kerryman71
NES Member
Depends. Which side of the fence were you on?I dated a fencer for a while...if that’s an acceptable excuse?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Depends. Which side of the fence were you on?I dated a fencer for a while...if that’s an acceptable excuse?
Lol. I read that as "I dated fencer", missed the "a".I dated a fencer for a while...if that’s an acceptable excuse?
Lol. I read that as "I dated fencer", missed the "a".
And what will they reclassify to? That’s the bigger question, right?According to the video the alphabet soup cops will take 2 to 5 years before charging the definition of an AR Lower. That's at least a new administration away! I'd say build/buy while we can and get a few million more on the street!
Either switch it to just the upper. Or, make both an upper and lower set be the firearm.And what will they reclassify to? That’s the bigger question, right?
Well... maybe.... As it currently stands, the lower being the firearm does not concur with the law. The upper or possibly both receivers together more adequately meet the definition of a firearm in USC.ATF cant fix this.....it requires a change of legal statute of what constiutes a firearm by definition
What I can see them doing is bringing back the A1 type receiver, no more swapping out uppers to change calibers.Either switch it to just the upper. Or, make both an upper and lower set be the firearm.
I don’t see that going over very well.
No offense to OP, but this video is total f*cktardery. Some crazy old dude with coke bottle glasses puts up a video and we suddenly take it as gospel? “Experts” convince courts all the time of bullsh!t. It doesn’t mean the ATF is going to do anything.
How does an A1 upper prevent swapping out uppers to change calibers?What I can see them doing is bringing back the A1 type receiver, no more swapping out uppers to change calibers.
Yup, aware of that. How would declaring a complete upper-lower set the serialized firearm not be closer to the definition than currently?The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ First, credit where it’s due. CNN’s Scott Glover has managed to turn out an excellent article about a fairly arcane aspect of guns and firearms law while getting the details right. That’s a notable feat for legacy media these days. Read the whole thing here. With...www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Nothing about the lower meets the federal definition which is why ATF is freaking out and has had to drop cases against people making lowers without a manufacturers license.....
They screwed the pooch decades ago by declaring that the lower is the part that needed to be serialized
Its part of the reason they deemed that bolt action uppers that could be attached to an AR Lower suddenly had to be serialized.....because they actually DO meet the definition of a "firearm"
Its also part of the reason why there are no AR upper recievers to be found on the market.....cuz folks are gobbling them up out of fear of looming change......
If the AR upper met the above definition then the ATF would have already issued a response .....but it doesnt because the firing mechanism is contained within the lower......while the bolt/breechblock and part that recieves the barrell is the upper
Only a change to federal law can fix this
Eliminate the ATF.
We pay for them . They are obsolete!
No offense to OP, but this video is total f*cktardery. Some crazy old dude with coke bottle glasses puts up a video and we suddenly take it as gospel? “Experts” convince courts all the time of bullsh!t. It doesn’t mean the ATF is going to do anything.
Yeah, there are too many examples of waist of $$.Did you watch the video he's referring to from Gun Guy TV on Youtube? That's the one that supposedly has the retired ATF guy talking about the issue. I haven't looked at it yet, and it's close to an hour long. Just wondering if that video is on the same level or gives it more credibility.
Sounds like a way to kill an hour at work.
Well... maybe.... As it currently stands, the lower being the firearm does not concur with the law. The upper or possibly both receivers together more adequately meet the definition of a firearm in USC.
So, the ATF changing their guidance to more accurately conform to the legal definition is totally possible.
I don't think bringing up your sword fighting experience is helping you.I dated a fencer for a while...if that’s an acceptable excuse?
No offense to OP, but this video is total f*cktardery. Some crazy old dude with coke bottle glasses puts up a video and we suddenly take it as gospel? “Experts” convince courts all the time of bullsh!t. It doesn’t mean the ATF is going to do anything.
You got me, God damn sleepy brain farts.How does an A1 upper prevent swapping out uppers to change calibers?
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ First, credit where it’s due. CNN’s Scott Glover has managed to turn out an excellent article about a fairly arcane aspect of guns and firearms law while getting the details right. That’s a notable feat for legacy media these days. Read the whole thing here. With...www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Its also part of the reason why there are no AR upper recievers to be found on the market.....cuz folks are gobbling them up out of fear of looming change......