When it comes to gun laws, the enthusiast acts at his peril
Sebastian on Ben Waxman:
I’ve come to expect garbage from the Philadelphia Inquirer who’s never looked at replacing the wood furniture on a domestically assembled firearm made from some foreign parts, and having to figure out whether doing so will up the foreign part count to a sufficient quantity as to run afoul of Title 18 Section 922 Subsection (r) of the United States Code, causing your domestically assembled firearm to suddenly morph into an evil imported assault weapon.
Indeed. The danger here is that Waxman is distorting the reality and this creates a problem for gun owners in that perhaps some hunter/shooter thinks this stuff is reasonable, when it’s random and arbitrary. And, regarding one gun a month laws, why not one gun per year? Or lifetime?
October 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I think I’m going to get Bitter to help me pitch an Op-Ed to the Inky refuting their bullshit.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Heh! When I had an AKM semi-automatic (thing couldn’t group worth a dam), I carved a new stock and vertical grip for it. Now I wonder whether I should have checked the origin of the wood at the lumber supply. 😉
October 24th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
You should be OK. The origin of the wood doesn’t matter. The act of carving it into a gun part has to have been done in the United States. If you carved in Canada, and brought it back here, you might be a 922(r) scofflaw. Of course, this is all considering the ATF doesn’t suddenly change its mind and say the wood has to have been felled within US borders.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
The Virginia Tech shooter bought his two handguns under a one-gun-a-month law. It meant he had to wait 32 days before going on his shooting spree…