General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Reducing/repealing the NFA?
DenmanShooter:
--- Quote from: dkarp on January 19, 2015, 01:33:00 PM ---Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? :) I think someone could argue that.
Again, showing how silly the NFA is. Another example, I can use an Ar15 receiver to build a pistol, THEN add a buttstock and upper that makes it meet the minimum length, but if it starts as a receiver built as a rifle, I can't legally build it into a pistol...IIRC...
--- End quote ---
ATF had a bunch of idiot jackasses writing them to find out if they could get around the SBR requirements by using the SIG brace.
ATF had to clarify by saying it is the INTENTION that counts.
So if you start out to build a pistol and add the brace, you are good to go still.
Just don't start out with the INTENTION of building a SBR.
So you need your pistol and then you can add your brace or buy the pistol with the brace with the intention of using it as a pistol.
See how that works? What was your intention sir?
Aye, aye, aye!
RobertH:
--- Quote from: mott555 on January 19, 2015, 02:30:30 PM ---Isn't this why the Taurus Judge has a rifled barrel and will chamber .45 Colt? I remember reading if it was a smoothbore instead of rifled, it gets classified as a short-barreled shotgun and thus subject to NFA regulation, instead of a handgun.
--- End quote ---
I believe smoothbores without a stock are AOWs.
Dtrain323i:
You have to use the anti's playbook to get rid of stuff like this. One inch at a time. I think the best start would be to get rid of the Hughes amendment. Its something that could be slipped into an unrelated bill and maybe get passed fairly easily. Then go after suppressors, tougher since "hurr durr silencers are for assassinations". But you go after it bit by bit. Going after the whole enchilada is a non-starter.
Hardwood83:
--- Quote from: DenmanShooter on January 19, 2015, 10:17:50 PM ---ATF had a bunch of idiot jackasses writing them to find out if they could get around the SBR requirements by using the SIG brace.
ATF had to clarify by saying it is the INTENTION that counts.
So if you start out to build a pistol and add the brace, you are good to go still.
Just don't start out with the INTENTION of building a SBR.
So you need your pistol and then you can add your brace or buy the pistol with the brace with the intention of using it as a pistol.
See how that works? What was your intention sir?
Aye, aye, aye!
--- End quote ---
I disagree- the ATF are the jack-asses. Confusing, contradictory and purely subjective 'opinion letters' and 'interpretations' lead to average schmucks asking questions to avoid Federal charges. Repeal NFA, disband the ATF and call it a day.
Also, there is this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1
DenmanShooter:
--- Quote from: Hardwood83 on January 27, 2015, 09:31:54 PM ---I disagree- the ATF are the jack-asses. Confusing, contradictory and purely subjective 'opinion letters' and 'interpretations' lead to average schmucks asking questions to avoid Federal charges. Repeal NFA, disband the ATF and call it a day.
Also, there is this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1
--- End quote ---
I agree ATF are schmucks and needs disbanded. But you are confusing 2 different things. After the ATF clarified the sig brace could be used on a pistol (AR pistol) and the act of shouldering did not change the definition, several schmoes wrote to ask if they could then build sbr's and get around the sbr tax. The atf had already ruled and it was all fine and dandy then they found themselves between a rock and a hard place and had to reclarify and practicallyt reverse themselves.
It is hard to tell if that was an act of sabotage or actual curiosity.
But not worth arguing the point over.
The general idea is that, yes they are arbitrary and capricious and their rules are just plain stupid and they need to go.
If enough law suits get going then maybe, maybe, some success will be made. But I would rather have it repealed than leave it to the courts as they are unreliable.
The executive branch has been handed too much leeway in creating regulations which were never approved as law. It has ALMOST gotten out of control. If it isn't reigned in soon we are all looking at a very bleak future in this country.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version