PDA

View Full Version : The Spreading of FUD


lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 3:13 PM
I was over on AR15.com and noticed the following thread:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=303712&page=1

Some guy named CWDraco is over there basically stating that a BB is does not creat a fix mag and the law does not define a fixed mag. He also states that he has a MMG and BB and uses 30 round mags.

Apparently he has been banned by calguns (by his own admission) for posting info on building silencers.

You got to read it, it's funny listening to his contradictions and badmouthing of calguns.

The original post was by a friend of mine looking for some answers to his questions, should have posted his questions here.

Hopi
04-08-2008, 3:20 PM
I've been following that since Dedeye posted the link a week or so ago. That guy is persistent, creative, and dangerously irresponsible.

His nonsense can remain fairly well hidden amongst the dribble over on that site, but he's smart enough to stay away from this board.....he would get laughed off the forum...again.

Mr. Mildot
04-08-2008, 3:20 PM
http://www.johnrozum.com/images/elmerfudd.jpg

"I'm voting for Obama!"

lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 3:34 PM
LOL..

KenpoProfessor
04-08-2008, 4:14 PM
I was over on AR15.com and noticed the following thread:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=303712&page=1

Some guy named CWDraco is over there basically stating that a BB is does not creat a fix mag and the law does not define a fixed mag. He also states that he has a MMG and BB and uses 30 round mags.

Apparently he has been banned by calguns (by his own admission) for posting info on building silencers.

You got to read it, it's funny listening to his contradictions and badmouthing of calguns.

The original post was by a friend of mine looking for some answers to his questions, should have posted his questions here.

What's wrong with posting info on building silencers, you can find it on the net? I realize they're a no no in CA, but just talking about them, even drooling over having one? You can fill out a Form 1 and build your own in other NFA states.

http://www.titleii.com/pdf/010205-Form1.pdf

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 4:18 PM
What's wrong with posting info on building silencers, you can find it on the net? I realize they're a no no in CA, but just talking about them, even drooling over having one? You can fill out a Form 1 and build your own in other NFA states.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

According to CWDraco he was banned from calguns for posting that info so if what he is saying is factual calguns had an issue with it not me. The reason I mentioned it is because he bad mouths calguns and stated his reasons for it.

I thought it was a funny thread and wanted to share it.

hawk1
04-08-2008, 4:23 PM
He's right in a sense. If he has a featureless rifle then he can have plus 10 round mags in use if he owned them prior to the mag ban. As well, if he's featureless, then there would be no reason for the BB.

lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 4:32 PM
He's right in a sense. If he has a featureless rifle then he can have plus 10 round mags in use if he owned them prior to the mag ban. As well, if he's featureless, then there would be no reason for the BB.

I agree if he has a featureless build he can use high cap mags and there is no reason for a BB in a featureless build, however, he states that his rifle is featureless with MMG and BB plus a 30 round mag. When someone pointed out to him that using the BB contitutes a fixed mag build and now the 30 round fixed mag results in an AW under SB23.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

He then argues that the BB does not create a fixed mag, therefore using a 30 round mag is legal and that Cal law does not define a fixed mag.

hawk1
04-08-2008, 4:37 PM
I agree there is no reason for a BB in a featureless build, however, he states that his rifle is featureless with MMG and BB plus a 30 round mag. When someone pointed out to him that using the BB contitutes a fixed mag build the now 30 round fixed mag results in an AW under SB23. He then argues that the BB does not create a fixed mag, therefore using a 30 round mag is legal and that Cal law does not define a fixed mag.

I see what you're saying now. Fool should just take the BB off and be done with it. Why keep it on there?
I always believed the Prince50 would make it fixed and the BB would make it only attachable.

lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 4:58 PM
I see what you're saying now. Fool should just take the BB off and be done with it. Why keep it on there?
I always believed the Prince50 would make it fixed and the BB would make it only attachable.

He was trying to use the underground legislation that CA DOJ was using to validate his claim along with the AW guide and not the actual law. When someone pointed out that a fixed mag is defined in the definition of detachable mag he tries to state that since it does not state "fixed" then there is no definition.

“‘[D]etachable magazine’ means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily
from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.
A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

We know that if it requires a tool or disassembly of the weapon to remove the mag it is non-detachable or fixed.

The BB and prince50 do the exact same thing. They fix the magazine in place. Both require a tool to remove the magazine, however, I IMHO think the bullet button is better legally. If I used a prince50 and took the allen wrench and loosened the screw to get the mag out, I have just created an AW, so my option would be to break open the rifle and load from the top. If I use the BB and used a bullet to remove the mag the rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable mag because once I insert another mag it locks in place and requires a tool to remove.

Edit: I was mistaken on one part. CWDraco used the hypothetical situation of a oll featureless build with MMG,BB and 30 roundmag as being legal and not an AW because the BB does not create a fix mag. His rifle is not configured this way.

mymonkeyman
04-08-2008, 5:20 PM
It's pretty clear the guy is a troll. There is no reason to use a BB at all if you don't believe it creates a fixed magazine. He's only doing it to try to get people to commit a crime by having a fixed mag build with a >10 round magazine.

lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 5:25 PM
It's pretty clear the guy is a troll. There is no reason to use a BB at all if you don't believe it creates a fixed magazine. He's only doing it to try to get people to commit a crime by having a fixed mag build with a >10 round magazine.

I agree... Someone at AR15.com should challenge him to prove his point. I would have him build a rifle in his hypothetical configuration and send it with all his info to CA DOJ and see what happens.

ptoguy2002
04-08-2008, 6:31 PM
OH MAN !

Between the alleged silencer comments on calguns, the "i've been put in handcuffs" comment, the bad grammer, the switchblade thing and his comments on it, this guy is really something.

I hate arfcom (barfcom anymore).
Everybody in there thinks they know it all, is rude, has a grudge against anybody that isn't a "Team Member", and its just overall bad company for the most part.

hoffmang
04-08-2008, 7:08 PM
Ok, I got fed up with that thread and posted... Keep me appraised :)

-Gene

lrdchivalry
04-08-2008, 7:14 PM
Ok, I got fed up with that thread and posted... Keep me appraised :)

-Gene

I saw your post on ar15.com and look forward to CWdraco's response. Good job Gene.

ptoguy2002
04-08-2008, 7:20 PM
Ok, I got fed up with that thread and posted... Keep me appraised :)

-Gene

Gene's response was a little more tactful than mine.

Mute
04-09-2008, 8:27 AM
Just post what you know to be true and forget that guy. If he winds up sitting in jail with his BB and 30 round magazine, he'll still claim that he is correct about the AW law. This guy clearly has an ax to grind with Calguns and has his ego invested in this debate. NO ONE is going to convince him he's wrong.

rkt88edmo
04-09-2008, 10:13 AM
We get rid of the troll and we still get troll threads here, lol - can't keep a good troll down!

Army
04-09-2008, 10:51 AM
I think I finally got him figured out. He's all twisted up in his definitions.

He states that a MMG rifle can accept (and detach) hi-caps legally (with no other features). OK, good enough so far.

But he gets all bunched up on the BB by stating in thousands of incorrect words; that if your MMG rifle has a BB installed, then you cannot use hi-caps BECAUSE of the BB being there. He equates the BB with ten rounds ONLY and FOREVER.
To paraphrase:
"No BB...hi-cap OK

BB...only 10 rounds period. Anything more is defined by law and DOJ as an AW, regardless of feature or build."

Yup, he's an ignorant troll.

DedEye
04-09-2008, 1:48 PM
Ok, I got fed up with that thread and posted... Keep me appraised :)

-Gene

I was relieved when you finally showed up and started posting in that thread; it's very tiresome to argue with someone who refuses to listen. As has been expressed in that thread though, the point isn't to convince him, it's to warn others away from following his idiotic advice.

Also, according to his profile (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=11411), he isn't banned.

Patriot
04-09-2008, 1:56 PM
Also, according to his profile (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=11411), he isn't banned.

That's assuming he only has one account here :eek:

DedEye
04-09-2008, 2:03 PM
That's assuming he only has one account here :eek:

Naturally. I remember him mentioning having a couple accounts at some point, but he seems to be under the impression that he is currently banned.

MudCamper
04-09-2008, 2:28 PM
BB...only 10 rounds period. Anything more is defined by law and DOJ as an AW, regardless of feature or build.


OK I haven't gone to look at the arfcom thread. I can't even stand the color scheme over there, but, that statement is in fact true.

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall
also mean any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.


Once you put a BB on a rifle, it fits the (2) definition (with a high-cap mag). Other features are irrelivent. Am I missing something else here?

Hopi
04-09-2008, 2:50 PM
OK I haven't gone to look at the arfcom thread. I can't even stand the color scheme over there, but, that statement is in fact true.



Once you put a BB on a rifle, it fits the (2) definition (with a high-cap mag). Other features are irrelivent. Am I missing something else here?

You're not missing anything. That legality of that is the topic of discussion. The offending poster on ar15.com is playing make-believe.

lrdchivalry
04-09-2008, 4:19 PM
I think I finally got him figured out. He's all twisted up in his definitions.

He states that a MMG rifle can accept (and detach) hi-caps legally (with no other features). OK, good enough so far.

But he gets all bunched up on the BB by stating in thousands of incorrect words; that if your MMG rifle has a BB installed, then you cannot use hi-caps BECAUSE of the BB being there. He equates the BB with ten rounds ONLY and FOREVER.
To paraphrase:
"No BB...hi-cap OK

BB...only 10 rounds period. Anything more is defined by law and DOJ as an AW, regardless of feature or build."

Yup, he's an ignorant troll.

He claims that he can have a featureless build with a MM and a BB and use hi cap mags. Why? Because in his words he claims that using a BB does not constitute a fixed mag build so using hi cap mags is legal. He probably can't even keep up with his own arguement and contradicts himself.

redcliff
04-09-2008, 4:20 PM
I think I finally got him figured out. He's all twisted up in his definitions.

He states that a MMG rifle can accept (and detach) hi-caps legally (with no other features). OK, good enough so far.

But he gets all bunched up on the BB by stating in thousands of incorrect words; that if your MMG rifle has a BB installed, then you cannot use hi-caps BECAUSE of the BB being there. He equates the BB with ten rounds ONLY and FOREVER.
To paraphrase:
"No BB...hi-cap OK

BB...only 10 rounds period. Anything more is defined by law and DOJ as an AW, regardless of feature or build."

Yup, he's an ignorant troll.

Actually, he's been stating that a MMG, with a BB and a hi-cap is ok and "double safe". A number of us have been arguing with him and trying to convince him that a BB with a magazine over 10 rounds is a felony even if you have a MMG installed.

The problem is he doesn't believe a BB creates a fixed magazine.

DedEye
04-09-2008, 4:22 PM
Actually, he's been stating that a MMG, with a BB and a hi-cap is ok and "double safe". A number of us have been arguing with him and trying to convince him that a BB with a magazine over 10 rounds is a felony even if you have a MMG installed.

The problem is he doesn't believe a BB creates a fixed magazine.

He keeps playing word games about "attachable magazines" not being the same as "fixed magazines."

It's even more infuriating than it sounds :mad:.

Fjold
04-09-2008, 5:56 PM
Have him explain why he has a BB at all.

If it doesn't make it a fixed magazine rifle why not just use the regular magazine release?

lrdchivalry
04-09-2008, 6:07 PM
He keeps playing word games about "attachable magazines" not being the same as "fixed magazines."

It's even more infuriating than it sounds :mad:.

Let's look at the word attachable.

If he is using a standard mag release he still has to attach the mag to the rifle.

If he uses a BB or prince50 he still has to attach the mag to the rifle.

The question is once the mag is attached to the rifle is it a fixed or detachable mag.

With a BB or prince50 it is a fixed mag under the definition.

He also argue that because it doesn't say fixed in the definition then it does not define what a fixed mag is.

He is a nut job.

shark92651
04-09-2008, 6:43 PM
I made a couple posts on that thread myself but I'm done. You can only bang your head against a wall so many times before you get a headache.

lrdchivalry
04-09-2008, 7:01 PM
I made a couple posts on that thread myself but I'm done. You can only bang your head against a wall so many times before you get a headache.


I hear you... I have issued my challenge to CWDraco to build that rifle with the MMG, BB, 30 round mag and send it to the DOJ for clarification. I doubt he will accept my challenge.

I will have an opportunity tonight to laugh at his responses again since I am desk bound at my agencies kennel since a hit and run driver caused me to crash my Harley and shattered my wrist.

Army
04-09-2008, 11:19 PM
On second thought................I still don't have him figured out.

Says one thing, then counters with another that makes the first thing different.

On the other hand...it's Arfcom. 'Nuf said.

aplinker
04-10-2008, 12:12 AM
Hmm...

Is there a CCR about what a "fixed magazine" is?

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, and we've all been over this 1000 times (some people still don't understand, though), but really, is there a definition of FIXED magazine?


Let me take you through what I'm saying... though, I'm sure this has come up before...

Remember, the assault weapon law says what IS an assault weapon, so if we don't have any of the "features" (detachable mag with associated features, <30", fixed mag with >10rds), then we're not an assault weapon.

We have four logical possibilities for a rifle with a magazine here, because we have two criteria (a & b, a not b, b not a, not a not b):

1.) the magazine is detachable (which is defined in CCR)
2.) the magazine is fixed (which is not defined)
3.) the magazine is both detachable and fixed (fits both definitions)
4.) the magazine is neither detachable nor fixed (does not fit either definition)

We understand the 1st, detachable, as it's well defined.


On #3, Given the way detachable is defined, it's clear you can not be BOTH detachable AND fixed, since the ability to detach precludes being fixed, simply by logic.

What about #2, fixed? Is it defined in CCR (I've never seen one, and I've looked through a few times)? Are we meant to assume that if a magazine is not detachable it must be fixed? Wouldn't you say there's a difference between an internal box magazine and the magazine of an SKS or a bullet-button AR or a Prince50 AR? It could be argued that, without a definition for fixed, that the Prince50, SKS, etc are NOT fixed magazines, as they are capable of being REMOVED, with the use of a tool, but are NOT detachable. This has actually bothered me for a while. If you unscrew your SKS mag, can't you just hold it in place and use as a detachable? We've always said that a Prince50 is a no-go with the set-screw backed out, and I understand why (it makes sense taking it from one direction -- it runs the same as a standard detachable), but it's also the same as an SKS that you unscrew the mag from.

Finally, #4: neither detachable nor fixed. Without a strict definition of fixed, what are we to assume? If one uses the normal definition of "fixed" - i.e., permanent, then wouldn't we actually have created a rifle that's neither fixed nor detachable with the bullet button?

Remember, we don't need to create a FIXED magazine, we just need it to be NOT DETACHABLE. In fact I'd argue being neither fixed nor detachable means you could use >10rd magazines. Is that, perhaps what the troll is trying to say? :) Remember, the same way a firearm can be neither a pistol, shotgun nor rifle, the same can apply here...

redcliff
04-10-2008, 5:42 AM
Hmm...

Is there a CCR about what a "fixed magazine" is?

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, and we've all been over this 1000 times (some people still don't understand, though), but really, is there a definition of FIXED magazine?


Let me take you through what I'm saying... though, I'm sure this has come up before...

Remember, the assault weapon law says what IS an assault weapon, so if we don't have any of the "features" (detachable mag with associated features, <30", fixed mag with >10rds), then we're not an assault weapon.

We have four logical possibilities for a rifle with a magazine here, because we have two criteria (a & b, a not b, b not a, not a not b):

1.) the magazine is detachable (which is defined in CCR)
2.) the magazine is fixed (which is not defined)
3.) the magazine is both detachable and fixed (fits both definitions)
4.) the magazine is neither detachable nor fixed (does not fit either definition)

We understand the 1st, detachable, as it's well defined.


On #3, Given the way detachable is defined, it's clear you can not be BOTH detachable AND fixed, since the ability to detach precludes being fixed, simply by logic.

What about #2, fixed? Is it defined in CCR (I've never seen one, and I've looked through a few times)? Are we meant to assume that if a magazine is not detachable it must be fixed? Wouldn't you say there's a difference between an internal box magazine and the magazine of an SKS or a bullet-button AR or a Prince50 AR? It could be argued that, without a definition for fixed, that the Prince50, SKS, etc are NOT fixed magazines, as they are capable of being REMOVED, with the use of a tool, but are NOT detachable. This has actually bothered me for a while. If you unscrew your SKS mag, can't you just hold it in place and use as a detachable? We've always said that a Prince50 is a no-go with the set-screw backed out, and I understand why (it makes sense taking it from one direction -- it runs the same as a standard detachable), but it's also the same as an SKS that you unscrew the mag from.

Finally, #4: neither detachable nor fixed. Without a strict definition of fixed, what are we to assume? If one uses the normal definition of "fixed" - i.e., permanent, then wouldn't we actually have created a rifle that's neither fixed nor detachable with the bullet button?

Remember, we don't need to create a FIXED magazine, we just need it to be NOT DETACHABLE. In fact I'd argue being neither fixed nor detachable means you could use >10rd magazines. Is that, perhaps what the troll is trying to say? :) Remember, the same way a firearm can be neither a pistol, shotgun nor rifle, the same can apply here...

Based upon DOJ's response included in http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf it appears DOJ has a pretty clear understanding of what THEY believe a "fixed magazine" is: "The Department disagrees with the comment because any magazine that requires the use of a bullet or any other tool for its removal is a fixed magazine, not a detachable magazine."

I think trying to create a third situation, i.e. neither detachable nor fixed, is pretty thin ice to be skating on.

lrdchivalry
04-10-2008, 10:08 PM
Challenge has been issued and has yet to be accepted. He is really trying hard to dodge it and when called a coward he had to mention the MODS and personal attack in a vain attempt to dodge the challenge in one of his posts.

hoffmang
04-10-2008, 10:25 PM
Yeah.. kinda lame.

I do owe Spahn a response however and will get to it. He's partially correct and partially incorrect (Spahn that is.)

-Gene

DedEye
04-10-2008, 10:56 PM
Lets see if my response to him gets me banned over there :rolleyes: (I doubt it).

lrdchivalry
04-11-2008, 6:56 AM
Lets see if my response to him gets me banned over there :rolleyes: (I doubt it).

He went crying to the mods who had to come in a tell us to stop name calling. He also tried to twist the challenge back on me. I wonder...If he is so right then how come he isn't over here making his arguement?

bwiese
04-11-2008, 10:03 AM
I tangled with CWDraco a year or so ago and found it not worth the typing this cycle. Back then he kept referring to himself in the (Bob Dole-esque) 3rd person: "CWDraco says X", "Draco says Y", etc.


To put things to bed,
we use the term 'fixed magazine' in casual conversation to
mean 'not a detachable magazine per 11 CCR 5469(a) definition;

what a 'detachable magazine' is is defined in 11 CCR 5469(a);

by extension, what a "non-detachable magazine" is is accurately
defined by avoidance of being described by 11 CCR 5469(a) definition;

'capacity to accept a detachable magazine' does not apply to a
fixed-mag (non-detachable-mag) build because a fixed-mag rifle can't
manually accept a detachable magazine without the fixed magazine
being removed, a 'construction' - and since we have no 'constructive
possession' of AWs in CA, what a rifle "could be" is irrelevant, it's only
the rifle's configuration at the moment of examination that matter.

the term 'fixed magazine' does not really need to be defined for OLL builds;

'SKS with detachable magazine' is an AW per Roberti-Roos.

A semiauto centerfire rifle w/fixed magazine holding over 10rds' is
also an AW. While 'fixed mag' is not formally defined, plain-language
understanding would thus apply - with backup documents discussing
this during the formulation of SB23 regulatory definitions occurred in
late 2000 [when consideration of SKS fixed magazines and bullet-tip
'tools' occurred].

tenpercentfirearms
04-11-2008, 6:52 PM
That is a good point that there is no formal definition of a fixed magazine. That is the way to think outside of the box. I think I will just play it safe and assume anything not detachable that is "fixed to the rifle" is a fixed magazine.

I think a jury would find that common sense enough to hold a reasonable person would know what a fixed magazine is.

Now, I just had a thought. Who wants to make a large capacity, tube fed AR15?

lrdchivalry
04-11-2008, 8:42 PM
Now, I just had a thought. Who wants to make a large capacity, tube fed AR15?


Interesting!

bwiese
04-12-2008, 9:56 AM
Now, I just had a thought. Who wants to make a large capacity, tube fed AR15?

Fine, but two caveats:
for a semiauto rifle, ensure the tube magazine is detachable without a tool (per the
11 CCR 5469(a) definition), and not considerable as fixed by any standard - so we
don't trigger alternative 'semiauto centerfire w/fixed mag over 10 rounds' AW definition.
the magazine is only for ammo with .22cal bullets - note that the 12020(c)(25)(B) PC
exemption for tube magazines specified .22cal - and not 'rimfire'! (For lever-action
guns, a 12020(c)(25)(C) applies and caliber/rimfire/centerfire is irrelevant for the
magazine+gun).

Mssr. Eleganté
04-12-2008, 11:52 AM
Now, I just had a thought. Who wants to make a large capacity, tube fed AR15?

Here's a tube fed AR15 magazine I designed a few years back before everybody else jumped on the tube fed AR15 bandwagon.

http://www.type03.net/novelty-pics/artubemag.jpg

I call it the "DUCT-MAG" because it is held on with duct tape. It requires drilling a hole in the front of your mag well, some modification to your feeding mechanism, as well as removal of the front sling swivel and removal of a small amount of plastic from your lower handguard. The system comes with three different magazine tubes for either 11 rounds, 15 rounds or 20 rounds.

I'm currently working on the "DUCT-MAG II" which will be quite an improvement over the original. It uses three times as much duct tape, so it should be able to incorporate a sling swivel. There will also be a bayonet that fits onto the end of the tube mag which replaces the end cap that is used on the original "DUCT-MAG".

Before I can move the "DUCT-MAG II" into production I'd like to sell off my remaining 20 original "DUCT-MAG" conversions in order to help cover the production costs. The price for the original "DUCT-MAG" is $950.00 and you can purchase it over in the Calguns marketplace...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunsforum/showthread.php?it=171966 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g)

hoffmang
04-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Darn you rick rolling!

-Gene

tenpercentfirearms
04-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Here's a tube fed AR15 magazine I designed a few years back before everybody else jumped on the tube fed AR15 bandwagon.

http://www.type03.net/novelty-pics/artubemag.jpg

I call it the "DUCT-MAG" because it is held on with duct tape. It requires drilling a hole in the front of your mag well, some modification to your feeding mechanism, as well as removal of the front sling swivel and removal of a small amount of plastic from your lower handguard. The system comes with three different magazine tubes for either 11 rounds, 15 rounds or 20 rounds.

I'm currently working on the "DUCT-MAG II" which will be quite an improvement over the original. It uses three times as much duct tape, so it should be able to incorporate a sling swivel. There will also be a bayonet that fits onto the end of the tube mag which replaces the end cap that is used on the original "DUCT-MAG".

Before I can move the "DUCT-MAG II" into production I'd like to sell off my remaining 20 original "DUCT-MAG" conversions in order to help cover the production costs. The price for the original "DUCT-MAG" is $950.00 and you can purchase it over in the Calguns marketplace...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunsforum/showthread.php?it=171966 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g)

LOL. Amendment II, you are the greatest.

http://www.type03.net/novelty-pics/escapegoat.jpg

Mssr. Eleganté
04-12-2008, 12:45 PM
LOL. Amendment II, you are the greatest.

For the record, the "escape goat" picture was just from Google Images. Using Photoshop to put clothing on animals violates a personal rule of mine.

aplinker
04-15-2008, 3:49 PM
Sorry, I missed where this thread went...

I'm still disagreeing @ the definition of fixed magazine. I believe there's opportunity to create something neither fixed nor detachable (as I would suggest the bullet button is). Our burden isn't to prove it's "fixed," ONLY to say it's NOT detachable. I'd say it's pretty obvious the bullet button isn't fixed and it's also not detachable by that definition. At this point I wouldn't say, "do it," but I think it's an avenue for exploration.

Now, on the tube-fed magazine, why does the tube need to be "single stack?"

Why not have it be similar to the Calico?

sorensen440
04-15-2008, 7:04 PM
this guy should work for the doj

hoffmang
04-15-2008, 7:33 PM
Magazines are either fixed or detachable - the rest is a pipe dream.

-Gene

DedEye
04-15-2008, 8:21 PM
I'm still disagreeing @ the definition of fixed magazine. I believe there's opportunity to create something neither fixed nor detachable (as I would suggest the bullet button is). Our burden isn't to prove it's "fixed," ONLY to say it's NOT detachable. I'd say it's pretty obvious the bullet button isn't fixed and it's also not detachable by that definition. At this point I wouldn't say, "do it," but I think it's an avenue for exploration.

Draco is that you :confused:?

Fjold
04-15-2008, 9:11 PM
For the record, the "escape goat" picture was just from Google Images. Using Photoshop to put clothing on animals violates a personal rule of mine.


Come on now, not even garters and fishnet stockings on a young ewe?

ptoguy2002
04-17-2008, 8:30 PM
I guess Gene put on a good show over there, because he got the other attorney to come around to his way of thinking.

New thread:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=306263

Draco is another matter though.

hoffmang
04-17-2008, 8:33 PM
I haven't even looked for 48 hours and I feel bad... To much real work...

-Gene

redcliff
04-18-2008, 3:26 PM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=306415

Have fun

edit: looks like the post got deleted by the mods

Mute
04-18-2008, 3:29 PM
Forget Draco. He has his ego invested in that debate and will never admit he was wrong, even if God himself came down on a thundercloud and said in a booming voice, "You're wrong!"

Paul
04-18-2008, 9:23 PM
I wonder how many California Department of Justice Firearms agents/workers have posts here and there and are using them for intelligence gathering and to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. You gotta' believe that there's the desire and resources to do so ... so I always wonder who they are.

At ARF.COM I can trace the IP's and I'm always looking for FUD's from the Sacremento area. Most of the Sacramento accounts of interest come back to people without CA in their location but then lots of people leave out the CA claim for some reason. :)

Paul
04-18-2008, 9:25 PM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=306415

Have fun

edit: looks like the post got deleted by the mods

I deleted it by his request along with locking Spahn_Ranch's account. Those are the rules - even if an idiot asks for his own thread to be locked we do it. I can still get to the thing if there's anything worth saving.

Never fight a professional boxer and never argue with a lawyer - they'll both beat you at their own game.

Ech0Sierra
04-18-2008, 9:38 PM
I think he'll be surprised when IGGY comes for him.

hoffmang
04-18-2008, 10:41 PM
Never fight a professional boxer and never argue with a lawyer - they'll both beat you at their own game.

Was it something I said?

-Gene

redcliff
04-18-2008, 10:56 PM
Spahn posted an "Adios AR15.com" post in the Ca hometown section and went on to brag about how he tricked you and bweise into a box. He then laid out his groundwork for why a BB equipped rifle with an empty magazine well, or swapping out 10 round magazines was illegal and an assault weapon.

He praised CWDraco for being the only one to see the truth and how he wanted to set up the arrogant Calgun kool-aid drinkers to fall into his trap.

I wish the post hadn't been deleted, since he had a couple interesting points, although I think he made a couple errors in his interpretation in regard to "capacity to accept".

He did however admit that a BB equipped rifle with a 10 round magazine in place was legal.

hoffmang
04-18-2008, 11:49 PM
Ok,

That makes more sense. He's wrong because under his logic you can't clean an SKS but whatever.

-Gene

ptoguy2002
04-19-2008, 6:57 AM
Spahn posted an "Adios AR15.com" post in the Ca hometown section and went on to brag about how he tricked you and bweise into a box. He then laid out his groundwork for why a BB equipped rifle with an empty magazine well, or swapping out 10 round magazines was illegal and an assault weapon.

He praised CWDraco for being the only one to see the truth and how he wanted to set up the arrogant Calgun kool-aid drinkers to fall into his trap.

I wish the post hadn't been deleted, since he had a couple interesting points, although I think he made a couple errors in his interpretation in regard to "capacity to accept".

He did however admit that a BB equipped rifle with a 10 round magazine in place was legal.


WHAT !!!
@%&!

I totally missed that.
Now that is wierd, why would somebody do that?

lrdchivalry
04-19-2008, 10:05 AM
WHAT !!!
@%&!

I totally missed that.
Now that is wierd, why would somebody do that?

He probably couldn't reconcile with the fact that he was wrong and admitted he was wrong, however, had to take a parting shot at those who proved him wrong.

Draco is still over at ar15.com spreading his fud.

Way to go Gene!

lrdchivalry
04-19-2008, 6:39 PM
Draco is still up to his old tricks in the other thread.

He still wont accept my challenge and continues to make up excuses.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=306263&page=2&#-1

ptoguy2002
04-20-2008, 5:59 AM
I think that Spahn Ranch is really Allison M. (hence the legal knowledge), and draco is really iggy chin (hence the lack of any legal knowledge, but likes to play lawyer anyway).

lrdchivalry
04-20-2008, 10:31 AM
I think that Spahn Ranch is really Allison M. (hence the legal knowledge), and draco is really iggy chin (hence the lack of any legal knowledge, but likes to play lawyer anyway).

Why would that not suprise me..LOL.