so when the sun set's on weapons ban

[mpoppel41]

can i add my three position stock on? and my 10 and half inch upper receiver or does that still fall under the short barrel rule? you know the 200.00 dollar extortion fee. and the nine month wait for an answer. still waiting for my krink but that's another subject. well thought i would throw something into the pot.

[bgummer]

Collapsable stock will be A-ok, but the short barrel would come under the 1934 National Firearms Act and so you would need to pay the extortion fee.

[sabotage]

so the 3 postion telostock isn't legal on a post-ban even if you have a 10rnd mag in & a regular 16inch barrel?

[Gr8Scott]

Adding a tele-stock would give the rifle three of the verboten features and you are only allowed two on a post ban. The two you currently have are the pistol grip and the detacheable mag. It doesn't matter which mag you have in the well of an AR-15, just so long as it isn't a LEO/Military use only marked "post ban" hi-cap mag. Detatcheable is enough according to the law to count as one evil feature. Of course, I'm speaking of things as they currently stand.

If the assault weapons ban expires, you would be able to change the stock over with no problems. The 11" barrel still requires an unconstitutional tax stamp.

[RJ Shooter]

Originally posted by sabotage
so the 3 postion telostock isn't legal on a post-ban even if you have a 10rnd mag in & a regular 16inch barrel? Collapsible and/or Folding Stocks are illegal on ALL pistol gripped rifles manufactured after the 94 AW Ban. You can change the USA made parts counts and put a high-cap magazine and pistol grip on a post-ban rifle (ARs already have this count, but AKs don't), but you cannot do anything [except have no pistol grip] to get the folding stock...

The barrel is a separate issue from the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Any weapon barrel that's less than 16 total inches, while having a buttstock on the weapon, is a Short Barrelled Rifle (SBR). An example is a Krinkov or an MP5.

[rick314]

I wonder if we could get the new HK AR magazines



if the impossible happens

[RJ Shooter]

I've heard they've fixed a lot of the SA80's problems as well...

[HDR]

Originally posted by Gr8Scott
The 11" barrel still requires an unconstitutional tax stamp.

No SCOTUS will ever find tax and tax stamps unconstitutional.. A quick look at tax stamps (exercise taxed) on alcohol, cigarettes and many other comsumables explains why..

That's why those that crafted NFA were smart.. The AG at the time stated that owning a firearm is a Right so a FA Ban would not withstand the test of constitutionality..

Applying yesterday's logic in today's terms, the AWB is unconstitutional, but a $5 tax on flash suppressors would not be unconstitutional..

Before I get flamed, that was an explanation, not a blessing.

[gibsonite]

Originally posted by HDR


Before I get flamed, that was an explanation, not a blessing.


:rotflmao:

Sounds like you speak from experience..... ;)

[63DH8]

Originally posted by HDR


Before I get flamed, that was an explanation, not a blessing.


You're getting soft in your old age! :D In the old days, a flame would have warrent a :moon: or a :fy: maybe a :gofuckoff or at the very least a :nutkick:

[Gr8Scott]

Originally posted by HDR
No SCOTUS will ever find tax and tax stamps unconstitutional.. A quick look at tax stamps (exercise taxed) on alcohol, cigarettes and many other comsumables explains why..

That's why those that crafted NFA were smart.. The AG at the time stated that owning a firearm is a Right so a FA Ban would not withstand the test of constitutionality..

Applying yesterday's logic in today's terms, the AWB is unconstitutional, but a $5 tax on flash suppressors would not be unconstitutional..

Before I get flamed, that was an explanation, not a blessing.

Yeah, I know the difference Top. I'm just saying that taxing something that is constitutionally protected is an infringement and it is therefore unconstitutional. I know that in reality, the SCOTUS would view the tax as constitutional. Just my viewpoint I'm throwing in there, not a statement as fact if it seemed that way. ;)

I know that I'm preaching to the choir here, but the tax is unconstitutional. Is there a radio transmitter tax? How bout a printing press tax? Talk show host tax? I don't think that these taxes exist, because there is a 1st ammendment that protects these things. Same thing should go for firearms. We all know that they used the tax stamp to infringe on the second ammendment and effectively limit private ownership of automatic firearms. What kind of stink would be raised if they levied the same kind of taxes on TV, printing and radio equipment? We all know what would happen. The SCOTUS would view this as an infringement of the 1st ammendment and they would remove the tax. That is unless the SCOTUS has no power over taxes. If that is the case, we are well and truly screwed.

[HDR]

Originally posted by 63DH8
You're getting soft in your old age! :D In the old days, a flame would have warrent a :moon: or a :fy: maybe a :gofuckoff or at the very least a :nutkick:

Its a new Forum...

After The Crew here gets comfy?
We'll post something listing the 100 reasons AR's are better than AK's..

Now I can say that, cus to me they are all nothing but a tool.. Said that the first week I was here and the mindset ain't changed.

Gr8Scott
Actually broadcast stations pay some hefty fees in licensing. So their Freedom only exists at the mercy of the FCC.

All of them contribute well and often to the Fed coffers..

Some times I wonder if the First protects the Media or is it we have the finest government a lobbyist's money can buy protect them.


Edit:
Because 63D used up the legal limit for emot-icons?
I couldn't use any..

[Gr8Scott]

I figured that the licenses would come into the picture or something like it. Uncle Sam certainly has his hands in all the cookie jars now doesn't he...

The difference between the two is that they are using the tax angle to prevent further manufacture and ownership of f/a weapons. I meant that if they used this same tactic to stop new TV stations, radio stations, printing presses, etc. All sorts of people would be pissed about that. I know that the government is gonna get it's peice of every pie out there, but if they took the same tack with mass media equipment that they did with full auto arms it would be something to behold. Just thinking out loud... :D