NW Pew Pew and BS

The juicy bits are page 7 and 8. Here are my thoughts in no reasonable order: I would prefer the removal of the concept of rifle/sbr/pistol but I believe that would require statutory modification of the GCA and or NFA and that doesn't seem to be happening. I mean in this document they say: "As the purpose of the NFA is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes,” (Page 6)". Well, with the abundance of easily manufactured or even purchased "SBRs" over the last several years (because of the 'not-a-stock' they are now trying to address), where are the crimes? Perhaps the 'likely to be used for criminal purposes' root of all this hair splitting should be examined. If the length of barrel does not correlate to criminal activity despite easy access then perhaps it's time to ditch the antiquated SBR rules entirely.

Since we won't be addressing the root problem; In general I think this guidance is probably needed. I would prefer that they did a find and replace for "designed to be held and fired by one hand" with "capable of being held.... by one hand" since this entire thing is about clarifying that design versus function. Also, defaulting the language to 'capable of being held and fire by one hand' would favor the owners/industry. Speculating on the design purposes is pointless and leads to endless "Dear ATF, is this a SBR" letters (knock that shit off people). Giving guidance that says we defined a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand (18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11.)" If you are manufacturing or modifying this in such a way it is no longer possible to be held or fired with one hand you've gone over the line. See page 7 and 8 on the linked document for examples of what might make a pistol fall afoul of that.

So depending on your point of view you could write them a comment that starts "SHALL NOT...." and you wouldn't be wrong. I'll be writing a note that clarifying the language to 'capable of' is a more useful term that 'designed to' when trying to clarify design/intent.

 

I agree, though in the interests of maximal freedom, 'capable of' should be linked towards 'firing in a pistol stance' vs the shouldering aspect.

 

Does anyone have a spare endate for a AR-15? I cant find my extra one i thought I had laying around

 

The distinction between pistol and rifle is just straight up stupid in the first place. Does a pistol require ammunition to be fed through the hand grip? What about this: https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...eltec-p50-5-7x28mm-fn-p90-mag-pistol-surface/ is that a pistol? or is that a rifle? or an AOW? is it a matter of the projectile it fires being one that is necked down? what then do we do with 357 SIG rounds? Does a rifle really just mean it doesn't have a stock? What does a single shot belt-fed M2 get defined as? Its all a fucking sham and really what we need to all do is put endless pressure on our local reps to not use local LE to enforce these laws, our state reps to deregulate wherever possible, and our federal reps to just straight up repeal the NFA. Plus support orgs like GOA/FPC/VCDL that are pushing lawsuits which will help restore our civil rights.

And remember, free men don't ask permission.

 

Pretty much, according to the NFA - 'ability to be shouldered'. Hence the classification of pistols with stocks as 'short barreled rifles'.

That guidance got rescinded, though - let's see what comes up.

 

Do we have a list of companies that’ll ship 80% lowers to WA? The GF and i wanna build two together, figure it’ll be a fun way to show her how they work.

 

Not sure if they still do, but delta team tactical used to.

 

Ah, sorry, to be clear I understand the current NFA/GCA/BATFE classifications, just making more of a modern practical argument. Guidance rescinded just means they are going to fuck gun owners in the dark with no lube.

With the BATFE bs, I'd recommend getting one in person with cash...

 

new BATFE bs? Who on the east side even carries 80’s?

 

They have been raiding stores that sell polymer 80 buy build shoot kits, as well as customers who bought them. Basically they are changing the standard of what constitutes a 'firearm', and likely will continue to do so on the grounds of a changing definition of what constitutes, 'readily-made' given modern technologies and market options. Personally I wouldn't want to give them any sort of entry point into my life based on shit like that, because I'm petty and would end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the case and then probably getting bubba'd in a federal prison because the government likes ruling in it's own favor on shit.

 

i want to biuld an 80 also. just dont want/have the tools to do one.

 

I've never done one, but I think you can do with just a super simple drill press like this: I think you might even be able to get away with a standard powerdrill if you go slow.

 

Still don’t want to buy the jig for it and only use it once. I’ll probably end up doing it anyways cuz why not.

 

3d print the lowers? Seems like the modern designs are pretty good and reliable. Check defcad (and r/defcad for successful prints) .. there's also a bunch of files out there on the webz...

 

Which one you trying to get?

 

Both a Poly80 and two AR lowers, might have the AR lower sourced

 

Unless something new has come up they haven't gone after customers. They've gone after Polymer80 for their practices, arguing that they've knowingly shipped to people who shouldn't have firearms

 

Not particularly new since it happened the same time as they went after P80, but here's what I know of: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/12/11/polymer80-kits/

 

Since 300 BLK Subs are impossible to find now, even online- A small shop in Fall City (Fall City Arms), WA had half a case left as of yesterday. I would call before you drive.

 

Anyone have any .357 or .38 they're willing to trade for 556 or 9mm? I have 6 rounds of each for a revolver I've only gotten to shoot like one time.