to do with whether something is an SBR. I understand that might sound weird, but statutory definitions only apply to the specific statute they are part of. Think about it this way: If I put a stock on my AR pistol and take off the handguard at the same time is it still a pistol because it's designed for one-handed use? Whether something is an SBR under the NFA has NOTHING to do with how many hands it is designed or redesigned to be used with, and it's the NFA we're worried about violating, not the GCA. View Quote (Emphasis mine) http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html Both NFA and non-NFA firearms are codified under federal law. The GCA and NFA are interrelated in federal law. Exactly how are the federal laws under 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 non admissible in a federal court case? If you put a stock on your pistol, it is no longer a pistol, but a short barrel rifle. It is no longer a weapon designed to be fired with one hand, but instead a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder. Whatever you do with the horizontal handguard is irrelevant. |
|
Quoted:
No. All this means is that one jury acquitted one man of not possessing an unregistered SBR. Presumably, based on the evidence presented at the trial, the jury thought it was a pistol. But juries don't give rationales for their decisions. To me, this whole episode says think long and hard about making any modifications to braces, using any kind of foregrip, extending length of pull beyond 13" with a brace, and even using braces without approval letters specific to them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Since the individual was found not guilty, it would appear the SI foregrip and Maxxim brace is now good to go. I think the Prosecutor was going rogue and was instrumental in blocking the existing ATF letters (jmo). Recognize the fact that the government can bring you to trial for any reason at all. Letter or no letter. This is now case law right? To me, this whole episode says think long and hard about making any modifications to braces, using any kind of foregrip, extending length of pull beyond 13" with a brace, and even using braces without approval letters specific to them. People always start threads here about SBR vs Brace. Here you go. |
|
Quoted:
"There are two kinds of firearms under U.S. (federal) law, title 1 firearms and title 2. Title 1 firearms are long guns (rifles and shotguns), handguns, silencer, and firearm frames or receivers. Most NFA weapons are also title 1 firearms. Title 2 weapons are NFA weapons. Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act is the National Firearms Act (codified at 26 U.S.C. sec. 5801 et seq.), hence NFA. Title 1 is generally called the Gun Control Act, (18 U.S.C. sec. 921 et seq.)." (Emphasis mine) http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html Both NFA and non-NFA firearms are codified under federal law. The GCA and NFA are interrelated in federal law. Exactly how are the federal laws under 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 non admissible in a federal court case? If you put a stock on your pistol, it is no longer a pistol, but a short barrel rifle. It is no longer a weapon designed to be fired with one hand, but instead a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder. Whatever you do with the horizontal handguard is irrelevant. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: The definition of "designed to fire with one hand" or whatever for pistols comes from the Gun Control Act of 1968. It doesn't apply to the National Firearms Act of 1934. These are two different laws. The risk with AR pistols is violating the NFA. Proving that whatever you have is a pistol as defined by the GCA will not be a defense to an NFA violation. Evidence about the GCA's pistol definition wouldn't even be admissible at an NFA trial. The GCA's definition of pistol just doesn't have anything to do with whether something is an SBR. I understand that might sound weird, but statutory definitions only apply to the specific statute they are part of. Think about it this way: If I put a stock on my AR pistol and take off the handguard at the same time is it still a pistol because it's designed for one-handed use? Whether something is an SBR under the NFA has NOTHING to do with how many hands it is designed or redesigned to be used with, and it's the NFA we're worried about violating, not the GCA. (Emphasis mine) http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html Both NFA and non-NFA firearms are codified under federal law. The GCA and NFA are interrelated in federal law. Exactly how are the federal laws under 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 non admissible in a federal court case? If you put a stock on your pistol, it is no longer a pistol, but a short barrel rifle. It is no longer a weapon designed to be fired with one hand, but instead a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder. Whatever you do with the horizontal handguard is irrelevant. The "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" language you're talking about comes from the definition of "handgun" found in the definitions section of the Gun Control Act, 18 USC s. 921(29)(A). The very first words of the definitions section are "AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER . . . ." Section 921 comes from chapter 44 of Title 18 of the US Code. The GCA's definition of handgun only applies to chapter 44 of Title 18. The National Firearms Act is codified at Chapter 53 of Title 26 of the US Code. The GCA's definition of "handgun" simply does not apply to the NFA in any way. If you're still not convinced, go to Wilkipedia, search "Gun Control Act of 1968," then download Public Law 90-618 which is the GCA as passed by Congress. You will see that the definitions in Title 1 have nothing whatsoever to do with the amendments to the NFA made in Title 2 of Public Law 90-618. "Chapter" refers to codification in the US Code. It's not a term that ties together two titles of a law passed by Congress. Also, Title 2 of the GCA, i.e. Public Law 90-618, is not the NFA. It just contains some amendments to the NFA. The NFA was passed in 1934. For some reason, you are trying to convince people that how many hands a gun is designed or redesigned to be used with has something to do with whether it's an SBR. It doesn't. Among other things, SBRs are about whether they're designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder. Whether something is a handgun under the GCA just doesn't bear on whether it's an SBR under the NFA. I don't think you will find any statement anywhere from the ATF where the ATF considered the number of hands a gun was designed or redesigned to be used with germane to whether that gun is an SBR. |
|
Quoted:
It's worth making this point again: in the case brought up by the OP, it was local cops who arrested the guy at home. In addition to the SBR federal charges, the cops included the (later dropped) charge of "making an unregistered firearm". That was not a crime in Ohio (but of course an unregistered SBR is). The cops thought it was illegal to manufacture a firearm at home. Local police don't know the law on this issue. They didn't believe (at the time of the arrest) that there really was such a thing as a braced pistol. It was "obviously" a stock (and of course the short barrel was "meant" to go on his regular AR rifle). Remember that Wright's AR pistol receiver didn't arrive at Dan's Gunstore until the day after the arrest (he had ordered it several weeks before). I've had this friendly debate with local sheriff's that I'm friends with (including one who was an E-7 when I worked for DoD), AND these guys are firearms enthusiasts. Their words to me: "G., you can't own a firearm that doesn't have a serial number!" I've shown them the Federal statute. They acknowledge it. Their comment was they would arrest anyone with a firearm (of any type) that didn't have a serial number. My point is that all of us here in this forum are at potential risk for arrest for possession of legal firearms by local LEOs who don't know the law. I put my own (random) serial numbers on builds just for that reason. I now keep all of my firearms locked in cases on the way to and from the range. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but I can't afford the cost of a good legal defense for a case like this, AND I'm not giving up the guns I enjoy. We can bitch all we want, but the rain keeps falling. Get an umbrella. P.S. I tried to look up this case on Westlaw. Parts of it are sealed (and not the evidence stuff that the ATF tried to hide). It appears the court was sympathetic to Wright's privacy. View Quote |
|
Quoted:. The ATF cannot pretend to suddenly realize that the thousands and thousands of braces that have been sold, and continue to be sold are part of a million-gun-owner scheme to violate the NFA. They were in on this process and aware of it all from the beginning. Too late for regrets. And now there is precedent. View Quote |
|
Quoted: I am not a lawyer, but I didn't think juries made precedent, only higher courts. View Quote |
|
When it comes to the ATF pursuing these types of cases (unregistered SBR rather than a pistol), it's always going to be an "add-on" type of prosecution.
In other words, it's not a dentist arrested at a gun range with an out of the box AR pistol, it's a country boy with half a pound of weed sitting out in the open when the sheriff comes by to serve papers about child support. The prosecutor is looking to make as severe a case as possible, which is what happened to Wright. I do a fair amount of expert witness work (nothing firearms related), and the courts are pretty much free to use what they want as far as opinions go. In this case, there is no agreed upon, "official" way to measure length of pull (LOP). The defense was able to show the court that diagonal LOP measurement of the "firearms expert" wasn't how the ATF measured it for the determination letters given to specific manufacturers. And also, an "expert" is whatever the court says one is. The "firearms expert" used by the ATF as a prosecution witness wasn't specially trained in firearms. "Firearms Expert" was his job title at the ATF. The same as if I worked for the county schoolboard and my title was "Astronaut". There's a lot of stuff out there in the world that has no "official" definition. It wasn't meant as a joke when SCOTUS justice Potter Stewart said about "hardcore pornography" that "I shall not attempt today to define the kinds of material......But I know it when I see it." What saved Wright was a jury willing to listen to the facts and make reasonable conclusions based on those facts. |
|
I don't even use rifle stocks the way they were designed to be used, because the cross-body shoulder pocket rifle stock position doesn't work for me and the shooting that I do.
This whole argument and the silly laws we have are seen when you zoom out of all this as completely antithetical to the 2A, and need to be tackled and erased. I see the popularity of pistol braces as a wave of exposing how stupid and illegal the NFA is. The more of them in the hands of shooters young and old, the better, because it will be a de facto standard. |
|
Quoted:
I don't even use rifle stocks the way they were designed to be used, because the cross-body shoulder pocket rifle stock position doesn't work for me and the shooting that I do. This whole argument and the silly laws we have are seen when you zoom out of all this as completely antithetical to the 2A, and need to be tackled and erased. I see the popularity of pistol braces as a wave of exposing how stupid and illegal the NFA is. The more of them in the hands of shooters young and old, the better, because it will be a de facto standard. View Quote People still kill people with firearms, but the concept of mass groups of hoodlums using machine guns and sawed off shotguns to wreak havoc isn't really indicative of the landscape today. A sawed off rifle or shotgun is hardly even a thing now days with things like a Mossberg Shockwave, Kel-Tec KSG, etc. And cutting down rifle barrels and stocks is kind of negated IMO by bullpups and AR pistols. The whole thing strikes me as archaic and seems more to me to have become a tool of regulation for regulation's sake. Something government is very good at when it comes to control efforts and revenue...and government jobs. |
|
|
Quoted: Very true. The silly thing about most of the GCA and NFA is that it was originally based a great deal on gangster and organized crime issues with weapons of the day. Firearms and their associated technology has changed so much as to make the GCA/NFA somewhat out of step with conditions today. People still kill people with firearms, but the concept of mass groups of hoodlums using machine guns and sawed off shotguns to wreak havoc isn't really indicative of the landscape today. A sawed off rifle or shotgun is hardly even a thing now days with things like a Mossberg Shockwave, Kel-Tec KSG, etc. And cutting down rifle barrels and stocks is kind of negated IMO by bullpups and AR pistols. The whole thing strikes me as archaic and seems more to me to have become a tool of regulation for regulation's sake. Something government is very good at when it comes to control efforts and revenue...and government jobs. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
the sawed off and sbr provisions weren't because gangsters were using those kinds of weapons in crime. It was because the NFA originally included handguns as well as machine guns/silencers, and they didn't want people to be able to get around the handgun ban by chopping down a rifle or shotgun, so they included those as well. After the NRA successfully got them to drop handguns, apparently no one realized how ridiculous it was to leave the chopped down rifle/shotgun provisions in the bill since they were no longer blocking loopholes. But it passed. And they are considered NFA items. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Um.....no. The NFA was directly caused by the gangster era. Clyde Barrow's favorite weapon was a sawed off BAR while Bonnie favored a sawed off Remington shotgun loving named "Whipit". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
the sawed off and sbr provisions weren't because gangsters were using those kinds of weapons in crime. It was because the NFA originally included handguns as well as machine guns/silencers, and they didn't want people to be able to get around the handgun ban by chopping down a rifle or shotgun, so they included those as well. After the NRA successfully got them to drop handguns, apparently no one realized how ridiculous it was to leave the chopped down rifle/shotgun provisions in the bill since they were no longer blocking loopholes. But it passed. And they are considered NFA items. "Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun. Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act |
|
Quoted:
Um... yes. The NFA might have been precipitated by the gangster era. That's not why SBRs and SBSs are part of it though. "Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun. Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I don't trust the ATF in the slightest however I was asking for a example of a legal SBR owner getting jacked up as that is what you implied. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you point me to some of those examples? Feel free to search around for that case. He was eccentric, but IIRC, the rifle was a legal rifle otherwise. There's the other cases where the ATF modifies the fuck out of guns trying to make them go FA, even though their modifications are outside of what the owner had done. Point being....if the govt wants to make a point out of you, they have zero reason to not just throw the book at you and hope for a plea. There's no accountability for malicious prosecution, there's no accountability for not following the law. Just because you have SBR stamps doesn't preclude you from being prosecuted for some other crime because they don't like you that day. It just precludes them from prosecuting you for a short barrel......plenty of other gun laws to throw at you. And even if they don't win, they financially ruined you along the way. There was a case where the ATF used ammunition with soft primers to get a rifle to slam fire, and used that as a means to prosecute a man; it was discovered that they did so, and the rifle was tested again by a third party with regular ammunition, and it would not slam fire. Then the Tech Branch claimed the classic "I know nuffing!" about it. A video was also leaked showing ATF testing a rifle by beating it with a mallet every time they pulled the trigger, trying to get the gun to burst or slam fire. I'll see if I can track that down. |
|
Quoted:
Um.....no. The NFA was directly caused by the gangster era. Clyde Barrow's favorite weapon was a sawed off BAR while Bonnie favored a sawed off Remington shotgun loving named "Whipit". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
the sawed off and sbr provisions weren't because gangsters were using those kinds of weapons in crime. It was because the NFA originally included handguns as well as machine guns/silencers, and they didn't want people to be able to get around the handgun ban by chopping down a rifle or shotgun, so they included those as well. After the NRA successfully got them to drop handguns, apparently no one realized how ridiculous it was to leave the chopped down rifle/shotgun provisions in the bill since they were no longer blocking loopholes. But it passed. And they are considered NFA items. The gangster BS was used as an excuse. The gangsters running alcohol during prohibition were the only people who could afford the $200 tax stamp, since it was half the cost of a brand new car. The NFA came about right after the Bonus Army marched on DC demanding their money; it was, originally, done to prohibit normal people from being able to afford concealable weapons.(Handguns) Gangsters didn't give a shit, nor do any other criminals. Even dumbfuck politicians know that, but they know upstanding people try to follow the law to the best of their ability. Ergo, it's law-abiding citizens that they wanted to hamstring. |
|
Quoted:
Only an idiot would cite wikipedia as evidence for or justification of a statement. Harry Potter is a true story too, lol. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Um... yes. The NFA might have been precipitated by the gangster era. That's not why SBRs and SBSs are part of it though. "Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun. Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act Does Wikipedia say Harry Potter is a true story? |
|
Quoted: Wrong. The gangster BS was used as an excuse. The gangsters running alcohol during prohibition were the only people who could afford the $200 tax stamp, since it was half the cost of a brand new car. The NFA came about right after the Bonus Army marched on DC demanding their money; it was, originally, done to prohibit normal people from being able to afford concealable weapons.(Handguns) Gangsters didn't give a shit, nor do any other criminals. Even dumbfuck politicians know that, but they know upstanding people try to follow the law to the best of their ability. Ergo, it's law-abiding citizens that they wanted to hamstring. View Quote The Bonus Army march was in 1932. Adjusted Compensation certificates, or bonuses, had been voted by Congress in 1924 but were not scheduled for full payment until 1945. In an effort to force early lump-sum payment of these benefits, the Bonus Army, sometimes called the "Bonus Expeditionary Force," converged on the nation's capital in the summer of 1932. The bonus bill was defeated in Congress and most of the veterans left for home discouraged. The rest, variously estimated at 2,000 to 3,000, over the next few weeks engaged in protests and near-riots. Local authorities requested that President Herbert Hoover intervene. Troops led by Brigadier General Perry L. Miles, accompanied by General Douglas MacArthur, drove out the demonstrators using tanks and tear gas. One veteran was shot to death, and several veterans and policemen were wounded. Congress then appropriated $100,000 to send the protestors home, and they dispersed. Two full years before the NFA. |
|
Quoted:
Is what he posted false? Or did you even read it? Does Wikipedia say Harry Potter is a true story? View Quote Wiki would say Harry Potter was a true story if I, or anyone else, edited it to say so. That's the problem with wiki, anyone can edit it. |
|
Quoted:
He posted a story from wiki and yes it is false. SBRs and SBS were not included because of concealment, they were enacted on because, like machineguns, they were being used by gangsters. Wiki would say Harry Potter was a true story if I, or anyone else, edited it to say so. That's the problem with wiki, anyone can edit it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Is what he posted false? Or did you even read it? Does Wikipedia say Harry Potter is a true story? Wiki would say Harry Potter was a true story if I, or anyone else, edited it to say so. That's the problem with wiki, anyone can edit it. "Michigan had passed their own ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns in 1931, so Michigan law was a precursor of the federal ban. The reason is clear. In 1925, after Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black doctor, used a handgun to defend his family from a mob attack, the Michigan legislature, lobbied by the KKK, passed a handgun permit law designed to keep black people disarmed. What good does it do to have a law to prevent black people from obtaining handguns, if they can simply obtain a rifle or shotgun and a hacksaw, and create their own handgun in 15 minutes? This is the reason that we have the effective ban on the ownership of short barrelled rifles and shotguns in both Michigan and federal law. It is an obsolete holdover from a racist age before the second amendment was re-acknowledged, after the Civil War, in U.S. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The 1934 NFA was originally designed to lump handguns in with machine guns as firearms effectively banned to the general public, following England and Germany's examples. In order to make the ban effective, a prohibition on short barrelled shotguns and rifles was inserted. The ban on handguns was defeated by the narrow margin of one vote. This left the orphaned ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns, which few people owned." https://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/michigan-moves-to-repeal-obsolete-racist-gun-ban/#ixzz5WTxLqNc8 |
|
I think we may have gotten down to some hair splitting over the cause of the 1934 GCA/NFA. While it's almost guaranteed not to be due to one solitary issue, I think numerous sources from history clearly indicate that gangsters/organized crime was a major factor.
Daggert, I'm curious about your comment of Michigan not being concerned with gangsters. Didn't they have a very serious Detroit Mafia from the early 1900's and well on into the 1900's? It's interesting/ironic that the 1934 GCA was passed by a Progressive...and look...they're still at it...LOL! What is sad is that the NRA approved. |
|
|
Quoted:
I think we may have gotten down to some hair splitting over the cause of the 1934 GCA/NFA. While it's almost guaranteed not to be due to one solitary issue, I think numerous sources from history clearly indicate that gangsters/organized crime was a major factor. Daggert, I'm curious about your comment of Michigan not being concerned with gangsters. Didn't they have a very serious Detroit Mafia from the early 1900's and well on into the 1900's? It's interesting/ironic that the 1934 GCA was passed by a Progressive...and look...they're still at it...LOL! What is sad is that the NRA approved. View Quote That being said, I wasn't there in 1931, so all I have to go on is what people who have studied what happened in that place and time report. |
|
Quoted: Buckle up cause this is gonna blow your fuckin mind Textbooks are edited by humans too GASP View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Now I'll blow your tiny mind, my information doesn't come from any textbook or web site BS. It comes from firsthand accounts of the hearing on the bill before it was passed from my Great Grandfather, Homer Cummings. Google him. Yes, I'm that old. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Buckle up cause this is gonna blow your fuckin mind Textbooks are edited by humans too GASP So, like I said before, you'll never be satisfied with anyone's source of information, but if the rest of us look objectively at the fact that Michigan banned handguns and then reasoned that short barrelled rifles and shotguns needed to be included to make their bill effective, and then just a couple years later, the ATF used that as a template for their own gangster-inpired handgun ban legislation, it doesn't really support your assertion that the NFA originally intended to ban short rifles because gangsters used them. Your great grandfather, who gave us the NFA (thanks for that btw), may have been over simplifying the details or giving you some of his personal thoughts about the bill decades after it was passed, and not an objective, comprehensive analysis on all of the elements and ideas that went into its creation. I mean, we can't know for sure what he said, because we have to take your word for it, and lets be honest... at this point I trust a rando on wikipedia to be more objective than your anonymous claim of a personal memory of your great grandfather's memory that you are using to back up an opinion that we have been able to logically refute. Of course, for all you know, my FATHER was Karl Frederick (the NRA spokesman those hearings). Maybe I'm THAT old, son! |
|
Quoted:
If that was even true, it doesn't make you're right. I mean, as indelible in the hippocampus as personal memories are and as reliable as oral histories tend to be (ie. the telephone game), I'm sure you think you're correct and working with better information than anyone else. So, like I said before, you'll never be satisfied with anyone's source of information, but if the rest of us look objectively at the fact that Michigan banned handguns and then reasoned that short barrelled rifles and shotguns needed to be included to make their bill effective, and then just a couple years later, the ATF used that as a template for their own gangster-inpired handgun ban legislation, it doesn't really support your assertion that the NFA originally intended to ban short rifles because gangsters used them. Your great grandfather, who gave us the NFA (thanks for that btw), may have been over simplifying the details or giving you some of his personal thoughts about the bill decades after it was passed, and not an objective, comprehensive analysis on all of the elements and ideas that went into its creation. I mean, we can't know for sure what he said, because we have to take your word for it, and lets be honest... at this point I trust a rando on wikipedia to be more objective than your anonymous claim of a personal memory of your great grandfather's memory that you are using to back up an opinion that we have been able to logically refute. Of course, for all you know, my FATHER was Karl Frederick (the NRA spokesman those hearings). Maybe I'm THAT old, son! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
If that was even true, it doesn't make you're right. I mean, as indelible in the hippocampus as personal memories are and as reliable as oral histories tend to be (ie. the telephone game), I'm sure you think you're correct and working with better information than anyone else. So, like I said before, you'll never be satisfied with anyone's source of information, but if the rest of us look objectively at the fact that Michigan banned handguns and then reasoned that short barrelled rifles and shotguns needed to be included to make their bill effective, and then just a couple years later, the ATF used that as a template for their own gangster-inpired handgun ban legislation, it doesn't really support your assertion that the NFA originally intended to ban short rifles because gangsters used them. Your great grandfather, who gave us the NFA (thanks for that btw), may have been over simplifying the details or giving you some of his personal thoughts about the bill decades after it was passed, and not an objective, comprehensive analysis on all of the elements and ideas that went into its creation. I mean, we can't know for sure what he said, because we have to take your word for it, and lets be honest... at this point I trust a rando on wikipedia to be more objective than your anonymous claim of a personal memory of your great grandfather's memory that you are using to back up an opinion that we have been able to logically refute. Of course, for all you know, my FATHER was Karl Frederick (the NRA spokesman those hearings). Maybe I'm THAT old, son! The bottom line is that no one, not even my GGF, expected the criminals to comply. In agreeing that the criminals would not obey the law, he argued that the bill was designed to make it easy to convict criminals for their noncompliance with the tax code if a suspect has a machine gun and no paperwork, they could be prosecuted. He cited the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Al Capone as an example of a known, violent, and slippery criminal who was apprehended because of the income-tax law that he violated. The goal, and his logic, was that this new tax law would similarly help law enforcement apprehend the John Dillingers of the time for violating the tax code rather than any of their violent criminal activity. That IS directly from my GGF's own words. HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 9066 APRIL 16, 18, AND MAY 14, 16, AND 16, 1934 STATEMENT OF HON. HOMER S. CUMMINGS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do not think it is necessary to make any very elaborate statement, at least at the beginning. This bill is a part of a program that has been formulated by the Department of Justice, following our experiences with the crime situation. I think it is a very essential part of it. There are pending before other committees, as of course you are aware, quite a number of bills which are designed to enable the Department of Justice to deal with what I think is generally recognized as a very serious national emergency. All of these bills, as well as this bill, are predicated upon the proposition that there has developed in this country a situation which is far beyond the power of control of merely local authorities. All these bills have been drafted with an eye to constitutional limitations, and have been kept within a scope which indicates that there is no desire upon the part of the Department of Justice, or of anyone else, so far as I know, to take over any powers, or exert any administrative functions beyond those absolutely necessary to deal with this situation. The development of late years of the predatory criminal who passes rapidly from State to State, has created a situation which is giving concern to all who are interested in law and order. We have gangs organized, as of course you all know, upon a Nation-wide basis and, on account of the shadowy area or twilight zone between State and Federal power, many of these very well instructed, very skillful, and highly intelligent criminals have found a certain refuge and safety in that zone, and there lies the heart of our problemthe roaming groups of predatory criminals who know, by experience, or because they have been instructed and advised, that they are safer if they pass quickly across a State line, leaving the scene of their crime in a high-powered car or by other means of quick transportation. Now this situation, gentlemen, has become exceedingly serious. I stated in a moment of zeal on this question that there were more people in the underworld armed than there are in the Navy and the Army of the United States. I afterward sought to check up on the accuracy of my own statement. This proposition is, of course, somewhat difficult to calculate. Yet, on the basis of the records of crimes of violence which have been perpetrated, taken with our statistics of the number of persons in prisons for crimes of violence, and such other collateral data as it is possible to secure, I am prepared to say that the statement which I made was exceedingly conservative. It would be much fairer to say that there are more people in the underworld today armed with deadly weapons, in fact, twice as many, as there are in the Army and the Navy of the United States combined. In other words, roughly speaking, there are at least 500,000 of these people who are warring against society and who are carrying about with them or have available at hand, weapons of the most deadly character. MR. COOPER. Pardon me, General, but what was the number you estimated? ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. A half a million. Now to deal with that situation, of course, requires thought and study and a serious, concerted program. Early last year the Department of Justice began an earnest study of this problem. We have been at it for more than a year, with some degree of success in our actual operations, and we have, in addition to that, collected a lot of data and information of one kind or another. Into the Department of Justice have flowed thousands and thousands of letters offering suggestions as to how to deal with this problem. The amount of public interest in this effort to suppress crime is astounding. Unless you have been in contact with it, perhaps you have not fully realized that, but we do; because we are at the storm center of this activity. Now, we have established in our Department an organization to segregate this material, to separate out the worthless suggestions, the extreme suggestions, the untenable propositions, and then gradually to concentrate on a program that is constitutional, that is reasonable, that does not invite local communities to relate their problems to the Federal Government and burden the Federal Government unnecessarily with expenses, personnel, and all the things that go with widened authority. At the same time, we have endeavored to provide the means for meeting this very real problem. I have not the slightest pride of opinion in any of these billsnot the least. I am interested only in the problem and how best to meet it. If you gentlemen can improve these bills, or make them more workable, or more useful, I am very happy to have you do that. All that we have sought to do in this particular is to formulate these bills and submit them to the Congress for its consideration. Amongst the bills is, of course, the one that is before the committee here today. This bill deals, I think it is fair to say, with one of the most serious aspects of the crime situation, namely, the armed underworld. How to deal with that was and is a difficult proposition. I do not know that this bill meets it entirely to our satisfaction; I do not know how it will work out. All I can say is that it is the result of our best thought on the subject. Now this bill is drastic in some respects THE CHAIRMAN. General, would you care to complete your main statement without interruption, or is it all right for members to ask questions as you go along? ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. Suppose I go along for a little while. I do not mind interruptions, of course- MR. LEWIS. I would like to hear the general's statement first. THE CHAIRMAN. Suppose you complete your main statement and then yield to questions. ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. All right, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, I do not know exactly how this bill will work out. Nobody can tell. We must feel our way through these big problems. But, after all, it represents a lot of thought, and a lot of study. Frankness compels me to say right at the outset that it is a drastic bill, but we have eliminated a good many suggestions that were made by people who are a little more enthusiastic about this than we areI mean enthusiastic about the possibility of curing everything by legislation. For instance, this bill does not touch in any way the owner, or possessor, or dealer in the ordinary shotgun or rifle. There would manifestly be a good deal of objection to any attempt to deal with weapons of that kind. The sportsman who desires to go out and shoot ducks, or the marksman who desires to go out and practice, perhaps wishing to pass from one State to another, would not like to e embarrassed, or troubled, or delayed by too much detail. While there are arguments for including weapons of that kind, we do not advance that suggestion. This bill deals, as the very first part of it indicates, with firearms, but defines "firearms" to mean a pistol, a revolver, a shotgun having a barrel less than 16 inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun. In the next paragraph it defines a machine gun as any weapon designed to shoot automatically, or semiautomatically, 12 or more shots without reloading. The inquiries we have made of experts on the subject of the length of the barrel of sawed-off shotguns indicates the general belief amongst such people that 18 or even 20 inches would be a better maximum length than the 16 inches suggested in our bill. A sawed-off shotgun is one of the most dangerous and deadly weapons. A machine gun, of course, ought never to be in the hands of any private individual. There is not the slightest excuse for it, not the least in the world, and we must, if we are going to be successful in this effort to suppress crime in America, take these guns out of the hands of the criminal class. Now we proceed in this bill generally under two powersone, the taxing power, and the other, the power to regulate interstate commerce. The advantages of using the taxing power with respect to the identification of the weapons and the sale, and so forth, are quite manifest. In the first place, there is already in existence a certain machinery for dealing with the collection of taxes of this kind, and these powers are being preserved in this particular act. In addition to that, it is revenue-producing. I presume that is the reason this bill is before this particular committee. I suspect there ought to be enough revenue produced to cover at least the cost of administration and as much more as is necessary in the opinion of the committee to constitute an effective regulatory arrangement. I am informed that, under existing law, there is an ad valorem 10-percent tax on pistols and revolvers and that this law produced $35,388 in the fiscal year 1933. This existing law, if the pending bill should pass, will become inoperative so far as it imposes a tax on firearms included in the proposed legislation. So we shall have to take into account the fact that with the passage of this bill there will disappear most if not all of that $36,000, but it will reappear in a larger measure under the taxing provisions and the licensing provisions that we would have in this act. I do not think, gentlemen, that I can help very much in the details of this bill. We have followed, where we could, the language of existing laws as to revenue terminology; and we nave followed the Harrison Anti-Narcotic-Act in language so as to get the benefit of any possible interpretation that the courts may have made of that act. We have given this bill the best study that we could, and we want your help. We are very anxious to obtain its passage and. if there are any things that ought to be changed, or any features of it which ought to be improved, as I said before, we are only too happy to have it done. Now that is really all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, unless there are some questions which some of the members desire to ask. MR. FREAR. General, I think every member of this committee who has been a prosecuting officer at any time appreciates the work that your Department has been doing, particularly on kidnapping and matters of that kind, and I speak of that because I had for years a near relation to police officials in St. Paul, and the difficulty of getting prisoners over State lines has been emphasized in the past. It was helpful, whether they were responsive or not. You have great difficulty, of course, between Federal and State laws. ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. Yes, sir.... |
|
wait... i thought your source was gramps? I saw those transcripts online, but was afraid to post them because... ya know... the internet and all. There is quite a bit of material in them, and pointing to one part where gramps says that sawed off shotguns are bad doesn't exactly prove that gangsters were the reason sbrs and sbss were included. Once again, going back to Michigan 1931, those things were banned along with handguns to close loopholes. Using that as a template and then offering additional justification by calling such weapons "extra scary" isn't unthinkable, especially for the guy looking for any excuse to ban basically everything.
|
|
Quoted:
wait... i thought your source was gramps? I saw those transcripts online, but was afraid to post them because... ya know... the internet and all. There is quite a bit of material in them, and pointing to one part where gramps says that sawed off shotguns are bad doesn't exactly prove that gangsters were the reason sbrs and sbss were included. Once again, going back to Michigan 1931, those things were banned along with handguns to close loopholes. Using that as a template and then offering additional justification by calling such weapons "extra scary" isn't unthinkable, especially for the guy looking for any excuse to ban basically everything. View Quote My sig line is in reference to people like you. |
|
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.