Is it an SBR or a pistol?

Ab_Normal said:

If you would direct your frustration at the proper sources then maybe we could dispense will all of this 'jacka$$ery'. Specifically the part that says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course there isn't much hair splitting there - they just trample all over it.

There should have never been a need for someone to develop these types of devices to start with.

Click to expand...

I agree that the ATF is the source of the problem but my point is more along the line of the people say things like "it moves independantly so it's not really 'attached'.." The ATF is going to say it's held on by a bolt so it's attached and then they are going to go down the road that since you don't release the pressure of your index finger before multiple shots go down range it's F/A.

If it starts life as a pistol, then it would never of have been considered a rifle, correct?

Click to expand...

Once you install a stock, you have converted the pistol to a rifle; then all ATF rules for SBRs should apply wouldn't they? The terms rifle and pistol are simply classifications for a firearm, its not as if the two are seperate species. Didn't the ATF recently come out with a ruling about converting pistols to rifles? I'd use the example of taking a coupe and cutting the top off to make a convertible, then saying that any regulations regarding convertibles shouldn't apply since the vehicle started off as a coupe. (I might be off base here, using common sense is dangerous in legal matters )

And the stock is certainly "attached" to the rifle. It can't be removed without popping the retaining clip. Just being loose, doesn't mean unattached. If you deliberately locktite something to your rifle so that it is loose; is it not still attached? Are removable links in a chain not attached to each other?

Yes, given our wonky legal system it is exactly this type of hair splitting that ends up taking place (HBARs, etc); but I wouldn't bet the farm on the outcome of a legal action if the aforementioned arguments are the crux of your defense.

The bozo in this vid is obviously breaking the law (IMO), bet his fake Russian accent won't be in use if the ATF come calling. Though they probably have more important things to worry about than dealing with an internet yahoo.

rpker said:

I agree that the ATF is the source of the problem but my point is more along the line of the people say things like "it moves independantly so it's not really 'attached'.." The ATF is going to say it's held on by a bolt so it's attached and then they are going to go down the road that since you don't release the pressure of your index finger before multiple shots go down range it's F/A.

Click to expand...

You need to brush up on the definition of 'machine gun'. Especially the 'single function of the trigger' part. As long as the shooter has to physically do something to actuate the trigger for each shot it is not a machine gun. That is where the Akins fiasco took off.

Has anyone had the guts to follow up with ATF yet? I am seriously considering asking them about this.

peace said:

Has anyone had the guts to follow up with ATF yet? I am seriously considering asking them about this.

Click to expand...

Why?

What possible good would that do? The answer they gave you, if they gave you answer, wouldn't matter anyway, because they can reverse themselves at any time. So it's meaningless.

Further, the "I wanna ask them just to make sure" routine, repeatedly done by several well-intentioned-but-completely-idiotic morons was what got the AA banned after it was approved.

These idiots kept writing and asking the same questions over and over - "are you sure it's ok to have this thing?"

Someone at Tech Branch probably got tired of answering the same question over and over and decided they'd had enough and declared it a MG.


Please, don't do us any favors. Anytime you feel the need to write and ask a question - smack yourself in the face with a claw hammer instead.

You'll probably only have to do it once to be fully-cured of the need to feel like you have to ask them questions.

mudskipper said:

Why?

Please, don't do us any favors. Anytime you feel the need to write and ask a question - smack yourself in the face with a claw hammer instead.

You'll probably only have to do it once to be fully-cured of the need to feel like you have to ask them questions.

Click to expand...

Best advice in the whole thread! Thank you!

i do not have a slidefire, nor have i shot one, so i am wondering how critical the 'buttstock' section is to its function. if the section of the 'stock' that was ment to be shouldered were removed and the rest installed on a pistol there would be no intent to fire from the shoulder and a legally bump fireable pistol. i'm not trying to circumvent any laws, just curious.

john

Jester1341 said:

i do not have a slidefire, nor have i shot one, so i am wondering how critical the 'buttstock' section is to its function. if the section of the 'stock' that was ment to be shouldered were removed and the rest installed on a pistol there would be no intent to fire from the shoulder and a legally bump fireable pistol. i'm not trying to circumvent any laws, just curious.

john

Click to expand...

From my understanding of how it works no. It needs the buttstock to stop and absorb the recoil and redirect it. I would almost think if you removed the buttstock part that the tube would just bounce in mid-air not having the desired effect.

Hopalong said:

I'm wondering how long he has before BATFE comes knocking on his door. And, I hate to admit it, rightfully so. He just admitted on a YouTube video that he manufactured an SBR and it didn't sound like he did the paperwork for it. Dumb.

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that I agree with the laws in question, just that BATFE would have probable cause to suspect him of violating said laws.)

Click to expand...

Not all of his videos are shot in the US. He is actually a Canadian.

Jester1341 said:

i do not have a slidefire, nor have i shot one, so i am wondering how critical the 'buttstock' section is to its function. if the section of the 'stock' that was ment to be shouldered were removed and the rest installed on a pistol there would be no intent to fire from the shoulder and a legally bump fireable pistol. i'm not trying to circumvent any laws, just curious.

john

Click to expand...

I have a slidefire stock on my AK. If you removed the butt stock you would render the slide fire system useless. The stock is a critical part in stopping the rearward momentum of the gun.