Until you can use a rifle stock or vertical grip to fix your plumbing or fence or fasten a shelf to a wall, your attempt at word games fails.
I think this is one of them. Bump fire is a loser issue and Republicans should introduce something to prohibit them, lest they be left with Feinstein’s proposal which is bad. If there were to be trading, or at least politicking, then this restriction could be appended to the SHARE act that Ryan is tabling.
Ahh, got it. I had to look up the term and the page I found didn’t click for me like that. Based on that, if they gave that up, they would just switch it to something like “felons can’t be within X feet of a firearm” or “felons can’t be in a vehicle/house/property that contains a firearm” or something like that. In other words, right now it’s somewhat vague and there’s some wiggle room for lawyers to play with. If you took that away, they’ll tighten it up. If I’m a felon and the cops find a gun in the car I’m driving, maybe they can use the fact that I unknowing bought a stolen car etc etc etc. Well, now, it’s in the car with you, period.
That’s why I specifically said “Anyways, this is all to say that two boards and a pipe, by themselves might be nothing, but if ‘bump stocks’ are illegal, and you’re found with two boards and a pipe setup in such a way that can turn a semiautomatic weapon in a fully automatic one, in your gun case, you’re probably going to get a ticket for it.”
Just like I mentioned that having some Chore Boy isn’t illegal, but if it’s clear you’re using it to smoke crack, it is illegal.
Having a black gas pipe from home depot isn’t illegal, but toss a couple of end caps on it after filling it with nails and emptying some bullets into it and you’re going end up in a shit ton of trouble for a bunch of things that no one would even look twice at if they were all sitting in the back of your pick up (maybe just don’t put them in a box labeled pipe bomb stuff).
PS, I swear I didn’t think this out ahead of time, but the board, the pipe and the screws could be a pipe bomb too.
It’s not an attempt at word games.
If someone owns, for example, five AR rifles and two AR pistols and a VFG, the VFG could be legally attached to five of his seven firearms. The ATF claims they can arrest him and charge him because it could also be attached to #6 or #7 and thus, via “constructive possession” he is in possession of an unregistered SBR (or two).
I like this idea quite a lot.
Sure, and why not? Depending on the circumstances, of course.
Like if you had parts A, B, and C that would constitute an illegal firearm, but A was in a wall safe, B was in the trunk of your car, and C had apparently fallen behind your couch, I think a jury would have difficulty establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that you had possession of the illegal firearm. But you put an ad on Craigslist that all the items are being sold together, just not assembled? Well, now I think we’re getting into the territory of, I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.
If you have a hunk of metal, the ATF isn’t going to charge you for having a firearm, because you could turn that hunk of metal into a gun Same with boards and pipe. The ATF isn’t going to go to your storeroom, find your boards and pipe, and charge you.
If, however, the boards and pipe have been cut and drilled to make them attach to your gun, then that’s a different matter. It doesn’t matter whether it is currently attached, but it does matter that it was specifically designed for that purpose.
As far as thinking that banning bump-stocks is an uphill battle, guess who put out this statement.
No fair clicking on the link first.
The NRA has just come out against bumpstocks
I don’t know if you’re familiar with 80% lowers or not, but if your 80% lower is actually an 81% lower then yes, you could get charged for possessing a firearm.
Gun owners / manufacturers and the ATF have gone rounds and rounds determining the precise legal line where a “hunk of metal” becomes a firearm.
Here is a recent decision about those 80% lowers. The ATF slapped down EP Armory for selling hunks of plastic that were a little too close to a firearm.
Awwww, you ruined k9bfriender’s surprise. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’re going to set it up as an amendment to the SHARE Act, like Bone suggested. I’d support it, assuming it grandfathers in existing SlideFire owners.
Have they ever actually done that, though? And were the charges upheld?
The one example you gave went far beyond merely having one part in a varied collection of parts, that had both legal and illegal possible configurations. He had self-selected just those parts that constituted the illegal configuration, and offered it for sale.
Unless you can show that the broader application of this policy you fear is a significant percentage of such uses, as compared to the narrower application that we’ve seen evidence of, I still think trading away the entire policy to be a bad deal.
sorry k9bfriender, didnt see your post!
mc
I had not heard of 80% lowers, that’s a new one for me. The article you linked to has all its links broken though, so I had to google images, like this one. If that is not typical of what you are talking about, if you could link to something more what you are talking about would be great.
Can you tell me what an 80% lower can be used for, other than adding another “20% upper” (I am sure that’s not the terminology, sorry), to make a whole gun?
If it cannot be used for anything other than making a gun, then it is a bit different then an unworked hunk of metal.
Just to clarify things a bit further, the “lower” receiver of an AR-15 is the “gun” in the eyes of the law. If you have the lower half of an AR-15, even without the upper receiver, you are in possession of a firearm.
The “80% lower” describes the line the ATF has decided where a “hunk of metal” becomes a “gun”. At 79%, you are in possession of a hunk of metal. At 81% you are in possession of a gun.
You said that “If you have a hunk of metal, the ATF isn’t going to charge you for having a firearm, because you could turn that hunk of metal into a gun”. That’s true if it’s a 79% hunk of metal, but false if it’s an 81% hunk of metal / gun. The ATF very well might charge you for having a hunk of metal that can be turned into a gun, if your hunk of metal is a little too far along in the process.
As I said upthread: since it’s a bone to be thrown to gun grabbers that gives them a sense of accomplishment while being completely ineffective, I am all for it. I see NRA figured that out too.
IIRC, the manufacturer only had to apply to the BATFE for its ruling on the matter. Obama’s BATFE approved its manufacture. The BATFE could rescind its letter of compliance.
ATTENTION - pdf file ahead
You would think that the gun-grabbers would be happy that there is a bi-partisan effort to “do something” about gun-control?
But that wasn’t the scenario you posited above. From what we see in that link, he had only one gun that could be mounted with the stock to form the short barrelled rifle. There were no other indications that he had any other weapons that could accommodate the stock. Without that, the only reasonable use he had for the stock was to make the SBR.
And that was from 2007. If you have to go back 7 years to find yet another case that doesn’t actually represent your hypothetical, I again assert that I don’t see this as a big problem.
Some of the examples of ‘what simple thing is illegal’ aren’t exactly right. Molotov Cocktails and pipe bombs are not strictly illegal, they are regulated by ATF as ‘destructive devices’. You can have, and sell, them with a license, ridiculous as that is practically. Some novelty vendor does.
The lawn darts example is another variation perhaps more relevant to what could be a debate about ‘bump stocks’. It’s illegal to sell lawn darts, not to possess them (not nationally anyway).
Three possibilities for bump stocks would be to prohibit their sale, or their possession, or less likely some some variation on the Molotov Cocktail policy, silly as that seems.
If the bump stock solution is legislative perhaps it’s more likely to prohibit sale than possession, though an executive branch action might be more likely to deal with possession. It’s fairly meaningless either way, no personal preference. But the political impossibility of prohibiting possession of lots of stuff, like semi-auto box magazine fed rifles (even the bluest states haven’t had full blown retroactive illegality) is a major factor in the dim outlook for meaningful national gun control in the US given the huge stock of ‘legacy’ weapons. With all due respect that is to the acid trip-like posts “well after ‘we’ repeal the 2nd amendment…” Yeah, right. 