|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 13, 2021, 06:14 PM | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Stagpanther, you are a smart person. My response isn't personal.
Quote:
That's not a reasonable policy response and it's why we don't have victims and their families control criminal sentencing. It's a terrible question that sheds absolutely no light on the topic. Quote:
After just a few raids, people like me, people who have a lot to lose by keeping regulated and prohibited items, will just turn them in as an alternative to suffering government vandalism and harassment. It's the same reason Internal Revenue doesn't need to seize lots of businesses to terrify most people.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
May 13, 2021, 08:01 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,476
|
Quote:
I'm pretty certain I remember that correctly. Perhaps one of the lawyer types around here could verify or correct that.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
May 14, 2021, 08:03 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Only Heller had applied for a license and been denied.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
May 16, 2021, 08:56 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
So wait I just had a thought about this. This isn’t just about killing ghost guns... it’s also as much about killing internet sales of uppers and slides. A booming industry at the moment. We can’t have bubba shipping an upper receiver to his house now. After all he may slap it on a lower that he built and then the government would have zero chance of a paper trail on that firearm.
This stinks to high heaven.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
May 17, 2021, 12:14 AM | #30 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,476
|
Quote:
From the decision: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||||
May 17, 2021, 12:24 AM | #31 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,859
|
Of course its about killing internet sales, more so than actually doing anything about so called ghost guns.
Think about it for a moment, specific to the AR, the upper (which is just another part, legally -for now-) is no more a stressed pressure item than the lower. That's why aluminum alloy works for both of them. If you can home fab a lower, you can home fab an upper with the same equipment. Now, serializing the upper (because it holds parts needed for the gun to fire- something they are proposing) turns the upper into a firearm all on its own, just as the serialized lower is. SO, to get that upper (if they get what they want) you'd have to go through the same process you do to get a completed lower, or a complete functional firearm with all the parts installed, physically visit an FFL to fill out the paperwork, get the background check and up the part. Oh, and if your state has a waiting period, that means 2 trips to the FFL.....to get what is today a part that even the Post Office can put in your mailbox... is that progress??? Next point, are there people that make uppers and don't make lowers??? I think there are some, and those people who are not making lowers (which are legally firearms) MIGHT have to obtain a firearms manufacturing license (and anything else required) in order to keep doing what they're doing now, and THAT added hassle and expense might just drive some of them out of business. Another point, the way their proposal is worded, it might be applied to many other guns, possibly nearly all the semiauto pistols made, and many rifles as well. show me the semi auto sporting rifle that doesn't have its trigger group contained in some kind of housing, even its nearly all inside the actual receiver, the trigger guard is part of it and is visible from outside, to might "qualify" under the language of the proposal. This is VERY BAD stuff posing as something mild and "harmless".... Not as blatant as an out right ban, it's subtle, but the possible effects are chilling to consider.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
May 17, 2021, 06:05 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
May 17, 2021, 10:32 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 1,411
|
Would this also have an impact on "drop in trigger" units?
The cassette or plates or whatever you want to call the bits that hold the trigger, hammer, disconnector and springs are "holding parts needed for the gun to fire".
__________________
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ All data is flawed, some just less so. |
May 17, 2021, 12:22 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,426
|
Quote:
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
May 17, 2021, 01:34 PM | #35 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
It could easily be argued that almost every internal part which has another part attached to it would meet that definition, based on the inane, "whatever I can ever sort of make it sound reasonable that a word could have ever been meant to mean" sort of reading applied by courts/lawyers. Technically, "literally", an AR will not fire without the spring that's attached to the various trigger parts and flips the hammer forward. Therefore, whichever piece that spring is attached to (or even pressed against to create the tension?) in any particular trigger design is "holding parts needed for the gun to fire". How does a lawyer arguing before a court try to define "holding"? Really, the only internal parts in most guns not "holding parts needed for the gun to fire" are the safety pieces.... otherwise... why would those parts BE THERE in the first place? Firearms aren't exactly flush with extraneous internals which exist just to look neat.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
May 17, 2021, 02:08 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,859
|
Quote:
Under their proposal, as written, an internal housing holding fire control parts would not be considered a receiver. BUT, its quite likely that if the trigger guard (which IS externally visible) were part of or attached to the internal housing that would be enough for them to include that housing in their definition of "receiver". Remember we need to look at two different though related things, the proposal as worded now, and likely interpretations of the rule if it is adopted as currently written and those could be significantly different. ONE part, identified as the receiver has been sufficient to legally define the firearm for a long, long time. Changing the definition so that other parts, and more than one part are the legal firearm does nothing but complicate the matter and make was was just parts into firearms under the law, adding to the complexity, hassle and expense of legal firearms ownership, which i'm sure was all they intend it to do, no matter what kind of claims they make.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
May 25, 2021, 02:42 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
The "control" of 'gun control' is actually "people control."
Do not lose sight of this. |
|
|