Posted on 10/14/2019 1:04:19 PM PDT by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
Somebody please check this link out and post a new thread:
“ABC is using video from Knobb Creek annual machine gun shoot as Turkish attack on Kurds in Syria”
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/dhqc1f/abc_is_using_video_from_knobb_creek_annual/
The article is fouled up. It's unclear what the "receiver" at issue comprises. Is it a stripped receiver made from the blank? Or is it the assembled receiver with springs, pins, trigger, sear, disconnect, and hammer? Logically, the argument tends towards the stripped receiver.
The article also confounds the U.S. Code with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The U.S. Code is the law. The CFR is regulation implementing the code. From what I can tell, the U.S code does not define what a frame or receiver is; only that it is a firearm per the code.
If the US Code is vague on something, regulations usually try to make it specific. It's up to the courts to decide what the law really intends.
Could not agree more. . . We have to get the progressive judges of the bench and replace them with strict constructionists. It’s the only way.
Isn’t that what just happened in August/September in the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General’s office to allow the so-called “whistleblower” to even file his “Report of Urgent Concern” composed of second-hand and rumors? The even back-dated the Form 401 so it could be in agreement with his legal letter filled with foot-notes and references to news reports and personal private-eye like interviews with unnamed “White House officials” he claims to have made. It was all done in-house and secretly and then back-dated to August 12, 2019, the same day that the whistleblower supposedly filed his complaint. The IC IG’s office did all this without public hearings or input, and without publishing their new regulations in the Federal Register, as required by law.
Now add to that strange series of events, the fact that Nancy Pelosi amended the House Rules on Impeaching the President of the United States so that it now, against all previous precedents and rules, appears that it is OK to impeach without taking a full house vote before empowering, sort of, the investigation into the President’s actions. . . Even though it doesn’t quite say that. She made these edits on August 12, 2019. My, what a coincidence.
I don’t believe in coincidences.
Actually, the statutory language cited seems to be: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”
An AR15 lower receiver obviously "provides housing for" the hammer, as well as those associated parts commonly referred to as the 'fire control group' (or "firing mechanism"). It can also be argued that the AR15 lower receiver "provides housing for" the 'bolt carrier group' (or "bolt or breechblock") when the BCG is at full recoil, extending through the threaded ring at the rear of the lower receiver, and into the receiver extension ('buffer tube'). The lower receiver is not "threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel," but that is not a requirement. Therefore, the judge very likely should have sided with the government in this case (which would NOT have been true, if the accused were manufacturing FALs, Gwinn Bushmasters, or any number of other firearms with upper and lower receivers of different designs).
My guess is that the Federal attorneys were almost as ignorant of firearms design and operation as was the judge, or they would not have lost this case...
You won’t find the text you are looking for in the Gun Control Act of 1968...building your own gun for personal use has always been legal, the Gun Control Act of 1968 just better defined who a “manufacturer for sale” was.
A few years ago, I owned both a Colt AR-15 and a Heckler and Koch HK-91. I thought it was interesting that the serial number on the HK-91 (as is the case in most rifles) was on the upper receiver, but the AR-15 was on the lower. I wondered how Stoner and Armalite decided, or were instructed by the government, to stamp the serial number. But even if the government regulations are vague as to the definition of “receiver”, I bet the courts would eventually decide that whatever rifle part has the serial number stamped on it is the part regulated by law. If you purchase or ship a serial-numbered handgun frame or a rifle receiver, you have to consider the applicable laws. All other parts are just “parts”, not subject to regulations.
Good
A rail gun is not a FIREARM.
President Trump has been doing that at an aggressive pace. With the help of McConnell, who has surprised me with his fidelity to Trump’s agenda on that subject.
Restoring our republic is a long-term project. I expect President Trump to be re-elected; but after that, who knows? Who will step up?
I had a HK-91 some 30 years ago. IIRC, it did not separate in to upper and lower receiver, so where the S/N was stamped would not matter.
I went back and read the ruling. The judge is saying that a stripped lower receiver is not a firearm because it not a housing for the "bolt or breachblock."
I don't think that the BCG partially passing through the rear of the lower make it a housing. At least not in the plain English understanding of a housing. It would be like saying the upper receiver is a housing for the ammunition.
A bigger defect in the Government's case is that the ATF's rule making defining a "frame or receiver" did not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.
Excuse me, where does the 2nd Amendment mention firearms???? It doesn’t. Nor, in fact does the ATF&E’s mandate technically limit itself to just firearms, nor for that matter does it include all technically by definition firearms as antiques and those weapons that use antique methods of ignition are exempt. Don’t be fooled, if it sends a projectile at a high rate of speed fast enough down range, they will find a way to start registering it and regulating it.
You do know that guns are just more efficient ways to throw rocks, don’t you? That really is all they are. . . More efficient, faster, and more accurate, rock throwers.
Sissy wimps don’t like throwing rocks and will do anything to stop everyone else from throwing rocks; it’s in their nature, because they aren’t very good at it.
I’ve known this all my life.
You do realize that you are on a site called “Free Republic” and you have to ask?
It does become a matter of interpretation, doesn't it? I might have emphasized to the judge that the AR15 bolt carrier group moves as the firearm operates: it is located in the upper receiver for part of the operating cycle, but also occupies a portion of the lower receiver/receiver extension during part of the cycle. Is that sufficient to qualify the lower as the "receiver" in the mind of the judge? Possibly, depending on the judge and how the point is argued. However, I suspect the federal attorneys were surprised when the question was raised, and likely didn't have sufficient guidance/input from the ATF technical folks to even argue the point.
A bigger defect in the Government's case is that the ATF's rule making defining a "frame or receiver" did not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.
And if applicable, that might be a terminal defect...
Sissy Wimps,,,!
.
Hilarious,,,
Great Bumpersticker.
But, WIJohn Galt, when the gun is in full recoil, it is not then in a fireable condition, and is arguably not then a firearm. It’s only “housed” there when the magazine is empty, a temporary situation.
I could make the same argument about housing the “bolt or breechblock” being housed when it is sitting in a box on the workbench, completely removed from the firearm, along with the rest of the lower receiver. That does not make that box a receiver.
A firearm is a device being in a capable of firing condition not with the bolt locked away, essentially removed from that firing condition, requiring action from the user to be put back into operation, whether it is reassembly or loading and unlocking.
My point in the post above was that the registerable portion of the device was that minimum which can lock a projectile in the chamber and fire that projectile down range. That would be the bolt, bolt locking mechanism, chamber and barrel, and whatever ignition system the gun uses to ignite the propellant of the projectile. Trigger, magazine, supports, etc., are superfluous to those basic minimums. And it’s even possible to reduce those with some systems of moving a projectile at speed down range. Consider if you will the Gyro Jet system of the early 1970s. No block, no locking system, just a projectile, a barrel, and an ignition system.
At my gun shop, many years ago, we successfully fired a Gyro Jet projectile in a two-foot piece of aluminum conduit using a nail in a dowel bopped with a plastic mallet to pierce the back of the rocket. Hit the target too. I won’t say how accurately we hit. . . But it hit it. Psssst, don’t tell anyone but that piece of aluminum conduit didn’t have a serial number on it and we didn’t register it. I guess you could call it a Gyro Jet Zip Gun. . .
I have other problems with the legal definition as it listed in the law. . . For example is states “(including starter pistols) that may be easily converted to fire . . .” They still register starter pistols despite the fact that no currently manufactured starter pistols that fire .22 blanks are by any stretch of the imagination “easily converted” to fire regular ammunition. There is no way they can be modified to be fitted with a regular barrel or even a normal cylinder, yet they still register them. Again, overreaching on ATF’s part. Starter pistols are even less a firearm than an 80% lower. Even back in the 1960s, they were basically a revolver with a bored cylinder, a trigger mechanism, and an unbored barrel with no threads, pinned and welded into the frame, if they had one at all. They did not even have a bore. They are a noise maker that bore only a passing resemblance to a firearm. ONce more the Regulators and lawmakers demonstrated their total ignorance of firearms.
You’re right, I guess that was a bad comparison. The HK lower part is the trigger housing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.