Ammo For Sale

« « Feeling safer | Home | How anti-gun is ATF? » »

Because you suck and we hate you

No surprise that H undh K doesn’t want to sell it’s uber tacticool, wizbang odd-calibered personal defense weapon. After all, they shit on the civilian market a lot. But when a magazine that pimps guns to gun people agrees with them that civilians shouldn’t own this gun, that’s stupid. Instead of sucking up to the HK rep and pull a Zumbo, ask them why they think I can’t own a small caliber gun that (being an HK) probably has a shitty trigger?

They did offer a retraction.

Also, H undh K has no problem with this gun in movies.

And it’s having an effect on their advertisers.

Update: Tam:

The ironic thing is that, thanks to the vagaries of 922(r) requirements, a semiauto MP7 clone here would be dumb, awkward, overpriced and just generally turn into eventual CDNN fodder* in the same fashion as the import-neutered G36 variant, the SL8.

Heh.

13 Responses to “Because you suck and we hate you”

  1. ExurbanKevin Says:

    Knowing H+K, it’d come to this country with a fixed stock, 19″ pinned barrel and 10 round mag.

    Between SBR and pistol AR-15’s, 9mm sub guns and the FN P90s (to say nothing about the eventual RMR-30), why do we need it?

  2. lyford Says:

    Is there any actual evidence that H&K thinks civilians shouldn’t have them? Or is it just that the market would be too small to be worth it?

  3. rickn8or Says:

    H&K. Weren’t they the ones with the advertising photo in which the boolits were backwards in the magazine?

  4. Gnarly Sheen Says:

    I thought I was the only person in the world that wanted an SL8. Hey nobody’s perfect, stop looking at me like that.

  5. Spade Says:

    I figure if HK wanted to they could import the MP7 like B&T imports the TP9 through DSA.

    No stock, no grip, with those being aftermarket post-NFA add ons.

  6. Tam Says:

    Spade,

    The BATFEIEIO has ruled that a Form 4 doesn’t trump 922(r).

  7. HL Says:

    That thing shoots nuclear tipped bullets in Call of Duty. I can see why civvies shouldn’t have them. They shouldn’t be able to wield FMG’s akimbo, either.

  8. Geodkyt Says:

    Tam — really? Because I have an BATFE letter that states exactly teh opposite, since 922(r) specifically refers to items imported under specified code sections. . . which don’t apply to NFA controlled guns.

    When did BATFE change their interpretation?

  9. Hartley Says:

    Minor, really, but what’s up with ” H undh K”? Auf Deutsch, it’s “und”, not “undh” – does adding an “h” make it sound better?

  10. Jim Says:

    Have felt a need for anything H&K since the first time I picked up an HK-91 a long number of years ago. If you run out of ammo It makes a really great club.

  11. Tam Says:

    Geodkyt,

    When did BATFE change their interpretation?

    I dunno which interpretation is more recent, but… I guess it was a year or so back (can’t be sure, ’cause I’ve slept since then) that the word was out to make sure that sporty shorty Saigas still had the proper number of US parts…

  12. Geodkyt Says:

    Thanks, Tam — found a copy of the letter.

    http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/922r_NFA_July_2009.jpg

    ATF, at the height of planning for new ops to create a call for massive gun control, changed their mind as to what the law means.

    This is my shocked face. . .

  13. Geodkyt Says:

    I would say that this new ATF interpretation is ripe for overturning, as arbitrary and contrary to statutory law.

    The current administration may pretend to ignore the difference between “rifle” or “shotgun” and “short barrelled rifle” or “short barrelled shotgun” — but the terms, as defined by Congress, as quite distinct.

    After all, an SBR or SBS includes things created _from_ “rifles” or “shotguns” (that’s why sawing off your 870 falls under “manufacturing” or “making” versus “assembly”). A “short barrelled rifle” IS NOT, legally speaking, a “rifle”, and 922(r) specifically applies to “semiautomatic rifles” and “shotguns”, only — not SBR and SBS.

    However, I’m not sure how one would go about achieving standing without FIRST setting oneself up for criminal conviction — it’s not like the T/C case, where they could do it IAW ATF’s current brainflash, then sue for a tax refund. . .