'Its Not YOUR Decision If I 'NEED' An AR-15'. Washibgton Gov Signs Constitution-Violating Bill Into Law

[Bell Huey]

But wait.



This must be read to be believed.



And now, the Showboating.



Why are people this stupid allowed to own weaponry of ANY kind?

You have yet to explain what is wrong with my post.

 

[Auld Phart]

You have yet to explain what is wrong with my post.

 

[postman]

That's easy. The BATF/ATF ensure the weapon in question was designed "not to be a machinegun" and follows the regulation that govern them as well as the law.

Consider yourself answered. AGAIN. and AGAIN. and Again.

Actually that was under BATF regulation which defines a machine gun to include weapons that can be easily modified to become a machine gun. So BATF had to give AR-15 makers their position on if the modifications to the receiver prevented swapping the auto-sear from an M-16 into it.

If all you had to do was swap parts with a machine gun, then that firearm is a machine gun.

 

[Thedonald]

They have so many...

Have they explained what BATF had to do with the design and development of the AR-15, other than certifying that the modified version is not a "machine gun"?

Dude. Rock here. Good to see your "discussions" with Huey again.

 

[Thedonald]

What happened to your Imbecile Utopia?

What Imbecile Utopia is that?

 

[Bell Huey]

Actually that was under BATF regulation which defines a machine gun to include weapons that can be easily modified to become a machine gun. So BATF had to give AR-15 makers their position on if the modifications to the receiver prevented swapping the auto-sear from an M-16 into it.

If all you had to do was swap parts with a machine gun, then that firearm is a machine gun.

I have already explained all that to the individual who asked and even gave him a list of parts that were changed.

 

[Bell Huey]

It is not the regulation. It is the cost. The tax stamp is 200 bucks per weapon in 1934. It still is today. In 34 Tht was a lot of money.

It is the cost of the machine guns themselves. Tens of thousands of dollars.

So back to the type of regulation you want.

Dagosa

 

[postman]

If a Democrat / snowflake EVER asks you, 'Why do you NEED an AR-15' respond to them by saying, 'IT'S NONE OF YOUR F*ING BUSINESS!'

The Constitution protects the rights of Americans to own guns - that right may NOT be unfringed upon...even if liberals, Democrats, and snowflakes want to get up in your business and demand to know why you 'NEED' a gun!

The 2nd amendment is a right to bear arms, but as Antonin Scalia explained in Heller v DC, doesn't give the unfettered right to bear any and all arms. That the government through a compelling interest can disqualify arms from civilian use.

 

[postman]

I have already explained all that to the individual who asked and even gave him a list of parts that were changed.

But you were wrong about the BATF "certifying" the weapons. They only give position letters to the manufacturers explaining the nuances of the regulations.

 

[Bell Huey]

But you were wrong about the BATF "certifying" the weapons. They only give position letters to the manufacturers explaining the nuances of the regulations.

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

[T]he magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

www.ammoland.com

The embedded letter classifying it as not a machine gun will be found there.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Dude. Rock here. Good to see your "discussions" with Huey again.

CP's new business model not taking off?

 

[postman]

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

[T]he magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

www.ammoland.com

The embedded letter classifying it as not a machine gun will be found there.

That classification, as stated in the letter, was based on the 8 changes the letter from Colt described. Not from a test or inspection of the firearm.

 

[The5thHorseman]

What Imbecile Utopia is that?

CP's house.

 

[Bell Huey]

That classification, as stated in the letter, was based on the 8 changes the letter from Colt described. Not from a test or inspection of the firearm.

Actually, you didn't read it. They had two weapons. One was an unserviceable c601 (M16) and the other was the Sporter.

 

[Bell Huey]

CP's house.

I don't recall anyone with your screen name posting there.

 

[postman]

Actually, you didn't read it. They had two weapons. One was an unserviceable c601 (M16) and the other was the Sporter.

And neither was "tested", Although the "unserviceable" weapon was "inspected" to determine it wasn't actually "unserviceable" under ATF regulations.

And the letter clearly states that their determination was made based on Colts letter of changes, not on any test or inspection of either firearm.

From the letter (Google text translation)

Cal: Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Gompany, Inc.
Hartford 14, Connecticut
Attention: AR-15 Product Manager

Gentlemen:
This refers to your letters of Getober 23, 1963, and November 1, 1963, which
are concerned with a weapon you describe as an AR-15 Sports Version rifle.
left one of these weapons bearing serial manber
with this office on October 24, 1963, and requested a classification determination of
its status under the National Firearms Act.

It is the opinion of this office that the AR-15 automatic rifle used as a
prototype model of the Sports Version weapon embodying changes number one
through eight outlined in your letter to us dated October 23, 1963, and
further modified by the relocation of the pivot pin holes in the upper and
Lover receiver as described in your letter to us of November 1, 1963, have
changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a "firearm"
in the machine gun category as that term is defined in Section 5848(2) of the
National Firearms Act.

 

[Bell Huey]

And neither was "tested", Although the "unserviceable" weapon was "inspected" to determine it wasn't actually "unserviceable" under ATF regulations.

And the letter clearly states that their determination was made based on Colts letter of changes, not on any test or inspection of either firearm.

From the letter (Google text translation)

Cal: Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Gompany, Inc.
Hartford 14, Connecticut
Attention: AR-15 Product Manager

Gentlemen:
This refers to your letters of Getober 23, 1963, and November 1, 1963, which
are concerned with a weapon you describe as an AR-15 Sports Version rifle.
left one of these weapons bearing serial manber
with this office on October 24, 1963, and requested a classification determination of
its status under the National Firearms Act.

It is the opinion of this office that the AR-15 automatic rifle used as a
prototype model of the Sports Version weapon embodying changes number one
through eight outlined in your letter to us dated October 23, 1963, and
further modified by the relocation of the pivot pin holes in the upper and
Lover receiver as described in your letter to us of November 1, 1963, have
changed the weapon in basic design to the extent that it is not a "firearm"
in the machine gun category as that term is defined in Section 5848(2) of the
National Firearms Act.

And they got to see those changes when the inspected the weapon. Duh.

 

[postman]

And they got to see those changes when the inspected the weapon. Duh.

They didn't inspect the weapon. Or the letter would have said so.

 

[Bell Huey]

They didn't inspect the weapon. Or the letter would have said so.

That's funny.

 

[postman]

That's funny.

No it's not.
Read the letter. You claim they inspected the weapon, and they did not.
The determination wasn't made by inspection, but by review of the changes that Colt specified in their letters.

Your remarks have been stamped "return to sender" insufficient thought.

Please apply sufficient "thought" before submitting them again.