And you cannot make and register a full auto weapon, except in very special, very expensive circumstances.
I am a gun person, but this sort of behavior annoys me tremendously. There are some laws that I find stupid, like the silencer laws, but gun laws are to be obeyed. and strictly. if you don’t like the law, you write letters to senators.
I think this case is probably a political stunt, and an idiotic one, with predictable consequences. If any of those customers would be otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, he is breaking a bunch of laws that exist for good reasons. Even if none of the customers is a prohibited person, then he is a gun manufacturer, and he needs to have the proper permits, put serial numbers on the receivers, and conduct background checks.
Poor, stupid fool, only Wall Street gets away with loophole tricks like this.
This legal reasoning reminds me of a scene from Hannibal in which Dr. Lecter stabs a dinner guest in the side of the head with an icepick. After minute or so of watching the man twitch and gurgle Hannibal’s partner pulls the pick out of the man’s brain, releasing a gush of blood as the man collapses dead.
Hannibal calmly remarks “Technically, you killed him.”
You could not ask for a better example of why lawyers groan and reach for a bottle of liquor when they hear the words “Hey, I think I found a loophole in the law!” from people who aren’t legal professionals.
And by groan you mean sharpen their billing pencils.
Ain’t no better client than one willing to fight stupidly.
Off topic, but i would make the argument that Hannibal killed him since he was the one that inflicted a lethal blow to the person. Removing the pick or not would’ve been beside the point since they had no intention of letting the victim get medical assistance. Also the lethal blow was done with the purpose of killing them man so it’d definitely be 1st degree murder and not a lesser charge like manslaughter where it would’ve been an accident.
[quote=“SteampunkBanana, post:45, topic:95567”]
And by groan you mean sharpen their billing pencils.
[/quote]Hey, I never said the liquor wasn’t celebratory. Don’t you uncork the good stuff on special occasions?
Three: to target shoot for fun
Please don’t argue the subjectiveness of fun, because it won’t be fun
To the best of my knowledge, the attempts to make personal manufacture of AR-15 lowers about as drool proof as machining can be that are implemented vaguely competently; rather than as a ‘man, I bet the feds totally haven’t thought of my adorable loophole’ have attracted a certain amount of hand-wringing; but not much else.
This guy appears to have veered rather too far into the lazy-and-too-cute-by-half school of loopholes.
Eh, I bet it’s pretty good at cracking walnuts.
Seem like the guy must have had a shitty lawyer.
Where is the line between making it yourself and having someone else make it?
Must I own the equipment? So I buy it for a dollar, and sell it back when I’m done.
Physical location? So the CNC is in a trailer I leave at your house.
Must I prepare the material? Here’s a jig, and a drill. Drill these cooling/alignment/holes of undermined use.
Do I have to program the machine? Here’s a script that asks if you want to make a lover receiver, 10 Input A$: Run
This guy shouldn’t have gone to prison. This was a bullshit “I know obscenity when I see it” case, and should have been appealed.
The particular issue at hand is i believe his clients did none of the work and he was enabling them to manufacture lowers. Had the clients created the CNC files and were jsut merely using his equipment it’d be a totally different argument.
I think that if we can better control the transactions involved in gun ownership, we can more easily skip the concept of registration that gun owners find so difficult. It should have been possible to block Dylan Roof from purchasing a pistol. Having a pistol registered to him is less important, since we knew he was a murderer before we knew the serial number on the pistol he used.
He was also convicted of “possessing an unregistered machine gun”, so either he did make at least one or it’s a coincidence.
Gun ownership, and especially assault weapon ownership, is increasing nothing more than virtue signaling. “Fuck them libtards! I’ve got an AR-15!”
The detachable clips, the collapsible stocks, the tactical vests, the concealed weapons, the glasses, the “III%” patch, it’s all soldier dress up. It’s cosplay to make themselves look like some sort of an action star and feel like a badass. It’s a pathetic attempt to enhance their masculinity by looking aggressive and dangerous, since the only way to be a man is to be agreasive and pick fights and dominate others, not to be respected but to be feared. It’s the same alt-right NRx bullshit peddled by Cernovich and the PUA folks and all that bullshit.
If you’re waking around with a gun and thinking of buying an assault weapon, you’re pathetic and you know it.
I don’t think its relevant who’s equipment it is. I’m a hacker space member, and when I go in and use the mill, lathe, and welders there to fabricate something, there’s no question who made it, even though I do not own the machines. What seems relevant is the expertise and effort used. If, for example, the machinist had walked a client through the process of turning the machine on, clamping the 3/4 receiver in place, indexing the tool, etc, then I think there would be a legitimate assertion that yes, the client made the item in question. This the pretty much the route Local Motors takes with their Rally Fighter to preserve its status as an owner-built vehicle. In their case it is a 6 day process. My guess is the machinist in this case did not want to take on the added time and equipment damage that would result from actually educating people (or at least letting them do more than push a button).
As opposed to all the other people making or selling firearms?
