Ammo For Sale

« « Let the conspiracy theories begin! | Home | But he’s good on guns » »

You mean he broke gun laws too!

The Dayton shooter had a short barreled rifle.

14 Responses to “You mean he broke gun laws too!”

  1. Sigivald Says:

    “A pistol/rifle hybrid is completely illegal on every level”

    God save us from “experts”.

    Illegal, yes, without a tax stamp.

    But it’s not “a pistol/rifle hybrid”*, nor is it “illegal on every level”.

    It’d nice that they qualified it with details and the process later on, but that pull quote just made me twitchy.

    I’m not aware of any weapon that is “completely illegal on every level”; maybe an actual nuclear bomb or nerve gas, though even those aren’t illegal if the government owns them.

    Even better, the stock in the photo looks … odd. It might be an arm brace, which would make that gun a perfectly legal pistol in the eyes of BATFE.

    (* I’d accept that, maybe, for a literal pistol with a shoulder stock.

    But this is just an SBR.)

  2. Sean D Sorrentino Says:

    The “Expert” is wrong. It’s a KAK Shockwave pistol brace.

  3. Paul Joat Says:

    It might be an arm brace then it would be legal unless it was assembled as a rifle before it was assembled as a pistol.

  4. KSUJedi Says:

    I had the same first response to this “experts” proclamations, with the first assumption being that he didn’t know what the heck he was talking about, as the firearm pictured appears to be a legal AR-15 pistol with Shockwave blade stabilizing device.

    After some further investigation and looking at both the purported pictures of the scumbag’s weapon and pictures of Anderson Manufacturing lowers, I do theorize that this weapon has actually been truly illegally modified, although I still question whether the “expert’s” conclusions are actually based on a correct line of reasoning.

    Looking at the pictures of the scumbag’s weapon, it appears to be a standard Anderson Manufactuering AM-15 lower. Searching for AM-15 pistol, images found on various retailers websites appear to show Anderson lowers transferred as pistols to actually have “pistol” at the bottom of the rollmark, which this weapon does not.

    My presumption is that the scumbag legally had an Anderson rifle lower transferred to him, then installed a shockwave brace and short barrelled/pistol upper onto it, thus making it illegal, as a rifle is a rifle unless remanufactured as an SBR via a form 1.

    If however I’m incorrect, and some Anderson lowers have been transferred as a pistol without being marked “pistol”, then this could be 100% legal, but that would be predicated on the actual transfer being completed as a pistol.

    Under what designation this firearm was transferred to the scumbag, I’m sure their “expert” is oblivious to, and thus one way or another, he’s still likely a blowhard, although he appears to at least be on the side of the 2nd by trying to point out that a criminal is going to ignore laws and be a criminal regardless.

  5. SPQR Says:

    No. No. Lowers are initially transferred as “Other” not pistol. Its first assembly dictates its status.

  6. Ravenwood Says:

    ““If more gun control is what they want, how does this get stopped? What’s next? We just ban parts?” Maxey said.”

    Yeah.. that’s coming too.

  7. Ravenwood Says:


    It’s illegal if he purchased it as a complete rifle and reconfigured it. It may be illegal if he built it himself as a rifle and reconfigured it (not sure how we’d know that). It’s perfectly legal if he purchased a lower and built it as configured.

    SPQR is correct, first assembly is what dictates. Every stripped lower I’ve ever purchased in the past decade was listed as “other”.

  8. KSUJedi Says:

    Ya, that all makes sense, though when I’ve transferred receivers before, my local FFL has done them as “rifles”, but that’s probably because I’m in a smallish town and local FFL’s are pretty Fuddish and don’t really understand what to do with them.

    Totally agree that this COULD be 100% legal and the “expert” is wrong, if it was built from the ground up as a pistol, but could also be illegal if it was built as a rifle and then reconfigured to a pistol. We and the “expert” have no way of knowing that.

    Find it interesting if it was all done legally as a pistol, why would you even bother with a shockwave blade brace, when if you’re going to use it for illegal activity, why you wouldn’t just put a better stock on it and give a dang about the law. Potentially to be able to take to a range or otherwise not raise attention up until the time to actually use it comes.

  9. SPQR Says:

    KSUJedi, there is very specific ATF guidance on this. It is why a stripped lower cannot be transferred to under 21 year old.

  10. mikee Says:

    When discussing the potential build of an AR pistol, I realized I’m better off getting an NFA tax stamp for whatever I end up with, because then it is easier to know if I’m legal or not, and more importantly, easier to prove I’m legal. In the face of multiple, often contradictory, complicated, incomplete and poorly written ATF guidance letters on the subject, I’d be taking a stupid legal risk to build an AR pistol without a gun law expert to guide me.

    Making it impossible to know if one is following the law or not has been held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, but for vagueness of laws, not overly complicated regulatory schemes.

  11. ExpatNJ Says:

    Has anyone considered (or declined to post the idea) that the alleged shooter did not create/modify his alleged weapon, but, instead received his ‘whatever’-gun from a well-known US FedGov 3-letter agency: “Funny Business Incorporated”?

    This group has been proven to foment civil unrest, infiltrate peaceful groups to violate their 1A Rights, and even equip non-violent protestors with destructive items, urging their use, then busting them, and claiming credit for ‘thwarting a terrorist attack’???

    “He didn’t do that; somebody else did that” – Obama.

  12. Paul Joat Says:

    ExpatNJ that would go part way to explaining how the police were there to respond that fast with that much force.

  13. Ravenwood Says:


    I generally follow Occam’s razor.

  14. Robert the Bruce Says:

    Unfortunately, Occam’s razor often slices towards FBI malfeasance.