Slashdot Mirror

We've been down this road time and time again. The next bit of usurpation is always 'common sense', or 'reasonable'.
Is it a surprise when we say hands off my cake, bitch!? Hell no.

Gun owners wised up years ago - when they see a liberal saying there needs to be a compromise what they see and hear is a liar who will make absolutely no compromise on his end, while demanding compromise on the other.

Gun Control Compromise Cake

If you think that is odd, then you will love this

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.c...

Yes a 14" piece of string and a key ring attached to a rifle to make it cycle constitutes a "Machine gun" under federal law.

Cool project, and it doesn't appear to be illegal (Yet). The definition of a machine gun by the ATF is a gun that fires multiple rounds per trigger pull. There are several companies that manufacture guns with electronic triggers.

Depending on how it is set up, they could nail him for "constructive possession". But assuming this is just a servo and the gun has not been modified, it appears to meet their rules. Then again, the way the ATF is known for having vague definitions and making examples out of people. There was a short period of time where they considered a shoelace to be a machine gun.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.c...

If they want, they can call constructive possession on just about anyone. Not the people you want to piss off.

Heh. I had one of those.

Not nearly as disturbing as this, sold as a kid's party game in Japan, IMO.

My particular favorite is when a man tied a shoe string around a rifle's trigger to simulate automatic fire and the BATFE declared shoe strings to be machine guns under provisions of the NFA

That was a stupid ruling by a single bureaucrat which has since been rescinded.

because it has never stopped them before from stepping all over state's sovereignty.

That is actually difficult to prove or disprove. Sure there are cases where the feds have stepped all over States Rights but it is also difficult to prove there were no cases where the feds didn't even try because it was a States Rights issue.

Guns were a right from 1791 onwards, yet police weren't in every city until the 1900s.

Guns were largely unregulated until the NFA of 1934 and more tightly regulated in the GCA of 1968, and even more so in recent years. About the only deregulation was the sunset of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. But if you follow the interpretations (from letters to the BATFE), regulation has become much more strict in the last 30 years. Heck a shoe-string is considered a NFA machinegun now. http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

Yet as that right becomes increasingly regulated (a right is not unlimited according to SCOTUS), police have become more militarized. Though you are right, if accidentally, that we should expect them to become more so

If gun control gets effective then gun printing will become a lot more popular...

Why? Gun control is about keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have guns. If it becomes effective I can't imagine that Bob the liquor store thief will invest in a 3d printer, learn how to run one, and carefully print out his gun before he heads out and knocks over a store or two. If there is somebody printing out guns en-masse to sell to such people, they might as well make them out of metal. If a skilled worker can make a gun in his backyard with no complicated equipment, it is trivial for such people to make LOTS of guns using a couple of lathes and some milling machines (CNC or manually-operated). 3d printing of guns is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't, and never will, exist.

The rest, as they say, is hilarity.
Seriously, a 3D printer doesn't really lower the bar to execution any, it just requires a different skillset.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2012/11/27/shit-shovel-ak-47/

Still, though, why do we have these restrictions? Why is an 11-inch barrel legal in one instance and illegal in another?

You should stop looking for a legitimate rationale or intellectual honesty within the NFA: it's almost entirely arbitrary and enforcement is capricious. Essentially, the only valid functional classification within the NFA is that of a machine gun (ie. a firearm that fires two or more shots with a single pull of a trigger); however, even that led to the ATF issuing a machine gun classification to a shoelace.

Furthermore, do you know that suppressors (aka "silencers") are classified as Title II firearms according to the NFA? Suppressors aren't "Hollywood quiet" in real life. As a matter of fact, I believe we should propose gun safety legislation to allow "firearm mufflers" ownership to be unrestricted, just like in Finland, Norway, Poland, Italy, etc. Gun safety for hearing protection, of course.

Essentially, the NFA was the 1930's equivalent of the "assault weapons" ban: a ban on "scary looking things" and machine guns. However, at that time the intellectual dishonesty of the Wickard v. Filburn decision had yet to come to pass. Therefore, the gun control proponents felt constrained by the Constitution: they had no power to ban these weapons but they had the power to tax. Therefore, they set a fixed $200 tax on these "evil weapons" that was many times the value of the regulated items.

Now they don't bother with workarounds that. According to the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, even producing something and giving it away for free within a single state qualifies as "interstate commerce", which implies that Congress can regulate, restrict, or ban it.

So, you asked the correct question, but ultimately there is no valid rationale for the law for you to find. Your question also applies to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (and Feinstein's current proposed law): what valid reason exists to ban things simply due to cosmetics? Why are pistol grips on rifles "evil", but are okay on pistols? Why are adjustable rifle stocks evil?

It's farcical.

What possible public interest is served by making rifles legal, pistols legal, "short-barreled rifles" legal, but a Frankengun that's a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches illegal?

Actually, all of those are legal provided you comply with the NFA.

Title I firearms (eg. rifes, pistols, shotguns) are the "regular" kind of firearms found in everyday stores and require no NFA tax stamps. Title II firearms are things like short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, machine guns, and "Any Other Weapons" (AOW); these require the tax stamp, approval from the federal government to own, etc.

The "Frankengun" you describe would be classified as an NFA short-barreled rifle (cf. this rifle) needing a stamp + federal approval, unless it lacked a stock, whereupon it would be classified as a regular handgun (cf. this pistol) with no restrictions, unless it had a vertical forward grip, whereupon it would be an AOW and need a stamp + federal approval.

BTW, you have to choose the firearm's classification *before* you make/obtain the firearm (see first link in my post).

And hey, it's a plastic gun.

No, it's not. It's not even close to that. It's a plastic lower receiver with the rest of the gun being not plastic.

As far as the ATF is concerned, an AR-15 lower receiver is a gun because it is the part of the gun that is serialized. Of course, your statement is true if you're arguing above the legal authority of the ATF, an organization that considers shoelaces to be machine guns.

and any shoe string added to a simi-auto rifle makes it an automatic weapon.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

Look at the ``Lightning Link'' graphic here:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

http://www.atf.gov/graphics/firearms/weapons/fullsize/conversion-part-lightning-link.jpg

Technical details here for the morbidly curious, though there's some questioning the legality of this classification.

There's not much question as to the legality of BATFE's decision, if you are in possession of an AR15 and an unregistered lightning link prepare for a decade long trip to club fed.
An interesting note: in 2004 the BATFE declared your shoe laces to be machine guns.

Between 2004 and 2007 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms considered a length of shoestring to be a machine gun. The notion is asinine on its face, and yet for 3 years they stuck by their ridiculous decision. Federal agencies are piss-poor authorities on these matters. They will always willfully bend the meaning of words to further their goals, without regard to the specific wording of the law.

The actual definition of theft is in 18 US Code 31. Note the distinct lack of reference to copyrighted works. Infringement of copyright is under 17 USC 5

No matter how much you wish it was the case, copyright infringement simply is not theft. Words mean things, particularly in the case of legal terminology, and theft does not change its meaning simply because you wish to use a more pejorative and emotionally charged label for copyright infringement.

Well, considering when this historical document was written, the State Governors could call up a militia from the able-bodied population. When you were called to duty, you were also expected to bring your long arm with you. So yes, the common man would have expected to have access to cutting-edge military technology of the time.

In modern times, we restrict sales of certain items to government or law enforcement agencies only. That's consistent with maintenance of a standing army (I'm not expected to bring my long arm and ammunition to boot camp should I enlist.) Unfortunately, there's a huge middle ground of contestable items - from machine guns to suppressors - that initiate frothing emotional debates from very opinionated folks. It doesn't help when BATFE classifies copper pot scrubbers and shoe laces as "firearms."

Besides, where the hell do you get something like THIS in the US?
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Mexican-Drug-Lord-Guns-Diamonds-5.jpg

HEY!!!! They found my AR15!!!! Man, I thought I'd lost that forever. Love the bling-bling on MY firearms!

Really? Americans sold them fully automatic AKs and hand grenades?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL6TdwOQuI/AAAAAAABaVU/B1QMkH2PuQw/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_17.jpg
http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/874557.jpg

Those RPG's came from the US?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/TDL5zWaiA5I/AAAAAAABaT0/cpJghwohg9c/s1600/weapons_of_mexican_drug_cartel_29.jpg
http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/picture5.jpg

That M60 was probably made in the US, but sure as fuck didn't come to cartel hands thru Texas!
http://stylemens.typepad.com/details__details/images/2008/11/17/power10.jpg

M1919 wow!
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2009/4/14/ap-p/9d90422f-c905-457a-8e1a-3f3d9f401f9f.jpg

The argument that all those firearms comes from the US is a red herring from Mexico to place blame on the US, which anti-gunners, the media, and power-hungry politicians latched onto like rabid dogs.

On one hand you have South America which has been at the center of cold-war proxy wars for decades with all kinds of ordanance.... on the other hand, maybe cartels prefer semi-auto rifles and revolvers for twice the price?

Think critically some time.

Besides, where the hell do you get something like THIS in the US?
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Mexican-Drug-Lord-Guns-Diamonds-5.jpg

This also includes devices such as a shoe string or rubber band.
Behold, the yellow thing is a registered machine gun
ATF decision here

This also includes devices such as a shoe string or rubber band.
Behold, the yellow thing is a registered machine gun
ATF decision here

Destructive devices are NFA items and are covered/controlled by the BATFE. The same BATFE that ruled that a shoe lace can make a machine gun ...