Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:58 AM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Dude. This thread is beneath you.
This is a debate forum. it's tradition to engage in the debate with some kind of argument. I don't see where you've done this. It looks like you attacked the person starting the post without backing up the statement.

Czarcasm posted a valid debatable question with significant legal ramifications. For some reason you think the question itself is without merit But you left out the part explaining your position.
  #52  
Old 09-21-2019, 03:53 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Dude. This thread is beneath you.
Knock it off. Do not threadshit or personalize arguments in this fashion.

[/moderating]
  #53  
Old 09-21-2019, 05:42 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Does anyone here disagree with this long standing defintion of a firearm from Title 18?
Quote:
(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Certain devices such as Ram-set guns use gun powder to operate, but are not considered weapons, so not firearms, for now anyway.

I thought nearly everyone knew that the firearm receiver (lower receiver for guns like the AR-15) are the registered "gun" with anything attaching to it an unregulated part. An AR-15 stripped lower receiver will not shoot anything, but try explaining that to the FFL you're buying it from when objecting to the NICS, 11% tax or waiting period.

It should be no surprise that other items that do not discharge a projectile by themselves have long been legally firearms; silencers for example.

It bugs me that a person would say something is not a firearm because "they say so". In a country of laws, a firearm is a firearm if the law says it is.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim

Last edited by MartinLane; 09-21-2019 at 05:46 PM.
  #54  
Old 09-21-2019, 06:11 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLane View Post
Does anyone here disagree with this long standing defintion of a firearm from Title 18?


Certain devices such as Ram-set guns use gun powder to operate, but are not considered weapons, so not firearms, for now anyway.

I thought nearly everyone knew that the firearm receiver (lower receiver for guns like the AR-15) are the registered "gun" with anything attaching to it an unregulated part. An AR-15 stripped lower receiver will not shoot anything, but try explaining that to the FFL you're buying it from when objecting to the NICS, 11% tax or waiting period.

It should be no surprise that other items that do not discharge a projectile by themselves have long been legally firearms; silencers for example.

It bugs me that a person would say something is not a firearm because "they say so". In a country of laws, a firearm is a firearm if the law says it is.
can you cite that a silencer by itself can be used to convict someone of armed robbery?
  #55  
Old 09-21-2019, 06:17 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
The Gun ConTrol ACT of 1968
TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44
924 Penalties
Quote:
(ii) is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years
The above is a sentencing enhancement. But a silencer can be used as a club also.

The point I've been trying to make is that legally a silencer and bump stock are firearms. Trump used legal means to have them banned.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #56  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:29 PM
Magiver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLane View Post
The Gun ConTrol ACT of 1968
TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44
924 Penalties

The above is a sentencing enhancement. But a silencer can be used as a club also.

The point I've been trying to make is that legally a silencer and bump stock are firearms. Trump used legal means to have them banned.
No, they are not guns because they do not fit the definition of a gun. You seem confused by the ability to regulate gun parts as a definition of a gun.
  #57  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:43 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
No, they are not guns because they do not fit the definition of a gun. You seem confused by the ability to regulate gun parts as a definition of a gun.
It looks like that isn't what the federal code says. I think everyone with a functioning brain would agree a firearm silencer, a bump stock, a receiver, etc just lying on your desk isn't actually a gun. Any more than an engine block or muffler is a car.

But legally it seems that if you were not allowed to possess a firearm, and if the authorities barged in and saw the component on your desk, they could and probably would charge you with possessing a firearm. And it seems that your conviction would probably stick.

Part of this makes a little bit of sense. The parts that are not a firearm you can order without ID from lots of places, including online shops. You could have bought the barrel and the bolt and the magazine and the ammo and all the other parts of the firearm and put it together on your desk without a background check.
  #58  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:47 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
No, they are not guns because they do not fit the definition of a gun. You seem confused by the ability to regulate gun parts as a definition of a gun.
What is the definition of a gun? Does your definition match the US Code definition?
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #59  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:48 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
.... The parts that are not a firearm you can order without ID from lots of places, including online shops. You could have bought the barrel and the bolt and the magazine and the ammo and all the other parts of the firearm and put it together on your desk without a background check.
That is only true for non-NFA firearms.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #60  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:51 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLane View Post
That is only true for non-NFA firearms.
Hmm? You can't order the barrel for a machinegun? Are you sure about this?

Because you could have an M16, registered prior to 1986, and you could, as I understand it, order replacement parts for anything but the receiver itself. (which isn't really a wear item)

I understand that you can order linked ammo openly. The main difficulty to me sounds like that the manufacturers might refuse to sell you parts. For instance, will GE sell a civilian the parts for their miniguns?

Last edited by SamuelA; 09-21-2019 at 10:52 PM.
  #61  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:08 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Hmm? You can't order the barrel for a machinegun? Are you sure about this?

Because you could have an M16, registered prior to 1986, and you could, as I understand it, order replacement parts for anything but the receiver itself. (which isn't really a wear item)

I understand that you can order linked ammo openly. The main difficulty to me sounds like that the manufacturers might refuse to sell you parts. For instance, will GE sell a civilian the parts for their miniguns?
I should have been more clear. While you can buy the receiver from a dealer and buy everything else online without controls, the same is not always true for NFA firearms.

If I have an AR-15 rifle then buy a short barrel for it, I better also have a tax stamp for an SBR or a AR-15 pistol to use the barrel on. Otherwise this could be constructive possession of a contraband NFA firearm.

I also need ATF authorization to buy an auto sear.

I cannot make parts for a silencer until I have the approved tax stamp or FFL/SOT.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #62  
Old 09-22-2019, 07:59 AM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,073
If there was a chemical that was no effect by itself, but reacts with ethyl alcohol to form a psychoactive drug - would it be wrong to regulate that chemical as a drug?
  #63  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:51 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
If there was a chemical that was no effect by itself, but reacts with ethyl alcohol to form a psychoactive drug - would it be wrong to regulate that chemical as a drug?
That's a separate debate.

There are those claiming in this thread that the chemical that has no effect by itself should be, by itself, considered psychoactive due to a semantics argument. And this is the main debate in this thread. Indeed, it's in the title itself.

That's an entirely separate debate from how much regulation the separate components of a psychoactive compound should receive, which isn't really being directly debated in this thread.
  #64  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:12 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
That's a separate debate.

There are those claiming in this thread that the chemical that has no effect by itself should be, by itself, considered psychoactive due to a semantics argument. And this is the main debate in this thread. Indeed, it's in the title itself.

That's an entirely separate debate from how much regulation the separate components of a psychoactive compound should receive, which isn't really being directly debated in this thread.
I think everyone, including the ATF, knows a firearm component isn't a firearm in itself. But they have decided that instead of trying to track everything, they will just focus on essential parts and leave everything else mostly unregulated. Given they have to police the entire USA, and have finite money and resources, this may very well be a reasonable approach.

And so they have defined a component to be something it isn't. In the same way, they have defined sex with a person under a certain age is rape, even if the legislators who wrote the law willingly had sex before that age, and even if the 'rape victim' is just as willing as the legislators who wrote the law were.
  #65  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:52 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
I can envision ATF raids on all the office supply stores; jeez, I personally own hundreds of these "firearms", sitting in my kitchen junk drawer. I guess I should at least move them to my safe, given their dire threat to public safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ
  #66  
Old 09-23-2019, 06:43 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLane View Post
The point I've been trying to make is that legally a silencer and bump stock are firearms. Trump used legal means to have them banned.
No he didn't. He circumvented Congress and ordered a government agency to make something illegal even though for decades that agency certified that such devices were NOT machine guns. Saying something is something it's not just because the President wants it that way is not how things are done under "legal means".

The ATF did not and does not have the authority to issue such a legislative rule and the President does not have the legal power to give them that authority.
  #67  
Old 09-23-2019, 08:02 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
The ATF did not and does not have the authority to issue such a legislative rule and the President does not have the legal power to give them that authority.
That article seems like someone's interpretation of what ATF said. Do you have a link to what the ATF actually said?
  #68  
Old 09-23-2019, 08:08 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That article seems like someone's interpretation of what ATF said. Do you have a link to what the ATF actually said?
You dont really think the ATF is going to post on their website we are going to do something we have no authority to do, do you?

What they said is available in the court briefs. Ill check to see if I can link to them.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017