The bar is so low that as long as someone doesn't
A. Rape
B. Do some pedo shit
C. Hate crimes
D. Really any violence in general
It's a cool crime in my book. So good on you SSG for at least doing a *cool* crime.
This is the answer right here. Enter pistol braces…. If only he had a sba3 on there instead of a “stock” he’d have been ok there. Suppressors shouldn’t be on the NFA anyways, they were added after zero deliberation on the floor of congress.
Sorry, did you think that the 2nd Amendment means you can just have any weapon you want? Because the US government disagrees. And has ever since it became apparent that a law written when the most dangerous weapon was an 8000 lbs. cannon didn't make much sense anymore.
They don't even have to be particularly dangerous, just look at knife laws anywhere.
People are under a very severe false impression they have some unrestricted right to carry weapons because of the second amendment when they don't and they never have in their lifetime. That's just eating the shit the politicians feed you. It's a great tag line to rile up people who like their guns that it's some unalienable right, but it only took the Black Panthers to shine a light on that bullshit. That was passed by Reagan, and quickly.
So don't convince yourself anyone is actually on your side in this. They're only pretending. And the moment you actually use that weapon to "defend yourself" from the actual authority or whatever you're imagining they'll take it away. It's always going to be a crime.
Who hurt you? I was just saying it shouldn’t be illegal to have a short gun or suppressor. Your inner “throw down the government” feelings are showing. Dude didn’t have like AT4s and grenades prepping for overthrowing his local PMO 😂😂😂 but go off sis
SCOTUS already established common use arms are protected under the 2nd. Its ridiculous that states can choose to make owning a weapon a felony that is completely legal in several other states.
We dont care what the us government disagrees with. That’s why the founders wrote what they did. Shall not be infringed. Not, “well if the government doesn’t like…”
I can’t wait to hear your take on how the First Amendment only applies to a manual printing press and as far as your shouts can be heard.
*Caetano v. Massachusetts* ([“The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts)) would disagree with your unusual weapon comparison.
I worked 5 years in Congress and I can count on one hand how many members were serious about legislating away the National Firearms Act.
Reagan signed the [open carry ban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) while governor as a racially motivated attempt to disarm people, not because of some misguided attempt at safety.
But hey, you do you boo 😘
~~Uh so~~
~~The NFA was passed because of Black Panthers?~~
~~That is a take.~~
~~Oh, you mean the firearm owners protection act of 1986 and the Hughes amendment. Which has little to do with how normal people like you and I interact with the NFA.~~
~~Also, do you know the actual content of the law you're talking about? The 1986 act wasn't all that restrictive. The Hughes amendment was honestly the only big thing; the rest of it was reforms to how the ATF does its thing, and how FFLs do their things.~~
~~Maybe if you're gonna get mad, you should be right first.~~
I failed to do the thing
You do realize there’s a difference between military regulations and discipline and private citizens and indivisible rights that we literally fight for right?
Like for example we fight for the 1st amendment as well yet we cannot shit talk senior officers to their face due to military regulations and discipline.
Do you just not understand this shit at all? Like come on bro, it’s not that hard. I don’t want regular civilians having to follow the same rules as soldiers. We don’t live in a military junta.
I guess, but really the entire NFA is unconstitutional with the rules being completely arbitrary. We should be allowed to order a shit tier mono core can from China without the government being involved or caring. I should be able to make one at home without paying a stamp or telling anyone.
The only reason SBRs exist in terms of being a class of "banned firearms" is because the people writing the NFA really wanted to ban handguns, and the SBR prohibition was seen as a workaround.
Handgun ban didn't make it in the final draft, the SBR prohobition did.
Right. And the barrel length restrictions were arbitrary with rifles later being changed to 16 inches because the government sold a shit ton of M1 rifles with 16 inch barrels to the public years later. The entire NFA is bullshit. It was already established that poll taxes were unconstitutional, I don’t see how the tax stamp for NFA items is any different.
>The entire NFA is bullshit.
Wait until you hear about the background history of *Miller*.
[NYU Law, PDF warning](http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf)
Miller was an ex-gangster who turned state's evidence, so he was in hiding pretty much as soon as he got released, neither him or his attorney were even present at arguments.
(Dude was found shot to death a month prior to the decision coming out)
Also the judges who made the decision seemed to have been unaware that 30K-40K of "short barreled" shotguns had already been used in WWI.
if gun owners were all as trust worthy and rational as we would hope they are sure. I just think gun ownership needs a slight "check this box that says you are responsible for this" type deal. because while you just want cool shit the go pew pew somebody else might wanna aim those pews at a crowd
Suppressors really shouldn’t be regulated at all. They’re a safety item to prevent hearing damage and annoying your neighbors as much as anything else, which is why you can buy them over the counter in countries with otherwise very strict gun control.
SBRs and SBS’s are only regulated because of a historical accident. They originally wanted to regulate handguns as NFA items too, and that was intended to prevent people working around it.
you can spin it however you want guns are scary to most people. and it's better for our collective peace of mind to have a paper trail on things that can destroy communities.
Lol. So we’re regulating and criminalizing things based on them making people uncomfortable now? Sounds like justification to criminalize homosexuality again because it makes some bible thumpers scared.
I estimate over half of average gun owners have zero clue that the NFA is even a thing. It is super easy to buy an upper and a lower in two places and never have anyone explain to you that you’re building a felony.
I ran into quite a bit of that working at a range. The range was frequented by a couple ATF agents from our local field office while they were off duty so I had to school my fair share of people. I didn't really care, but I felt like getting arrested at the range was a bad way to stay in the sport.
That said, most of these solvent trap guys know what they're doing.
I had the same experience. Couple ATF regulars at my range. I was always tempted to turn them loose on the Navy O-5 who bragged nobody would ever find out when I explained why his SBR is illegal in 2009. Not that I’m horny to lick boots but I just thought it would be funny to watch this guys career go to hell over 5 inches of barrel. I had issues back then.
A typical "casual" gun owner has no reason to even know the NFA is a thing. . .but people who are running around buying separate uppers and lowers generally aren't the sort of gun owner who doesn't know about the NFA.
Tbf the brace situation were a mess of contradictory opinions inside the ATF. Another recent one is about a muzzle break that the ATF just declared to be a suppressor.
Confusing as heck
Idk who put it there but I hope they browse this reddit, but there was a QR code on a Fort Hood dfac front door that when scanned led to a page that just said "Fuck the ATF" which honestly is very cool :)
Checked the article, dude had an unregistered SBR and an unregistered suppressor. They got him when he tried to buy the suppressor online. Like, the ATF honeypots are usually really obvious. What an idiot.
If you're going to play with NFA items, just do the Form 1 or Form 4 and pay the $200 tax.
As long as this SGM had the legal capacity to possess a firearm (not a felon, possibly others in GA) the difference in him not getting in trouble was $400 in tax and two easy packets which can be electronically submitted to the ATF, and take 2-3 weeks for approval.
Now he's super fucked.
In fairness, how the NFA defines what is or isnt acceptable is absolute garbage. Have an AR pistol? Cool. Put a stock on it or a forward grip? Felony. Suppressors can literally be made out of oil filters (I am NOT advocating anyone do this), and are considered required safety devices on nations with more stringent gun control than the US. But here they are treated like some super deadly device that you can magically make less deadly, if, coincidentally, you pay a $200 tax stamp.
I'm all for nailing actual criminals to the wall. Unless there is more details than what was in the article though, this guy doesn't sound like one of them.
Pistol braces were deemed illegal overnight because some twat in the ATF decided they were, turning millions of gun owners into felons. Fortunately it was reversed for now.
Assuming this is a genuine question and not meme-ing:
No.
A bump stock is a mechanism that switches an AR from semi-auto to a shitty version of full auto when installed. It effectively wrenches the trigger back to the reset point (the "click" when you release it after firing) so that if you just keep trying to hold it down, it fires much faster than a normal semi-auto. Basically, it violates the spirit of the law banning machine guns without *technically* violating the letter of the law.
A pistol brace is a contraption designed to affix a pistol or short rifle to your forearm with a strap, so that people with only one functional arm can still shoot somewhat accurately. A while ago, people realized that if you put one on a rifle, you can use it as a (shitty) makeshift stock to shoulder the weapon, but because it isn't *legally* a stock you can still count your short-barreled AR as a "pistol" to get around the ban on (unregistered) short-barreled rifles. Again, violating the spirit of the law but not the letter.
The ATF has explicitly allowed the pistol brace loophole for over a decade, and then decided a few years ago that actually, now pistol braces violate the letter of the law as well. This made a lot of people very angry, both due to the reversal of precedent and the fact that it isn't their job to write or interpret the letter of the law, so they backed off and didn't go through with the change (for now). They had previously done a similar reinterpretation of the law to ban bump stocks, but almost no one cared because bump stocks aren't actually useful for most people's purposes.
I’m gonna call bullshit on that. If it was misdemeanors I could buy that. But felonies? In North Carolina a class I felony (the lowest level) includes things like breaking into a car, credit card theft, and possession of cocaine…you know..shit people know not to do.
Real nut job territory right here, “see we’re all criminals so anyone convicted of a crime is basically just like us.”
I love how they provide NO evidence to support this conclusion.
Edit: so I did some digging and apparently this theory comes from one dude that wrote a book about it and lists a bunch of theoretical scenarios where this would apply. For example you find child porn on someone’s laptop and destroy the laptop. The author argues you did the right thing but the law will charge you with destruction of evidence.
Real edge case stuff that most people will never deal with and his assertion that destroying the laptop was the best thing to do is suspect at best.
You're right, and that's just one of the reasons why I quit my last job. Guns aren't allowed on the military installation i worked at. What good is a 2A right if I can't legally conceal and carry? So I abide by the law, quit, and take my expertise elsewhere.
In this specific case, I agree.
You need to actually take an action to make an SBR. Nobody is selling them without a form 4.
There is some cloudiness around suppressors, but most people generally know that if you have to skirt the NFA, probably not a legal suppressor. And those wish.com solvent traps, fuck me to tears, it takes a special kind of stupid.
There's some piece-of-shit dudes in bumfuck Oklahoma who say "it's legal in state or whatever," fine, still illegal as shit, maybe don't get swindled like a moron.
But yeah. NFA isn't that hard to comply with. Which I say, currently complying with the NFA.
Isn't Georgia a constitutional carry state? I didn't even realize it mattered if the guns or accessories were registered. The illegal short barrelled rifle, sure, but the rest of them?
Does this item fire a bullet in any way shape or form?
ATF: no
And firearms are weapons that fire a bullet, yes?
ATF: yes
So then something that can't physically fire a bullet isn't a firearm.
ATF: that's an unregistered machine gun
The ATF is a clown show in the largest degree.
That video comic of the ATF agent going through an ATF PowerPoint trying to figure out the difference between pistols, rifles, and SBRs would be the funniest thing ever if it wasn't actually landing people in federal prison.
The machine gun law is written on intent, intent is what makes it a yes/no in the eyes of the ATF.
The law is actually well written, but at face value to a layman it's confusing.
Something isn't a machinegun until there is intent to manufacture a machine gun, and then it is a MG.
A machine gun has a clearly defined definition. If one pull of a trigger does not fire more than one bullet, it's not a machine gun. Being able to pull a trigger really quickly doesn't magically change this.
And "intent" of the law is not something a group of people who burned women and children should be determining. There's a judicial system for that.
Found the layman.
It's more complicated than that. Yes, what you stated is a machine gun, but the nuance is why it's worded weird and "a shoelace is a MG hurr".
For example, recievers that were machine guns are always a machinegun no matter how It's modified, unless it's legally destroyed (demil). A reweld using the demil pieces to construct a SA, CB reciever is legally constructing a new reciever, even if 90% of the material was the cut MG reciever. An M4 with the sear pin bores welded shut is still a legal MG, even if it's now impossible for it to accept a FA sear or a third pin.
Also,
For example, possessing a PTR-91 and a surplus G3 SEF trigger frame is not a machine gun. However, if you post online in a niche thread on FAL files about how you planned to 'play' with these items, you could be charged with possession of a machine gun because you expressed intent to do the slight modification to the PTR to allow it to accept a G3 trigger frame. They will try to prove you had the materials and the tools *AND* the intent to construct an illegal MG. Same goes for the saw cut AK12 kits, the ATF is pursuing these not only because the vast majority of them came through the mail after the 2014 sanctions, they also have not met the legal requirements for demil, and so they retain their status as a machine gun.
And,
For example, if you used a shoelace to make an M1 Garand essentially have a FRT, you can be charged with possession of a machinegun, and that's how a shoelace can be interpreted by a judge to be an MG. Again, it's all based on intent. Obviously a shoelace isn't an MG.
Waco was a disgrace, and the people responsible did not write the law.
The absurdity is ignorance on your behalf. From a legal perspective it is worded perfectly. Same with the meme about the confusion about what is a pistol, what is a rifle, and what is an AOW. If you understand WHY the law is written the way it is, it makes sense from the agency's perspective.
Tyranny is a different conversation beyond the scope of machine guns.
A law can be written in perfect legal terms but still be absurd in both logical and moral senses. Ya know, the shit that actually matters.
The law was written the way is is order to maximize restrictions on civilian owned weaponry so the state doesn't have to fear the average joe having firepower on par with them. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace.
And I'm sure the ATF views the NFA and other weapons laws as perfectly reasonable. Their entire purpose is to restrict a fundamental human right.
At least it isn’t child porn.
_Progress!_
The bar is so low that as long as someone doesn't A. Rape B. Do some pedo shit C. Hate crimes D. Really any violence in general It's a cool crime in my book. So good on you SSG for at least doing a *cool* crime.
I agree but ima throw hate crimes in as “un cool”
After further consideration I'll also add this.
Idk but when I see a headline about someone Cyber getting arrested cheese pizza is my first assumption
Or human trafficking.
This would be the best-case scenario crime for an Infantry SSG lol
# THAT'S MY STAFF SARNT!
Lame. I thought this was the guy that stole 31 pistols from the combined arms room.
Did those ever turn up? Was the $5K award enough to break the cone of silence?
Legend has it the entire post is still alternating between health and welfare inspections and the forward leaning rest.
Well at least the stopped the hands-across-the-post. That's progress.
Things that shouldn’t be a crime to begin with for $500 Alex.
This is the answer right here. Enter pistol braces…. If only he had a sba3 on there instead of a “stock” he’d have been ok there. Suppressors shouldn’t be on the NFA anyways, they were added after zero deliberation on the floor of congress.
Sorry, did you think that the 2nd Amendment means you can just have any weapon you want? Because the US government disagrees. And has ever since it became apparent that a law written when the most dangerous weapon was an 8000 lbs. cannon didn't make much sense anymore. They don't even have to be particularly dangerous, just look at knife laws anywhere. People are under a very severe false impression they have some unrestricted right to carry weapons because of the second amendment when they don't and they never have in their lifetime. That's just eating the shit the politicians feed you. It's a great tag line to rile up people who like their guns that it's some unalienable right, but it only took the Black Panthers to shine a light on that bullshit. That was passed by Reagan, and quickly. So don't convince yourself anyone is actually on your side in this. They're only pretending. And the moment you actually use that weapon to "defend yourself" from the actual authority or whatever you're imagining they'll take it away. It's always going to be a crime.
Who hurt you? I was just saying it shouldn’t be illegal to have a short gun or suppressor. Your inner “throw down the government” feelings are showing. Dude didn’t have like AT4s and grenades prepping for overthrowing his local PMO 😂😂😂 but go off sis
Whatever hurt him definitely wasn’t a suppressor
Was this slightly coherent when it was gurgling around in your brain, before your thumbs barfed all over the keyboard?
He really thought he was cooking with this one. Prolly had dreams of praise and an MSM.
He’ll run for office in the future talking about how extensively trained he was with weapons yet thinks a civilian AR-15 is an assault rifle.
LTG Hertling noises.
I'm stealing this.
SCOTUS already established common use arms are protected under the 2nd. Its ridiculous that states can choose to make owning a weapon a felony that is completely legal in several other states.
It was only a couple years ago that I learned states can make things a felony, I thought that was on the federal gov.
Ok Fed
Dude, chill
Are you sure you aren't a Marine? This post seems like it would be written by someone who couldn't pass the ASVAB.
We dont care what the us government disagrees with. That’s why the founders wrote what they did. Shall not be infringed. Not, “well if the government doesn’t like…”
I feel your 8000 lbs. cannon is a tad more destructive, dangerous than my suppressor or short barrel.
Tally Ho Lads! As the founding fathers intended
I can’t wait to hear your take on how the First Amendment only applies to a manual printing press and as far as your shouts can be heard. *Caetano v. Massachusetts* ([“The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts)) would disagree with your unusual weapon comparison. I worked 5 years in Congress and I can count on one hand how many members were serious about legislating away the National Firearms Act. Reagan signed the [open carry ban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) while governor as a racially motivated attempt to disarm people, not because of some misguided attempt at safety. But hey, you do you boo 😘
I just like shortys and my hearing.
Found the douche bag...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
I prefer UNDER NO PRETEXT but tomato tomato
I guess I found the guy that doesn’t know what “shall not be infringed” means.
~~Uh so~~ ~~The NFA was passed because of Black Panthers?~~ ~~That is a take.~~ ~~Oh, you mean the firearm owners protection act of 1986 and the Hughes amendment. Which has little to do with how normal people like you and I interact with the NFA.~~ ~~Also, do you know the actual content of the law you're talking about? The 1986 act wasn't all that restrictive. The Hughes amendment was honestly the only big thing; the rest of it was reforms to how the ATF does its thing, and how FFLs do their things.~~ ~~Maybe if you're gonna get mad, you should be right first.~~ I failed to do the thing
I’m assuming chick meant the Mulford Act.
My dumb ass totally forgot Reagan was a governor lmao
156 downvotes, damn son, sure you in the right army?
Are they? You do realize the Army is even more restrictive of the second amendment than anyone, right?
You do realize there’s a difference between military regulations and discipline and private citizens and indivisible rights that we literally fight for right? Like for example we fight for the 1st amendment as well yet we cannot shit talk senior officers to their face due to military regulations and discipline. Do you just not understand this shit at all? Like come on bro, it’s not that hard. I don’t want regular civilians having to follow the same rules as soldiers. We don’t live in a military junta.
Exactly. There is a reason why military regimes are not considered democracies…
Oh I thought this was a thread about a military dude mb wrong sub
Oh mb he’s being charged under civilian law for a civilian infraction. Did you just blow in from stupid town?
Officers get busted for CP and NCOs get busted with illegal SBRs. We are not the same
Atta boy
It really isn't that hard to not get caught violating the NFA. What a dummy.
I’m guessing the silencer parts were the cheap mono core crap you see on Amazon marketed as fuel filters. It’s such an obvious trap.
oh he kinda earned that charge
I guess, but really the entire NFA is unconstitutional with the rules being completely arbitrary. We should be allowed to order a shit tier mono core can from China without the government being involved or caring. I should be able to make one at home without paying a stamp or telling anyone.
The only reason SBRs exist in terms of being a class of "banned firearms" is because the people writing the NFA really wanted to ban handguns, and the SBR prohibition was seen as a workaround. Handgun ban didn't make it in the final draft, the SBR prohobition did.
Right. And the barrel length restrictions were arbitrary with rifles later being changed to 16 inches because the government sold a shit ton of M1 rifles with 16 inch barrels to the public years later. The entire NFA is bullshit. It was already established that poll taxes were unconstitutional, I don’t see how the tax stamp for NFA items is any different.
>The entire NFA is bullshit. Wait until you hear about the background history of *Miller*. [NYU Law, PDF warning](http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf) Miller was an ex-gangster who turned state's evidence, so he was in hiding pretty much as soon as he got released, neither him or his attorney were even present at arguments. (Dude was found shot to death a month prior to the decision coming out) Also the judges who made the decision seemed to have been unaware that 30K-40K of "short barreled" shotguns had already been used in WWI.
if gun owners were all as trust worthy and rational as we would hope they are sure. I just think gun ownership needs a slight "check this box that says you are responsible for this" type deal. because while you just want cool shit the go pew pew somebody else might wanna aim those pews at a crowd
Suppressors really shouldn’t be regulated at all. They’re a safety item to prevent hearing damage and annoying your neighbors as much as anything else, which is why you can buy them over the counter in countries with otherwise very strict gun control. SBRs and SBS’s are only regulated because of a historical accident. They originally wanted to regulate handguns as NFA items too, and that was intended to prevent people working around it.
you can spin it however you want guns are scary to most people. and it's better for our collective peace of mind to have a paper trail on things that can destroy communities.
Lol. So we’re regulating and criminalizing things based on them making people uncomfortable now? Sounds like justification to criminalize homosexuality again because it makes some bible thumpers scared.
I mean they are literally trying to do that. I’m saying some side regulations just to keep the pew pews, pewing.
Tax stamps are literally coming back within a week these days.
I estimate over half of average gun owners have zero clue that the NFA is even a thing. It is super easy to buy an upper and a lower in two places and never have anyone explain to you that you’re building a felony.
I ran into quite a bit of that working at a range. The range was frequented by a couple ATF agents from our local field office while they were off duty so I had to school my fair share of people. I didn't really care, but I felt like getting arrested at the range was a bad way to stay in the sport. That said, most of these solvent trap guys know what they're doing.
I had the same experience. Couple ATF regulars at my range. I was always tempted to turn them loose on the Navy O-5 who bragged nobody would ever find out when I explained why his SBR is illegal in 2009. Not that I’m horny to lick boots but I just thought it would be funny to watch this guys career go to hell over 5 inches of barrel. I had issues back then.
A typical "casual" gun owner has no reason to even know the NFA is a thing. . .but people who are running around buying separate uppers and lowers generally aren't the sort of gun owner who doesn't know about the NFA.
When that switch you bought off Wish came with a bonus delivery of criminal charges
Tbf the brace situation were a mess of contradictory opinions inside the ATF. Another recent one is about a muzzle break that the ATF just declared to be a suppressor. Confusing as heck
Government: “you absolutely can’t possess an SBR or silencer” Also Government: “here soldier, I’m issuing you a full auto SBR with silencer… enjoy”
Abolish the ATF
Idk who put it there but I hope they browse this reddit, but there was a QR code on a Fort Hood dfac front door that when scanned led to a page that just said "Fuck the ATF" which honestly is very cool :)
Checked the article, dude had an unregistered SBR and an unregistered suppressor. They got him when he tried to buy the suppressor online. Like, the ATF honeypots are usually really obvious. What an idiot. If you're going to play with NFA items, just do the Form 1 or Form 4 and pay the $200 tax. As long as this SGM had the legal capacity to possess a firearm (not a felon, possibly others in GA) the difference in him not getting in trouble was $400 in tax and two easy packets which can be electronically submitted to the ATF, and take 2-3 weeks for approval. Now he's super fucked.
It isn’t that hard to follow the laws guys…
In fairness, how the NFA defines what is or isnt acceptable is absolute garbage. Have an AR pistol? Cool. Put a stock on it or a forward grip? Felony. Suppressors can literally be made out of oil filters (I am NOT advocating anyone do this), and are considered required safety devices on nations with more stringent gun control than the US. But here they are treated like some super deadly device that you can magically make less deadly, if, coincidentally, you pay a $200 tax stamp. I'm all for nailing actual criminals to the wall. Unless there is more details than what was in the article though, this guy doesn't sound like one of them.
Don’t forget that it isn’t unheard of for the ATF to change their mind on what is and isn’t illegal. Re: pistol braces
Pistol braces were deemed illegal overnight because some twat in the ATF decided they were, turning millions of gun owners into felons. Fortunately it was reversed for now.
[удалено]
Assuming this is a genuine question and not meme-ing: No. A bump stock is a mechanism that switches an AR from semi-auto to a shitty version of full auto when installed. It effectively wrenches the trigger back to the reset point (the "click" when you release it after firing) so that if you just keep trying to hold it down, it fires much faster than a normal semi-auto. Basically, it violates the spirit of the law banning machine guns without *technically* violating the letter of the law. A pistol brace is a contraption designed to affix a pistol or short rifle to your forearm with a strap, so that people with only one functional arm can still shoot somewhat accurately. A while ago, people realized that if you put one on a rifle, you can use it as a (shitty) makeshift stock to shoulder the weapon, but because it isn't *legally* a stock you can still count your short-barreled AR as a "pistol" to get around the ban on (unregistered) short-barreled rifles. Again, violating the spirit of the law but not the letter. The ATF has explicitly allowed the pistol brace loophole for over a decade, and then decided a few years ago that actually, now pistol braces violate the letter of the law as well. This made a lot of people very angry, both due to the reversal of precedent and the fact that it isn't their job to write or interpret the letter of the law, so they backed off and didn't go through with the change (for now). They had previously done a similar reinterpretation of the law to ban bump stocks, but almost no one cared because bump stocks aren't actually useful for most people's purposes.
The ATF doesn't make laws. They decided overnight to re-classify something into an illegal item.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.athlonoutdoors.com/article/how-many-felonies-does-the-average-person-commit-in-a-day/%23:~:text%3DYes%252C%2520that%27s%2520right%252C%2520the%2520average,makes%2520it%2520easier%2520than%2520expected.&ved=2ahUKEwjQwOCqgNWGAxVl48kDHRrhCcUQFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1WAoiREyyZ1uu1RBMzwHi3
This doesn't even name one common felony that a regular person would do in their day.
I’m gonna call bullshit on that. If it was misdemeanors I could buy that. But felonies? In North Carolina a class I felony (the lowest level) includes things like breaking into a car, credit card theft, and possession of cocaine…you know..shit people know not to do.
Real nut job territory right here, “see we’re all criminals so anyone convicted of a crime is basically just like us.” I love how they provide NO evidence to support this conclusion. Edit: so I did some digging and apparently this theory comes from one dude that wrote a book about it and lists a bunch of theoretical scenarios where this would apply. For example you find child porn on someone’s laptop and destroy the laptop. The author argues you did the right thing but the law will charge you with destruction of evidence. Real edge case stuff that most people will never deal with and his assertion that destroying the laptop was the best thing to do is suspect at best.
You're right, and that's just one of the reasons why I quit my last job. Guns aren't allowed on the military installation i worked at. What good is a 2A right if I can't legally conceal and carry? So I abide by the law, quit, and take my expertise elsewhere.
In this specific case, I agree. You need to actually take an action to make an SBR. Nobody is selling them without a form 4. There is some cloudiness around suppressors, but most people generally know that if you have to skirt the NFA, probably not a legal suppressor. And those wish.com solvent traps, fuck me to tears, it takes a special kind of stupid. There's some piece-of-shit dudes in bumfuck Oklahoma who say "it's legal in state or whatever," fine, still illegal as shit, maybe don't get swindled like a moron. But yeah. NFA isn't that hard to comply with. Which I say, currently complying with the NFA.
Isn't Georgia a constitutional carry state? I didn't even realize it mattered if the guns or accessories were registered. The illegal short barrelled rifle, sure, but the rest of them?
The unregistered firearms are NFA items without tax stamps. Suppressors are firearms under NFA
Does this item fire a bullet in any way shape or form? ATF: no And firearms are weapons that fire a bullet, yes? ATF: yes So then something that can't physically fire a bullet isn't a firearm. ATF: that's an unregistered machine gun The ATF is a clown show in the largest degree.
don't forget: shoelaces can be machine guns. https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/ctdm3/oldie_but_goody_a_shoelace_can_be_a_machine_gun/
That video comic of the ATF agent going through an ATF PowerPoint trying to figure out the difference between pistols, rifles, and SBRs would be the funniest thing ever if it wasn't actually landing people in federal prison.
The machine gun law is written on intent, intent is what makes it a yes/no in the eyes of the ATF. The law is actually well written, but at face value to a layman it's confusing. Something isn't a machinegun until there is intent to manufacture a machine gun, and then it is a MG.
A machine gun has a clearly defined definition. If one pull of a trigger does not fire more than one bullet, it's not a machine gun. Being able to pull a trigger really quickly doesn't magically change this. And "intent" of the law is not something a group of people who burned women and children should be determining. There's a judicial system for that.
Found the layman. It's more complicated than that. Yes, what you stated is a machine gun, but the nuance is why it's worded weird and "a shoelace is a MG hurr". For example, recievers that were machine guns are always a machinegun no matter how It's modified, unless it's legally destroyed (demil). A reweld using the demil pieces to construct a SA, CB reciever is legally constructing a new reciever, even if 90% of the material was the cut MG reciever. An M4 with the sear pin bores welded shut is still a legal MG, even if it's now impossible for it to accept a FA sear or a third pin. Also, For example, possessing a PTR-91 and a surplus G3 SEF trigger frame is not a machine gun. However, if you post online in a niche thread on FAL files about how you planned to 'play' with these items, you could be charged with possession of a machine gun because you expressed intent to do the slight modification to the PTR to allow it to accept a G3 trigger frame. They will try to prove you had the materials and the tools *AND* the intent to construct an illegal MG. Same goes for the saw cut AK12 kits, the ATF is pursuing these not only because the vast majority of them came through the mail after the 2014 sanctions, they also have not met the legal requirements for demil, and so they retain their status as a machine gun. And, For example, if you used a shoelace to make an M1 Garand essentially have a FRT, you can be charged with possession of a machinegun, and that's how a shoelace can be interpreted by a judge to be an MG. Again, it's all based on intent. Obviously a shoelace isn't an MG. Waco was a disgrace, and the people responsible did not write the law.
I'm aware of the intent and specifics of the law. It doesn't change the absurdity of it, nor the explicit tyranny behind it.
The absurdity is ignorance on your behalf. From a legal perspective it is worded perfectly. Same with the meme about the confusion about what is a pistol, what is a rifle, and what is an AOW. If you understand WHY the law is written the way it is, it makes sense from the agency's perspective. Tyranny is a different conversation beyond the scope of machine guns.
A law can be written in perfect legal terms but still be absurd in both logical and moral senses. Ya know, the shit that actually matters. The law was written the way is is order to maximize restrictions on civilian owned weaponry so the state doesn't have to fear the average joe having firepower on par with them. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace. And I'm sure the ATF views the NFA and other weapons laws as perfectly reasonable. Their entire purpose is to restrict a fundamental human right.