Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by IronMonster, Jan 6, 2015.
http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArti...er here&utm_campaign=ATF coloring bookcontent
Wow. Childish. This man is scarcely fit to own a gun, let alone sell them.
Love the cynicism he used. Perfectly inline with how I respond to situations.
Childish? Yes on behalf of the BATF. The only logical reply to stupidity is stupidity.
It does say it is a parody letter. Publicly blowing off steam. I dont blame them.
I enjoyed their artwork. The coloring book was phenominal.
You know, I did have a thought while reading his very well thought out piece.
If an individual were to acquire an 80% chunk of metal, and using a handheld drill motor or other tool, push the completion level of the chunk slightly past the 80% (such as by crudely drilling a hole in the middle of the receiver pocket,) then a gunsmith could theoretically complete the machining operations, since it's assumed he works primarily on what is considered to be firearms/receivers, which are past the 80% point by definition, correct?
I dont think so. because a home built gun must be built by the owner, So if it was "built" and you needed to have a gunsmith do some finish work I think you could swing that. Having the gunsmith complete 19% of the 20% that needs done though I think would end you both up in the hoosegow if you fell under the scrutiny of the BATF.
I do have a pretty simple solution though. The law makes it so you cannot use others equipment to complete the lower. Well what is to stop the person with the milling machine from selling it to the guy for say a dollar? The guy could then complete his lower and since he is no longer in need of a milling machine he could sell it back for another buck. Its a technicality but you would be following the law.
Can you please explain to me why and how his "letter" is childish??? It seems pretty clear to me that he has done his research and is calling the BATFE out on a few things that they state in their letter. Why shouldn't he own/sell firearms? Wouldn't you want someone with a clear understanding of the laws to do business with? I would.....just sayn....
Depends on the purpose. To us it seems funny because we already side with Mr Karras. To a neutral reader it's just flippant/immature and he misses an opportunity to convince a wider audience.
Well I can think of two reasons - the difficulty of delivering the mill to the new 'owner' and his potential lack of milling experience, or any mechanical experience for that matter.
As far as selling a milling machine, you need to disconnect a purpose built, single task machine from it's origins. Insert the unfinished part into the machine as the directions say, push the start button, remove completed part. Not unlike a vending machine.
I'd buy that for a dollar!
Additionally, some of the big CNC machines that many fabrication shops buy to make all sorts of part technically similar to a firearm receiver are leased or even rented, not owned. Either way, for purposes of ownership, you've made an exchange of funds for constructive possession of a machine.
This is ATF trying to do all it can to stop people from making ARs that aren't registered with them. That's ALL this is about.
Technology has allowed more people to do what people are legally allowed to do and ATF is having a hissy fit because they aren't "in charge."
The amount of money, effort and expertise involved in making a gun from an 80% lower is non-trivial and the ONLY people doing it are hobbyists who possess them completely legally.
Criminals can BUY a stolen AR or for that matter, an illegally imported full-auto AK for less money and time and hassle than they can make a legal AR for nefarious purposes. These guns have NEVER been used in a crime.
This is a peeing contest, with ATF all butthurt that more people are choosing to have guns that no one knows about, crowding them out of the game.
Hey I am on your side on this... But 80% guns are used in crimes. I can remember at least one major one where a kid in California failed a BGC so he went the 80% route and used that rifle to go on a rampage and kill 5 people at a collage. I remember it because they had the Ares Armor guy on the news defending 80% lowers while they tried to crucify him.
Though I agree with almost everything in the post, we have to admit there is little -to no- data to support this "Only" hypothesis.
Now the ATF, BATF and FBI being all butt hurt will change the meanings of a receiver, manufacture and gun changed to screw the 80% lowers credibility, outlaw them and make the law abiding citizens CRIMINALS....
C'mon guys, they're just trying to do an impossible job, interpret poorly written laws perpetrated by congress, maintain licensing income from manufacturers, and keep a lid on production of non serialized weapons. You can demonize them all you want, but I think you need to keep in mind it's great we can build a weapon for our own personal use without ever having to register anything. Whining because they don't want you to have a gunsmith or machine shop do the work for you is kinda petty in my view. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered, to borrow a saying about the IRS. Whether you think it's fair or constitutional or not is really irrelevant at this point, you make enough stink about it, you'll get new laws to clarify the issue and may lose the right to roll your own.
Where are all the crime stats showing these guns used in crimes? Surely ATF, which has a vested interest in showing such data to back up its jihad against 80% lowers where it's made a little easier to finish the work would be shouting these numbers from the rooftops.
I'm a lot less worried about someone getting a gun they shouldn't have then i am about the people being generally disarmed of weapons of military utility.