PDA

View Full Version : Once a rifle always a rifle, and LEO's.... ?


CHS
06-14-2010, 9:34 AM
So, there's a LEO in our store and he's got one of those rail adapters for Glock's, that lets you mount a Glock to your rifle. The concern was brought up that it's probably not kosher and he mentioned that it's actually for department use with their issue Glocks. So I thought to myself "neat, well it's actually ok for them to be issued SBR's".

But then I realized, they might still be in violation of the law.

The current thinking is that those adapters are not Kosher because once mounted, they create an SBR out of your Glock. Personally, I think that's BS. You can't mount one gun to another and magically create a new type of firearm, it's just two guns mounted to each other. But whatever.

So, if by mounting the Glock to the AR you are now creating an SBR, then that Glock is an SBR forever. If that's a personally owned Glock, then the officer is in unlawful possession of an unregistered SBR.

Right?

So, if departments are issuing these things, wouldn't it be prudent for someone to give them a friendly phone call to remind them of the potential legal issues they are putting their own officers into?

loather
06-14-2010, 9:57 AM
But they're LEOs, they can do whatever their department tells them is OK!


Seriously though, it might definitely be a good idea to cite relevant sections of PC for this, then send a certified letter through an attorney to the PD's command.

At the very least, what this will do is bring light to a situation where an extreme amount of stupidity has been added to gun laws. Or, they'll issue a department memo saying to discontinue use of those things and sweep the whole issue under the rug.

Or, you could sic the BATFE on the PD, but that seems a little harsh. On the other hand, cops aren't above the law, and should be held to at least the same level of scrutiny we are (if not even higher). Federal charges would be brought against us if we were to do the same thing.

CHS
06-14-2010, 10:03 AM
Keep in mind this is NOT an issue with individual LEO's breaking the law, or not knowing they are breaking the law, rather it's a department issue.

CEDaytonaRydr
06-14-2010, 10:03 AM
The question is whether or not the pistol becomes part of the rifle... Or the rifle becomes part of the pistol... Or Both... Or Neither... :confused:

It could be a case of an SBR but who knows. These gun laws are so retarded... :rolleyes:

shellyzsweet
06-14-2010, 10:07 AM
why would you mount a pistol to a rifle anyways???? If you need to reload, then you can't get to your pistol without manipulating the entire rifle, plus your aim will be off and SUPER awkward. So I guess I'm confused as to why that would be a good idea :confused:

CSACANNONEER
06-14-2010, 10:41 AM
why would you mount a pistol to a rifle anyways???? If you need to reload, then you can't get to your pistol without manipulating the entire rifle, plus your aim will be off and SUPER awkward. So I guess I'm confused as to why that would be a good idea :confused:

Because, it is tacticool.

CHS
06-14-2010, 10:43 AM
why would you mount a pistol to a rifle anyways???? If you need to reload, then you can't get to your pistol without manipulating the entire rifle, plus your aim will be off and SUPER awkward. So I guess I'm confused as to why that would be a good idea :confused:

That doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the possible legal issue presented here.

Fate
06-14-2010, 10:44 AM
It takes "Dual Wielding" to Level 11.

bdsmchs, I think it's good to put LEAs/LEOs on notice that they aren't above the law and we're watching.

asme
06-14-2010, 10:52 AM
I think this is an issue on the same level of importance as the Oxford comma. When you put a glock onto a rifle, voodoo magic doesn't make it an SBR forever, unless there's a BATF agent right there to write down the serial number of said glock, depending on their personal interpretation of an ambiguous law.

Honestly thought now that I think about it it would make the rifle an SBR... :rofl:

bwiese
06-14-2010, 11:43 AM
Keep in mind this is NOT an issue with individual LEO's breaking the law, or not knowing they are breaking the law, rather it's a department issue.


Write a letter to BATF compliance - the guy's name is Sterling Nixon, he replaced Ed Owen.

thayne
06-14-2010, 2:53 PM
anyone have a picture of this contraption? I dont get what its usefulness would be

Kharn
06-14-2010, 3:25 PM
anyone have a picture of this contraption? I dont get what its usefulness would beA more stable firing position, it basically adds a stock to a Glock.

56Chevy
06-14-2010, 8:11 PM
anyone have a picture of this contraption? I dont get what its usefulness would be
http://www.lanworldinc.com/BH/CMSImages/php0DoqnRPM.jpg

383green
06-14-2010, 8:14 PM
The current thinking is that those adapters are not Kosher because once mounted, they create an SBR out of your Glock. Personally, I think that's BS. You can't mount one gun to another and magically create a new type of firearm, it's just two guns mounted to each other. But whatever.

I think that the "once an X, always X" rules are crap. But as long as we're stuck with that stretch of illogic, why would it make a difference whether you attach a plastic stock to the back of a Glock (making an SBR), or a plastic stock that happens to also fire 5.56mm rounds? Let me think out loud a bit:

One might argue that an AR15 can't be considered a stock because it's really a rifle. But how about one of those old wooden Luger holsters that could be mounted to the butt end of a Luger? Could one argue that the combination isn't an SBR, because you mounted a holster on the gun, not a stock? I don't think that argument would fly, but if a holster (that was designed to double as a stock) is a stock in that case, then why isn't a rifle (which has an actual stock)?

Maybe another argument would be that you're mounting the Glock on the rifle, not the other way around. So, if that's the case, could I mount my favorite pistol on, say, a police baton, in such a way that the perpendicular handle on the baton could be braced against my shoulder? I think that would be called an SBR.

If mounting a Glock and an AR15 to each other results in an SBR, then why would we say that the Glock gets turned perpetually into an SBR (since it had a stock indirectly mounted to it), rather than saying that the AR15 becomes an SBR (because it had a short barrel mounted on it)? Maybe they both become SBRs?

Any way you cut it, it seems to me that collection of laws regarding SBRs, "once a X always an X", etc. are a contrivance which was made under a particular set of assumptions, and that set of assumptions didn't include the idea that anybody would ever duct tape a pistol to a rifle. Just as the deliberately incremental outlawing of only as many guns as the gun-outlawers thought they could get away with has resulted in a byzantine house of cards which has already started to fall apart (i.e., the corner that the OLL movement backed DOJ into), finding corner cases like this one just illustrates the absurdity of our gun laws. I can only hope that if intelligently devious guys like bdsmchs keep thinking about the implications of whacky configurations like this one, and demand that BATFE issues opinions about them, that they'll quickly write themselves into such a tangle of mutually contradictory rulings that they are reduced to drooling morons (I assume that they do not presently drool). I think it would be too much to hope that they would emit sparks and smoke like when Spock said "I am telling a lie" to an android in that old Star Trek episode.


So, if by mounting the Glock to the AR you are now creating an SBR, then that Glock is an SBR forever. If that's a personally owned Glock, then the officer is in unlawful possession of an unregistered SBR.

Right?

It sure seems that way to me. I don't see much of a way to argue that the Glock and/or the AR15 don't become (an) SBR(s), without being logically inconsistent with previous rulings. Even if a wobbly argument could be made that no SBR was created, then I don't think it would take too many more "Ok, but what about..." questions to break it down.



So, if departments are issuing these things, wouldn't it be prudent for someone to give them a friendly phone call to remind them of the potential legal issues they are putting their own officers into?

I think it would be more prudent to get a ruling out of BATFE, and then follow up with the next carefully contrived "what if" question. It shouldn't take long before they contradict themselves... and then it gets even more fun!



A more stable firing position, it basically adds a stock to a Glock.

Considering that the stock in this case is a complete rifle, isn't that like mounting your motorcycle on a pickup truck to get more cargo capacity? :confused: I don't see the practicality of this in one sense, while in a very different sense, I'm contemplating all of the products I could market to attach one thing to a different thing in order to cast light on the absurdity of our weapons laws.

Dr Rockso
06-14-2010, 8:15 PM
http://www.lanworldinc.com/BH/CMSImages/php0DoqnRPM.jpg

That's not what he's talking about.

This:
http://www.makosecurity.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/UTA3.jpg

http://www.makosecurity.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/UTA4.jpg

383green
06-14-2010, 8:17 PM
(previous content deleted)

That looks thoroughly silly to me.

But I don't think it turns the Glock into an SBR... I think it turns it into a machinegun. :rolleyes:

dantodd
06-14-2010, 8:18 PM
http://www.makosecurity.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/UTA4.jpg

That ought to keep the mall safe.

383green
06-14-2010, 8:27 PM
My new product idea: Gloves which attach together, so that you can make a combination like that out of any two hand-operated devices! M1911+Garand! Fork+knife! Cellphone+belt sander! And an "ultimate" version with an extra rail to let you mount an AM/FM radio!

But wait, I'm just getting started! A magnetic zipper pull that lets you mount ferrous objects on your fly! Knee pads with built-in speedloaders! A tactical helmet that holds not one, not two, but three beer cans!

:willy_nilly:

I'm telling ya, I'll be rich!

Bah, I need a drink.

dantodd
06-14-2010, 8:31 PM
A magnetic zipper pull that lets you mount ferrous objects on your fly! Knee pads with built-in speedloaders!

Are these two items somehow related? His and hers maybe?

383green
06-14-2010, 8:36 PM
Are these two items somehow related? His and hers maybe?

No, the kneepads just have ordinary revolver speedloaders on them. I'm not mentioning some of my more risque Tactikewl™ product ideas here for fear of encountering the ban-hammer... particularly if it has a coffee grinder attached to it. :whistling:

Calm Down
06-14-2010, 8:43 PM
That's one of the most foolish contraptions I've ever seen. With that said, I would think the agency would have to register the pistol as an SBR via an ATF Form 1 if the agency did the conversion. The issue would arise when the agency wants to trade the pistols in to a dealer to acquire newer models. They would have to use a dealer with a class 3 license and the pistols would be forever branded as SBR's making them more difficult to get rid of if they wanted to sell them to the general public. Again, those look retarded.

Dr Rockso
06-14-2010, 9:32 PM
That's one of the most foolish contraptions I've ever seen. With that said, I would think the agency would have to register the pistol as an SBR via an ATF Form 1 if the agency did the conversion. The issue would arise when the agency wants to trade the pistols in to a dealer to acquire newer models. They would have to use a dealer with a class 3 license and the pistols would be forever branded as SBR's making them more difficult to get rid of if they wanted to sell them to the general public. Again, those look retarded.

Not to mention that holstering is a b*tch.

thayne
06-14-2010, 9:40 PM
that thing looks just plain silly

SJgunguy24
06-14-2010, 10:37 PM
Keep in mind this is NOT an issue with individual LEO's breaking the law, or not knowing they are breaking the law, rather it's a department issue.

It should be an issue for both party's, "ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following the law" is a 2 way street. If they arrest some poor guy because the LEO "Thinks" that AR "might" be and AW and runs that guy through the ringer and in turn ruins that guys life and career, then the same needs to happen to them.

It takes "Dual Wielding" to Level 11.

bdsmchs, I think it's good to put LEAs/LEOs on notice that they aren't above the law and we're watching.

Agreed 1000%, Police are the example of the law, not the exception to it.

motorhead
06-14-2010, 10:58 PM
WTF, did they run out of live weasels?

motorhead
06-14-2010, 11:02 PM
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj22/neon_tony/TactiCool-1.jpg

franklinarmory
06-15-2010, 6:46 AM
So much for keeping the finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. :(

I doubt this will get too much traction, must agencies don't like the idea of dual deployment methods (even if these are both lethal.) They'll probably have no coverage in their department policy if they employ this gimmick.

CHS
06-15-2010, 8:45 AM
It should be an issue for both party's, "ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following the law" is a 2 way street. If they arrest some poor guy because the LEO "Thinks" that AR "might" be and AW and runs that guy through the ringer and in turn ruins that guys life and career, then the same needs to happen to them.


I don't fully agree with this. Most non-gun-guy LEO's follow what their command tells them and they rely on their department to tell them what's legal, what's not, what's enforceable, and what's not.

If an agency is handing these things out like candy for ISSUE use, then yes, ignorance is actually a valid excuse in this case. These LEO's are being told that for issue use these things are perfectly legal, which just isn't the case.


Agreed 1000%, Police are the example of the law, not the exception to it.

I do agree here. Which is why the AGENCY(s) need notice, and not the individual officers.