If that’s what it took to save me six hours of work and two hundred lines of code, hell yeah!
And then I’d go home and take a shower.
Well, if it helps any, the AR lower is the only part of the gun that is legally considered a “firearm.” The AR lower by itself will not fire a bullet anymore than a bump stock by itself would. Yet, it is considered a firearm.
The upper, barrel, etc. can be ordered through the mail straight to your house, with no FFL license or background check and is much of an “gun accessory” as anything else. All parts that are absolutely essential to fire an AR-15.
In short, something does not have to shoot to be a “firearm”.
Trump could have wanted for Congress to act. But I think he wanted his own gun grab. 
Exactly!
For everyone else, here is the BATFE’s firearm reference guide.
https://www.atf.gov/file/11241/download
Everything you ever wanted or didn’t want to know about gun control by the federal government. It is from 2014, so it doesn’t have the latest on the bump stock ban. But i think it has details on earlier bump stocks and why they were legal, then illegal.
Just to be clear, we’re all aware that various odd and counter-intuitive categorizations have been made by various governments, regulatory agencies, and computer programmers for various reasons including convenience, impatience, and getting around the intent of the laws. This is not something that anybody is disputing.
The thing is, just because I call a refund a “payment” because that’s convenient for the way my data is stored in the program I’m writing, this does not mean that the word “refund” now means that you’re giving up money when you get one, and it doesn’t mean that bump stocks are now firearms anywhere outside of the kludgy lawbook’s definitions. Words continue to have meanings, and calling a bump stock a gun is still, to most people, silly and wrong.
This kind of puts me in mind of a similar question: Are Superman and Superboy the same character? The obvious answer is yes, it’s the same character at different stages in his life, about 15-20 years apart. The legal answer is no, Superman and Superboy are distinct characters, and several lawsuits involving the Siegel and Shuster families have established this.
There’s no point pretending that what is obvious and what is legal need be synonymous.
Dude. This thread is beneath you.
I guess I am supposed to be ashamed for…something?
You have a point.
But to continue the analogy;
What is happening here is that someone has seen the law saying that for the purpose of import tariffs, tomatoes will be considered a vegetable. And then they are challenging basic botany, saying all the botanists are wrong, and want to change the biology textbooks to reflect this.
They are considered a regulated part of a gun. But I don’t think they are a gun. The legal test would be laws related to gun use. If you have a silencer concealed in your pocket and rob a bank I don’t think you can be charged with an armed robbery. I use the term "concealed to avoid any arguments that seeing a silencer could be interpreted as a weapon.
IMO the charge would be robbery and possibly possessing an item that is not properly purchased/registered. The law courses I took in school do not a lawyer make so attorneys can jump in and a cite a case in contradiction. But IMO a silencer is not a gun when it’s legally tested as such. It’s a part of a gun that can be regulated.
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.
Knock it off. Do not threadshit or personalize arguments in this fashion.
[/moderating]
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?
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.
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.
What is the definition of a gun? Does your definition match the US Code definition?
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?