E
Mongo53
New Member
Although, you need quite a bit of precision, people have modified AR-15 lowers with just a power drill. You can buy a jig to provide the necessary precision, very cheaply actually.
I bought a Jeep for my Daughter off ebay for $900, it needed some work, and easily spent $1500 on parts fixing it up over the next 6 months, with the Jeep half dis-assembled in my garage, a good 1/4 of the parts being thrown away and replaced. So, during that 6 months, when it was disassembled, when did I NOT own a Jeep?
If you have all the parts of a Harley sitting on the floor of a garage, unassembled, do you own a Harley?
Seeing how, in many cases, owning the couple of parts that can turn a semi-auto rifle, full auto, can be changed out in a few minutes, I do NOT see it that unreasonable to consider owning the parts as being interpreted as owning the full auto rifle, especially in regards to enforcement.
Thats a common sense view, I'm NOT a lawyer and can't tell you if the ATF really overstep their bounds with that interpretation.
I would "hope" the ATF and courts would take into account, things like intent, when they prosecute cases and would be very lienient or dismiss cases, like your example, there is no intent, because the weapon wasn't modified to swap in the parts. BUT, sadly, we've seen the courts and especially the ATF be very politically charged, and they have gone after people for the most ridiculous things, I guess to make an example of them.
There is a guy that served time because his 20 year old AR-15 malfunctioned and fired more than one shot on a public rifle range. The ATF litterally had to find special, hard to find ammo, to recreate the situation with the rifle, and claim he owned a full auto machine gun, and the judge let it stand and allowed the conviction to happen.
Last edited:
UNA
New Member
Wirelessly posted
It's an example of what I like to call "fell-good legislation", doesn't really do anything but pushes forward their skewed agenda.
"Good people do not need (gun) laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the (gun) laws." --Plato
It's an example of what I like to call "fell-good legislation", doesn't really do anything but pushes forward their skewed agenda.
"Good people do not need (gun) laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the (gun) laws." --Plato
Last edited:
Mongo53
New Member
The AR-10 was designed by armalite in the 50's, the rights purchased by Colt and underwent a redesign to use a smaller, but still lethal round, that would allow a soldier to carry twice as much ammo as other military rifles of the day. (From Memory, I may have some of this wrong).
Yes, I know the 5.56mm round is controversial as far as it's lethality.
As well, it wasn't until years later, that Colt offered a semi-automatic version of the M-16, they called the AR-15.
So, its possible, the patents for an AR-15 may be based on a derivative of original patents that didn't run out until sometime in the middle of the AWB.
I could be wrong, the chicken came before the egg, patents may have been expired for a while, it was only after a market came about, that every manufacturer looked into it and saw how cheap & easy it would be to produce their own AR-15 version, they all did it.
BTW, AR does NOT stand for Assualt Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle, Armalite was the Designer.
Last edited:
Mongo53
New Member
Well, technically, the definition of an Assault Rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine, that is capable of selecting between semi-automatic and full-automatic (or burst) fire.
The simple fact that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic only version of the M-16, by definition means it is NO LONGER AN ASSUALT RIFLE, just a Rifle.
Of course academia is in charge of dictionaries, and what is academia full of? Yes, liberals, so go to most dictionaries and you will find in the last few years they have added a new definition to Assualt Rifle to fit the definition of weapons in the AWB. e.g. a Military Style Rifle OR a Military Appearing Rifle OR a Rifle with a Pistol Grip, detacheable magazine and muzzle shroud or flash suppressor, etc.
Most technical and military organizations still stick by the traditional definition; because the only difference between a semi-automatic version of military assualt rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, is apperance only. In fact, most hunting rifles carry a much more powerful and leathal round.
Last edited:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
was thinking of that very case .... also the video was heavy edited to only show one or 2 slam fires not the numerous attempts to cause the slam fire
Common Sense, Isn't
the AFT wants to make a name for itself to justify its continued existence
Mongo53
New Member
Of course if the ATF was doing its job, it would be suggesting to congress to make the type of ammo that can cause a "slam" fire in all sorts of firearms, illegal. Naw, it would rather have a little of it on hand, because anyone that knew what they were doing would never buy it, so they can make trumped up cases of how people have illegal machine guns.
For those that don't know, some ammo is made with really cheap, unstable and soft cased primers. Its much more likely just the bolt loading the round can cause the round to fire from the jarring of the bolt slaming home. Many rifles and pistols have an inertia firing pin (including the AR-15) its possible for that firing pin to jump forward while the bolt closes and contact the round. BUT, NOT with enough force to set it off, you really have to have the hammer hit it hard to create enough force to set off the round. If you use that incredibly cheap and unsafe ammo, well any rifle can set off, just loading it, but rifles with inertia firing pins are a little more likely. If its semi-auto, it will reload and might set-off a 2nd round when that happens, rarely a third, and its unheard of 4 or more rounds going off.
Yea, the story goes, the cops arrested this guy for having 2 rounds go off by accident from his old worn out rifle, and the ATF tested the rifle with a totally bogus test, using the bogus ammo that can cause slam fires, and they even had to alter it to make it look like it happened more than it did, and presented a total bogus evidence that he had an automatic rifle, when any reasonable person could easily see he had an old worn out rifle that could malfunction, if you used really unsafe ammo.
Last edited:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
yeah just google "Slam Fire Conviction"
I can not pull up links with weapons @ work
I can not pull up links with weapons @ work
Mongo53
New Member
Don't want disgruntled employees getting any ideas?
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
Ooo You Slay Me ........ 
:webfilter:
:webfilter:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
bump part 2 is out