Ammo For Sale

« « Narrative | Home | NYPD: Empty tube is a weapon of mass destruction » »

Thoughts on ATF’s letter on the SB15

Michael Bane offers his.

Some legal type guy does too.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way, it’s stupid. Saying that using it in a way other than intended “redesigns” is asinine. If I use the magazine well as a forward grip, I’m not redesigning it. Also, US Code defines a handgun:

(29) The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;

I guess if you’re using two hands to shoot (like you fucking should), you’ve just redesigned your Glock.

My guess is what really happened is the first letter was approved without appropriate supervision; or they didn’t realize the can of worms they were opening.

As for what to do, I’m keeping mine as a collectors item. I imagine there probably won’t be many more made.

As for what to do legally, I dunno. Perhaps a class action suit against ATF for relying on their initial letter?

Thoughts?

8 Responses to “Thoughts on ATF’s letter on the SB15”

  1. Burnt Toast Says:

    From the bottom of Legal Type Guy imk,

    “In order for ATF’s skewed version of reality to work, it requires that the object being redesigned require no alteration whatsoever. It’s evident why ATF picked the definition of redesign it did. If altering the function of an object can be achieved by merely using it in a different manner then by that definition it was “redesigned”. Combined with the intent requirement from the definition of “rifle” the firearm has now become a rifle.”

    All 57 states and the territories have licensure requirements for those that practice architecture and engineering.

    At the low end, licensure is required for those that advertise ‘design’ services (or ‘redesign’ services being merely design it again, but harder, maybe; check your requirements in any of the 57 states, ‘redesign’ without actual changes is not…).

    At the high end, architectural and engineering design of building type structures is highly regulated. By this novel and unique definition of (re)design anyone using a window for a door would be sanctioned to practicing A/E without a license.

    For example, when Obama tried to get into the white house from a window (2009).

    As used by ATF, “(re)design” is not only unique and novel, arbitrary and capricious, but a completely made up word which appears on the surface by its spelling alone to be a common word.

  2. Joel Stoner Says:

    Yes it is absurd wording. Following their logic, cutting the stock off of a rifle, and shooting it with one hand would redesign it into a pistol.

    ATF needs a reminder that they are to enforce laws, not interpret them, that is the job of the judiciary branch. Also the need a reminder that they can not create law either, that is the Legislative branch’s job.

  3. aerodawg Says:

    I have this sneaking suspicion any court is going to take a dim view of ATFs ridiculous definitions….

  4. Mike Says:

    Doesn’t matter what the courts rule. They’ve ruled against the notion that adding a forward grip makes a pistol an AOW but the Atf continues to enforce anyway. Are you going to take the chance of having to go to court even knowing you will win?

  5. Gun Blobber Says:

    So if I take a revolver and hold it up against my shoulder, does that make it an SBR? (Might work with a .22….)

  6. Some guy Says:

    Under this logic, a full auto sear doesn’t make my gun into a machine gun so long as I fire in semi.

  7. Huck Says:

    “(29) The term “handgun” means—
    (A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;

    I guess if you’re using two hands to shoot (like you fucking should), you’ve just redesigned your Glock.”

    IMHO, you ARE supposed to shoot a “handgun” with one hand, I do but I also use revolvers. My feeling is that if I need 2 hands to shoot a firearm it’s either a rifle or a shotgun.

  8. HSR47 Says:

    @Joel Stoner: “Yes it is absurd wording. Following their logic, cutting the stock off of a rifle, and shooting it with one hand would redesign it into a pistol.”

    Nope. Read the definition of “Short-barreled Rifle” — look particularly for the part where it says “made from a rifle.”

    This is why the cut-down lever-action rifles used in various Hollywood productions in the middle part of the last century were registered as short-barreled rifles, while Rossi is currently selling firearms in the same configuration as pistols. The difference is that the former were originally “rifles” and so trigger the “made from rifles” language, while the latter were originally made as pistols.

    It’s arcane and arbitrary, but it’s a matter of statute.