ATF has re-interpreted how to measure (AR) pistol OAL in reference to AOW.

[FoxtArt]

To be fair, people are exploiting loopholes in the regulations that will be short lived. Much like advertising tax-loopholes that the government forgot. Sure, you can exploit it for awhile. But there's not a lot of "legs" especially when you (shooters) point it out to them.

E.g. "Arm braces" that can be fired from the shoulder like a regular stock. Adding vertical fore-grips, still asserting it to be a pistol. Whether or not the NFA rules are BS, when people go to great lengths to exploit boundaries, they are exactly one political cycle away from possessing "illegal" unregistered short-barreled rifles or AOW's. - or less, as Donnie is only pro-ego, and doesn't have true mores or political positions, he can shift in less than a day to bleeding heart if enough positive sentiment is introduced.

Bitching about the original law seems more justified than bitching about them closing "creative interpretations" around the intention of the law, which I have trouble getting behind. It's a lot like people being enraged if CO clarified that "parts kits are still magazines, duh". Um, yeah...duh. You all already knew it, you were just hoping that personally invented "magic" rules will keep you out of trouble, but the reality is prosecution is selective, and independent of the law. Even before the letter, if the ATF wanted you [Pretend, say, you were trafficking guns out of Windsor), they would've prosecuted you with a vertical fore-grip anyway, and it wouldn't matter if you were waving an old letter around. 99% of the time, you'd take a plea bargain, and in the 1% of the time you took it to a jury, they would convict you in concert with all the other charges brought, and ignore the letter.

ATF letters are not "magic" get out of jail free cards. Your fate is entirely in the hands of a prosecutor and a judge, and if they make you look bad, they don't give two shits, especially if the law can be argued clear enough on its own.

[Eric P]

If the ATF has a tape measure on your gun, you are likely in trouble regardless of this rule. Just dont give the ATF an excuse to measure your gun to add on charges. If you've done nothing else and dont have a record, please ignorance. You likely will not be arrested and if you're not a dick, they will educate you, have you fix the issue and send you on your way.

[CS1983]

To be fair, people are exploiting loopholes in the regulations that will be short lived. Much like advertising tax-loopholes that the government forgot. Sure, you can exploit it for awhile. But there's not a lot of "legs" especially when you (shooters) point it out to them.

E.g. "Arm braces" that can be fired from the shoulder like a regular stock. Adding vertical fore-grips, still asserting it to be a pistol. Whether or not the NFA rules are BS, when people go to great lengths to exploit boundaries, they are exactly one political cycle away from possessing "illegal" unregistered short-barreled rifles or AOW's. - or less, as Donnie is only pro-ego, and doesn't have true mores or political positions, he can shift in less than a day to bleeding heart if enough positive sentiment is introduced.

Bitching about the original law seems more justified than bitching about them closing "creative interpretations" around the intention of the law, which I have trouble getting behind. It's a lot like people being enraged if CO clarified that "parts kits are still magazines, duh". Um, yeah...duh. You all already knew it, you were just hoping that personally invented "magic" rules will keep you out of trouble, but the reality is prosecution is selective, and independent of the law. Even before the letter, if the ATF wanted you [Pretend, say, you were trafficking guns out of Windsor), they would've prosecuted you with a vertical fore-grip anyway, and it wouldn't matter if you were waving an old letter around. 99% of the time, you'd take a plea bargain, and in the 1% of the time you took it to a jury, they would convict you in concert with all the other charges brought, and ignore the letter.

ATF letters are not "magic" get out of jail free cards. Your fate is entirely in the hands of a prosecutor and a judge, and if they make you look bad, they don't give two shits, especially if the law can be argued clear enough on its own.

This is true of anything, though. Particularly as concerns guns in general. Tomorrow they could come out with a no-grandfathering, national registration scheme. Should current owners also plan for that or attempt to take that into consideration? Of course not. It's absurd, just like every other time they try to stay within the letter of the law and become criminals in potential.

The problem is: there is no actual rule of law, ability to trust that one can follow the law and it won't change in an instant in interpretation and application, or even plan to follow the law since it is subject to arbitrary change.

As such, people are left with either:

1) Giving up entirely

2) Planning to be a felon, whether in potential or actuality

[FoxtArt]

This is true of anything, though. Particularly as concerns guns in general. Tomorrow they could come out with a no-grandfathering, national registration scheme. Should current owners also plan for that or attempt to take that into consideration? Of course not. It's absurd, just like every other time they try to stay within the letter of the law and become criminals in potential.

The problem is: there is no actual rule of law, ability to trust that one can follow the law and it won't change in an instant in interpretation and application, or even plan to follow the law since it is subject to arbitrary change.

As such, people are left with either:

1) Giving up entirely

2) Planning to be a felon, whether in potential or actuality

I'm not sure you captured the point. I wasn't talking about the possibility of new legislation. I'm talking (in any regard) when clear law has been made, and people try to subsist off of technical loopholes that the law (relatively clearly) intend to prohibit, they really aren't in a position to bitch much when agencies say "Uh, duh, yeah you obviously can't do that". If applied consistently with the original intent, they don't have a leg to stand on with the agency review. However, their complaint should rest with the original law that was passed.

For an extreme example:

If there is a law saying consensual boinking with anyone under the age of eighteen is still illegal; and you boink someone who is clearly around eighteen, was adopted as an orphan with an indeterminable birthdate, but their "estimated" birthdate shows them slightly under eighteen, it doesn't give you an exemption from the law. You can't successfully argue that because their true birth-date is indeterminable, you somehow have a special exemption from the law. Likewise, you can't get terribly pissed that the law didn't have a subpart that says "...including anyone under the age of eighteen even if their true birthdate cannot be ascertained and their documented birthdate is simply a guess."

That's the nature of the technicalities that people are trying to "live within" these firearm laws. We're not talking about the possibility of new laws, this has been in existence since 1934.

This is how 27 C.F.R. ?479 (e.g. NFA) defines pistol:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

So, you all are living in a "technical loophole" that doesn't ACTUALLY exist in reality, no different than declaring the fact that an individual's birthday is unknown somehow exempts statutory crimes against that same person.

An AR-15 pistol has one grip - in front of the stock, oops, I mean "uh, Arm Brace" , and the addition of a vertical grip would require the use of two hands to fire it, since any hand on the vertical grip cannot reach the fire control components.

OOOOPS. That's wha I'm talking 'bout.

*MIC DROP*

[bobbyfairbanks]

FUDS are annoying

[TEAMRICO]

Who here has actually had an ATF agent tap them on the shoulder while out shooting holding a tape measure?

[sellersm]

Someone will be along to post about the Freedom shop raid, or whatever they were called...Oh wait, this isn?t that other site.

Three letter agencies have gotten a pass for a long time to do what they want, with little pushback and accountability. It?s no wonder folks take whatever freedoms they can (what some may call loopholes).

The ATF, in this instance certain agent(s), just keeps exposing themselves as schizophrenic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin]

This is how 27 C.F.R. ?479 (e.g. NFA) defines pistol:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

So, you all are living in a "technical loophole" that doesn't ACTUALLY exist in reality, no different than declaring the fact that an individual's birthday is unknown somehow exempts statutory crimes against that same person.

An AR-15 pistol has one grip - in front of the stock, oops, I mean "uh, Arm Brace" , and the addition of a vertical grip would require the use of two hands to fire it, since any hand on the vertical grip cannot reach the fire control components.

OOOOPS. That's wha I'm talking 'bout.

*MIC DROP*

By this standard, any handgun that is sold today is in violation of that rule because since the advent of Jeff Cooper and The Modern Technique, no one outside of bullseye shooters uses a one-handed grip when shooting a pistol, and the companies that make these guns know that.

[CS1983]

By this standard, any handgun that is sold today is in violation of that rule because since the advent of Jeff Cooper and The Modern Technique, no one outside of bullseye shooters uses a one-handed grip when shooting a pistol, and the companies that make these guns know that.

Not only that, but when one scrupulously follows the letter of the law and then that law is changed, why on earth are they being castigated for following the letter of the law?

If the intention was to do X, the law reads Y, then Y is the only thing which can be adhered to, for X was never specified.

And as such, the rule of law becomes one of whim, which is to say, void.

But, that's apparently not clear enough for those who place the cart before the ox, or have ATF Special Agent badges.

[Justin]

Not only that, but when one scrupulously follows the letter of the law and then that law is changed, why on earth are they being castigated for following the letter of the law?

If the intention was to do X, the law reads Y, then Y is the only thing which can be adhered to, for X was never specified.

And as such, the rule of law becomes one of whim, which is to say, void.

But, that's apparently not clear enough for those who place the cart before the ox, or have ATF Special Agent badges.

But clearly the vast majority of the population isn't interested in scrupulously following the law, the bureaucrats charged with enforcing it aren't interested in making a federal case out of it, and the legislators who could amend the law aren't interested in doing so.

So basically everyone's lazy all the way around.

I expect that these sorts of discrepancies between the law as written and the law as enforced are probably all over the place, and probably in a lot of situations much scarier than the legal definition of what constitutes a pistol.