PDA

View Full Version : Won't this ban the M1A, SU16, Mini-14, etc?


Toolbox X
06-27-2006, 8:18 PM
Wouldn't this "amendment also ban the M1A, Kel-Tec SU16, Mini-14, and every other non-pistol-grip-rifle that is semiauto and accepts mags?

6172crew
06-27-2006, 8:22 PM
I want to know the answer to your ? as well but this is like #4 thread on the same subject...IMHO;)

EricCartmanR1
06-27-2006, 8:29 PM
The way I see it... Yes it does! Remember the law is not up to interpretation by you, but interpretation by the courts.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 8:36 PM
Only if you put a pistol grip, flash suppressor, forward pistol grip, thumbhole stock, collapsible stock, or flare/grenade launcher on it with that detachable magazine.

Lets stop the wild speculation. Take a breath and relax.

cnyankee
06-27-2006, 8:36 PM
im lost...which amendment are you talking about? i am an M1a owner and looking at a socom 16

C.G.
06-27-2006, 8:37 PM
Sheesh, one would think Shopkeep is back.

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 8:41 PM
Sheesh, one would think Shopkeep is back.
:eek: you never know, I think jpglee has been selling a few too many of his tin foil hat radar dishes.

leelaw
06-27-2006, 8:56 PM
This regulation change will not affect M1As, Mini-14s, SU-16s, and other detachable-magazine, non-pistol gripped or flash hidered or other evil featured rifles.

This bears repeating.

This regulation change will not affect M1As, Mini-14s, SU-16s, and other detachable-magazine, non-pistol gripped or flash hidered or other evil featured rifles.

Thank you for your attention. ;)

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 9:40 PM
Wouldn't this "amendment also ban the M1A, Kel-Tec SU16, Mini-14, and every other non-pistol-grip-rifle that is semiauto and accepts mags?

No. It does not change anything that does not already fall under SB-23 definion.

The M1A, SU-16, Mini-14, and a whole host of other firearms will not be affected. The purpose of this rulemaking is to effectively ban the use of the mag-lock kits to make SB-23 AWs legal.

Crazed_SS
06-27-2006, 9:46 PM
Wouldn't this "amendment also ban the M1A, Kel-Tec SU16, Mini-14, and every other non-pistol-grip-rifle that is semiauto and accepts mags?

No, why would it? The rifles you mentioned only have ONE evil feature (detachable mag)
They're not saying capacity to accept automatically makes a rifle an AW.
They're saying that pinning your magazine isnt sufficient enough to turn a rifle with 2 evil features (detachable mag + pistol grip) into one with 1 evil feature (pistol grip).

This really isnt that complicated. People are making it more complex than it is.

James R.
06-27-2006, 10:03 PM
they'll come up with a law that says a rifle has, "capacity to accept a pistol grip" or "capacity to accept a pistol gripped stock" OMG OMG the sky is falling. They're so butthurt that there was a hole in their law that they're willing to look terribly silly trying to patch it back up. This whole concept of defining the capacity to accept a magazine in the context of fixed mag AR's is about as stupid as trying to ban a rifle that isn't permanently glued into its stock because it has the capacity to be placed in a non compliant one.

Regards,

James R.

Crazed_SS
06-27-2006, 10:12 PM
Well from the DOJ's point of view, they already have that case covered. If you install a pistol grip stock onto your M1A or Mini-14, you have an AW and that's against the law.

Toolbox X
06-27-2006, 10:44 PM
Okay okay, I think I understand now.
The DOJ is NOT adding a sixth evil feature (accept detachable mags) to the list of evil features.
That is what it sounded like to me (and a lot of other people I think).

The DOJ is trying to make it illegal to pin 10rd mags in the magwell.

I get it now. Sorry. That was damn confusing on the surface.

Crazed_SS
06-27-2006, 10:57 PM
Okay okay, I think I understand now.
The DOJ is NOT adding a sixth evil feature (accept detachable mags) to the list of evil features.
That is what it sounded like to me (and a lot of other people I think).

The DOJ is trying to make it illegal to pin 10rd mags in the magwell.

I get it now. Sorry. That was damn confusing on the surface.

Pretty much..

The way I see it, "capacity to accept" is already an evil feature. Always has been.

What they're doing is trying to make the requirements for a fixed magazine more stringent. Right now pinning the magazine should be sufficient under the law, but they're saying that it needs to be "permanently" attached..

The question is what counts as permanent?

hoffmang
06-28-2006, 12:05 AM
This is very hard.

In the original comment period, DOJ defined a fixed magazine. They then told the public to rely on that definition to mean the opposite of a detachable magazine.

Now they are saying... "Uh... forget what we said before..."

SKSs are going to be AWs if they have flash suppressors. A Garand with a pistol grip or thumbhole stock? Legal today. Illegal after this as you can use tools to change the fixed magazine to a detachable therefor it has the capacity to accept.

This is going to be fun :)