Posted: 3/16/2014 6:00:47 PM EDT
| The only evilness on an SU-16CA is the threaded barrel. Since muzzle brakes are not evil and threaded barrels are evil, if I put a muzzle brake (not a muzzle break) on it does that means its not an AW? |
|
Quoted:
The only evilness on an SU-16CA is the threaded barrel. Since muzzle brakes are not evil and threaded barrels are evil, if I put a muzzle brake (not a muzzle break) on it does that means its not an AW? Brakes no good. Find or make a SOLID barrel extension that neither brakes or hides flash. They will amend that " break" language soon enough. This is what I have done with one of my M14 types. The others were modified not to "accept a detachable magazine", but I still wanted at least one magazine swappable rifle. |
| Was the barrel DESIGNED to accept a FH? That's what the law says DESIGNED. Fed Judge Scratchy said he'll rely on manufacturers for the definitions. Think of the threaded barrels NOT DESIGNED for a FH: RPK, FN49, Rashid, etc etc. If it came from the factory with a muzzle nut over threads, it wasn't designed for a FH. |
|
Quoted:
The only evilness on an SU-16CA is the threaded barrel. Since muzzle brakes are not evil and threaded barrels are evil, if I put a muzzle brake (not a muzzle break) on it does that means its not an AW? For right now, yes. The problem you may face is if they amend the law to correct their mistake you're screwed. |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit semantics like this are exactly why I have stopped trying to comply with the law. You can do everything right, with the best intentions and to the letter of the fucked up, partially stricken-out, ridiculous law and still end up in cuffs. Following the law for years under the previous AWB was expensive, destructive and ultimately useless. Using that precedent, I can't see why someone would buy more furniture or perform more mods to attempt to follow a law that can be rewritten again to ban those mods too. |
|
Quoted:
Following the law for years under the previous AWB was expensive, destructive and ultimately useless. Using that precedent, I can't see why someone would buy more furniture or perform more mods to attempt to follow a law that can be rewritten again to ban those mods too. Quoted:
Quoted:
Bullshit semantics like this are exactly why I have stopped trying to comply with the law. You can do everything right, with the best intentions and to the letter of the fucked up, partially stricken-out, ridiculous law and still end up in cuffs. Following the law for years under the previous AWB was expensive, destructive and ultimately useless. Using that precedent, I can't see why someone would buy more furniture or perform more mods to attempt to follow a law that can be rewritten again to ban those mods too. EXACTAMUNDO! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And may I add, besides potentially re-writing the law, AGAIN, they are also failing to provide any guidance on how to comply with the current law. As far as I'm concerned, they can take their fucking "laws" and fuck their whore mothers with them sideways. |
|
Quoted:
EXACTAMUNDO! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And may I add, besides potentially re-writing the law, AGAIN, they are also failing to provide any guidance on how to comply with the current law. As far as I'm concerned, they can take their fucking "laws" and fuck their whore mothers with them sideways. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bullshit semantics like this are exactly why I have stopped trying to comply with the law. You can do everything right, with the best intentions and to the letter of the fucked up, partially stricken-out, ridiculous law and still end up in cuffs. Following the law for years under the previous AWB was expensive, destructive and ultimately useless. Using that precedent, I can't see why someone would buy more furniture or perform more mods to attempt to follow a law that can be rewritten again to ban those mods too. EXACTAMUNDO! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And may I add, besides potentially re-writing the law, AGAIN, they are also failing to provide any guidance on how to comply with the current law. As far as I'm concerned, they can take their fucking "laws" and fuck their whore mothers with them sideways. Well, the cat's out of the bag on confiscation as Cuomo's end game so the Liberal's idea of you complying is that they get your guns and you get nothing in return except for maybe being incarcerated or dead. Win-win in their eyes. They don't want you to legally modify anything; they want to disarm you. No way should any law-abiding citizen give those pricks the satisfaction. |