Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Kyle_Bennett, Jul 11, 2018.
Yeah let's privatize the court system.
How would that work out?
Anybody know if Kinko's plans on supporting 3D printers?!
Actually, you only need to possess the parts. The same is true of a SBR, possession of the component parts alone is enough to bring real trouble upon oneself if you do not yet have the tax stamp taken care of.
Go find us a definition fro BATF that defines what an assault rifle is.
BATF has definitions for all sorts of rifles and handguns and even Any Other Weapon, (AOW), but I have never seen BATF define an Assaut Rifle.
For a definition to matter, it has to matter within the scope of the discussion.
What you are calling an Assault Rifle is classified by BATF as a machinegun. And what the anti-gun media crowd calls an Assault Weapon, (semi-auto versions of modern military styled rifles) are just rifles to the BATF. If the barrels are shorter than 16" they are short barreled rifles, if they don't have a traditional style stock they may even be pistols. But there is no weapon that is classified as an Assault Rifle or an Assault Weapon by the laws enforced by BATF.
The ATF also defined a shoe string as a machine gun (hence why I only shoot wearing high speed tactical flip-flops). The ATF is currently trying to define a stock as a machine gun. So, no we will use the standardized technical definition in order to precisely describe the item in question. The imprecise use of language that you and the ATF practice cause an immense range of problems.
And the Thompson is a submachine gun not a machinegun. It shoots a pistol cartridge.
No, we will not. Not if we are talking about legal definitions.
I will completely agree with you that the ATF's definitions are a soup salad. But currently they are the only ones that matter in any discussion involving the law, unless it is specific to State Laws which are their own cornucopia of crap in many cases.
Now if you ask me for a definition of an Assault Rifle I'll use the one you refer to. But if you ask what an M16 is according to federal law I'll tell you it's a machinegun, not an Assault Rifle.
Get where I am coming from?
No, because federal law, as demonstrated, is not written, or interpreted, with the technical specifications or definitions in place by people of experience but by lay people. Just because those same people refer to a magazine as a clip doesn't make a magazine a clip.
And if you ask based on who developed it and paid for it Armalite and the US DOD will tell you it is not a machinegun.
We can play games all day long, but the bottom line is an assault rifle has a very specific set of technical requirements. Just because people misuse the term does not change that fact. Knowingly misusing the term is considerably worse.
Let me explain some things to you that I know from my own first hand experience.
I was in the Army and was regularly issued the M16 A1 rifle and had several occasions to fire it with the selector lever set to both SEMI and AUTO. I can tell you that we routinely called a magazine a clip and unlike the Marine Corps we did not get butt hurt when this was done because only self-important idiots get butt hurt over such bullshit. Neither the US Army, DoD, not Armalite Inc. will ever prosecute anyone for illegally possessing an Assault Rifle no matter what you think, will not happen unless of course the definitions change some day.
See, I tried agreeing with you and allowing you someroom and instead you think you smell blood and want to play harder.
You think "because federal law, as demonstrated, is not written, or interpreted, with the technical specifications or definitions in place by people of experience but by lay people."
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which defined what a machinegun is, was written more than 6 years before the first "Assault Rifle" was created.
You know so much so you must know that this first "Assault Rifle" was the STG 44, which was originally called the MP43 and MP44, MP for Maschinenpistole, the German term for SubMachinegun. Of course Armalite Inc didn't exist yet either, much like the DoD.
So you can say that the people that wrote the law were ignorant and demonstrated no knowledge of the proper definition of something that didn't yet exist, in defiance of organizations that did not yet exist, and think yourself brilliantly informed. I'll just let the facts speak for themselves.
Constructive intent and it depends, but yes it wouldn't be prudent to have an unregistered DIAS or LL.
As to the SBR point, AR pistols have made that water very muddy. You can have a collection of SBR parts, but if you have a brace who's to say you intended to construct an illegal SBR or build a pistol. Some braces use a standard carbine buffer tube making it even harder to delineate SBR from pistol until you install a brace or a stock.
That said if you aren't a complete moron you should not find the atf kicking in your door and shooting your dogs for a pile of unassembled parts. Obviously FA is looked at a bit more hard and fast so best not to play that game.
You don't need a hole for either an RDIAS or LL and both will allow for full-auto fire from a semi-auto lower. In fact for the LL to operate you need to use semi-auto BCG.
For the RDIAS you need to make sure you have a low shelf lower. Many lowers are low shelf, here's a link to an old list, but I'm sure someone has an updated one.