Polytech M14s and H&K HK MR556 NOT banned in MD
- Thread starter Xander
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Tman68
Active Member
Spot on. Whenever one FFL takes on a certain issue, a positive outcome benefits not only all other MD FFLs, but the MD firearms community as a whole.
See Vince knows what to say, he's summed it all up in a short sentence!
RRHemi
Active Member
I wasn't trying to keep other dealers from getting any notoriety in this. I know a lot of dealers worked/working hard to fight this crap. I wish we were on the same sheet of music more often!
- Jul 31, 2011
- 586
We thank and commend Engage & Duffys for forging the path , spending time & money to make this all happen. !!
They deserve huge credit for pushing the envelope.
Atlantic deserves a pretty hefty pat on the back as well. They are to modest to say so, but they do.
AwesomeBill
Awesome Member
I was absolutely totally ignorant of the "completely interchangeable" part of the statute. Mea culpa, and apologies all around!
OrbitalEllipses
Ultimate Member
I said Engage was doing heavy lifting...we all know Duffy's has. I shop at both. They are the only ones I can speak for when talking about contributions to the fight.
chale127
Ultimate Member
Polytech Group Buy? Karma? Either way I'm IN!!Completely agree with all this, especially the collaboration part. In fact I wish there was a mechanism to channel funding and ideas to designated source(s). Probably too much to ask though.
Free country, I know...just wish people would let the experienced folks handle interaction with MD right now. Just for now; it's a crucial time period.
So, a clever FFL07 here in MD (or homebuilder) could manufacture an "AK-like"
firearm w/ a modified receiver that takes a custom bolt to function? Say... just like welding in a blocking bar that is often used in semi-auto machine gun look-a-likes so that the orig MG bolts can't fit (a groove is machined in the new semi only bolt). That satisfies the ATFs requirement that a gun can't be converted back to full auto in those cases. The same method would definitely prevent a factory AK bolt from even fitting in and thus not "completely interchangeable".
Note to those not familiar w/ blocking bars or building your own firearms: When you want to make a semi-auto machine gun look alike from an old demilled parts kit you CAN'T just make an identical clone or you just made an illegal machine gun. Take the PPS43 for example. You have to convert the old open-bolt system to closed-bolt. But that isn't enough because the old open bolt would just 'drop in' and still work. So the ATF makes you go one further and do something so the old orig bolt CANT fit in. Many folks weld a bar along the receiver (the new PPS43Cs have a ridge stamped in doing the same thing), or make the receiver tube very slightly smaller in diameter, etc. You can machine a groove in semi bolt to clear the bar or make a smaller diameter bolt in the case of a smaller receiver. FWIW, HK uses a little 'shelf' where the front trigger pack pin would go and blocks the use of a factory full auto pack. Semi only packs have a notch cut out of them to clear that shelf. You can safely own the full auto-parts w/o a constructive intent problem because they DO NOT FIT in the semi firearms. Now, if you have a PPS43 auto bolt w/ the slot machined or a HK auto pack w/ the edge cut off you are in DEEP trouble w/ the ATF.
I would not use the AK as an example. It's very awkward to deal with AKs due to the wording of the list. (When is someone going to sue the MSP over "what is an AK?") But, I agree, you generally have the right idea here.
I wonder how the MSP would deal with the Cav Arms lower, given that it can't take a standard AR buffer tube?
I wonder how the MSP would deal with the Cav Arms lower, given that it can't take a standard AR buffer tube?
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
AKs aren't all compatible anyway. Try a Chinese a bolt heaad in a polish gun and see what happens.
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
Not statute, letter of interpretation.
aquaman
Ultimate Member
happy ending
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
I think AK's will be the last thing to get straightened out. I just hope people don't start asking the MSP questions that would lead them to rescind the "100% interchangeable" language. That would be a shame. Honestly, I think forcing the AK issue (at this time) would be a mistake.
I have been mulling this over in my brain for a few weeks but, to me, the whole notion of "law interpretation" seems about as ridiculous as one could possibly get. Words have meanings and those meanings can be defined precisely. With that having been said, why can't we sue over misuse of language or intentionally confusing legislation and, to go one step further, enforcing strict usage of words? Take the word "shall" for instance. For all intents and purposes "shall" is a hard command or a definite directive with the exception of a question in laymens terms. Now, when you get to the legal definition, what you have is :shall v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill." 2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context. The first definition is the one that we all know but I would be surprised if, outside of those in the legal profession, anyone would know that the word does not mean what it says. Technically... Can this be legally challenged? It would seem, and I could be wrong as I am not a lawyer, that there would be a valid fight could potentially change things universally. As in "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL not be infringed." See? That one word when applied with the second definition makes it all kooky and up for grabs. Of course I understand what it means but I was wondering what you guys thought... Just a thought.
I found this in Black's Law Dictionary...
What is "shall"?
As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to "may,") to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, "shall" is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.".:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF
What is "shall"?
As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to "may,") to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, "shall" is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.".:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (11 Viewers)- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 35
-
-
-
Suggestions for a low powered, large objective rifle scope? (3 Viewers)- Started by E.Shell
- Replies: 16