The AP5 is originally made by MKE in Turkey and then imported by Century Arms. Does it come with a brace?The AP5 better not be part of this.
Last edited:
The AP5 is originally made by MKE in Turkey and then imported by Century Arms. Does it come with a brace?The AP5 better not be part of this.
The AP5 better not be part of this.
An interesting legal argument could be made that 922(r) only applies to the importer, not the end user. This is similar to the argument (succssful in one court) that serial numbers on gun are only relevant to interstate commerce and not the end user (who could remove the S/N).
Literally unphucking believable since ATF had previously APPROVED these configurations.So that’s part the RIA scenario 4 discussion that starts on p. 241.
ATF states in their commentary, “The Department disagrees that all the firearms at issue in this rulemaking were legal at the time of purchase and lawfully possessed. ATF became aware that many short-barreled rifles equipped with a “stabilizing brace” had been sold by various manufacturers as pistols without the submission or receipt of a voluntary classification request from ATF …These unregistered short-barreled rifles have been transferred in violation of the NFA, and further possession of any such unregistered firearm continues to be a violation of the NFA.
That’s on p. 242; the 922r part of the discussion is secondary, but ATF implies there’s no legal path forward on those except destruction or turn in.
The original assember (i.e., importer's employee or subcontractor) only or a post-purchase assembler, as well?922(r) only applies to the assembler.
The original assember (i.e., importer's employee or subcontractor) only or a post-purchase assembler, as well?
Could you please point me to where you found this?The atf seems to contradict itself on that. They also say
An AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6-1/2 inch buffer tube may not be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired because it is required for the cycle of operations of the
weapon.
From their site. But like Todd pointed out. They also say how the firearm was designed is a factor. They could easily argue that the ar design is meant to have a stock on the buffer so in turn all ar's are rifles. It's a total clusterCould you please point me to where you found this?
Of course it has the "may", which leaves it entirely open to ATF interpretation.
Thanks.
Could you please point me to where you found this?
Of course it has the "may", which leaves it entirely open to ATF interpretation.
Thanks.
OK, if a Sig MCX has a 16” barrel installed, from what I’ve read, the SBR is no longer the problem, but another problem area is encountered.
The way Scalia screwed us over in the Heller decision means that overturning the NFA is a non-starter. But we really, really need a "National Firearms Act Technical Corrections Act" that removes silencers and short barreled weapons (and bump stocks, too) from federal notice in any capacity. If we could tack on some corrections to the travesties of 1986 as well as add a new amnesty (as per the one after the GCA passed), that would be the icing on the cake.
Not at all good; I think the thing is 27” total length as is.Yep. It’s an NFA weapon made from a rifle now unless you get to >26” OAL in it’s shortest configuration.
Not at all good; I think the thing is 27” total length as is.
Not sure, I’ll have to check; it’s an MCX Rattler in 5.56.Which MCX SKU are you referring to?
That’s totally misleading then, what’s stated in this chart.
In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions:
- "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto."