i'm building a naughty looking toy

[stan]

Not like the ATF would be in the business of dealing with state paperwork, but where did the ATF say it did not matter how it was DROS'ed?

i have heard about this but i think the problem with pistol lowers wasn't the ATF in the first place, its the CA DOJ... if i remember right the feds just don't care about our silly california papers

[Rukus]

it was deleted a while back along with my later thread on the subject.

His original thread was deleted, but my later thread along the same lines is still around...

Title 1 Longarms

[Experimentalist]

Not like the ATF would be in the business of dealing with state paperwork, but where did the ATF say it did not matter how it was DROS'ed?

I'm a little frustrated with myself... There was an article in Small Arms Review magazine within the last year that featured a legal article on the subject.

The article included a letter someone wrote to the ATF regarding this subject, and ATF's reply that it didn't matter how it was DROSed. What matters is that once a rifle, always a rifle.

I've tried to find the article, but there are a lot of issues of Small Arms Review floating around (much to the chagrin of my wife). Sorry I can't be more authoritative.

A little Googling wasn't successful either. I'll try more later.

[stan]

His original thread was deleted, but my later thread along the same lines is still around...

Title 1 Longarms

very interesting. kestryll deleted my thread on the issue, and then shortly after deleted BDSMCHS's thread on it as well. yours must have flown under the radar since as far as i know they meant to wipe that discussion from the forum at that point....

[Turbinator]

Yeah, I think in general "we" wanted folks not to try this project, in favor of keeping things on the down low until the right folks could clear up a few other gun issues first. However, you're a big boy, I'm not your keeper, so you do what you wish knowing the risks (if any).

Turby

[stan]

Yeah, I think in general "we" wanted folks not to try this project, in favor of keeping things on the down low until the right folks could clear up a few other gun issues first. However, you're a big boy, I'm not your keeper, so you do what you wish knowing the risks (if any).

Turby

yep yep very aware. don't try this at home obviously applies. i posted this a couple times in the thread already, and mentioned that i hope the thread doesn't get deleted as i'm being very clear on how this sits legally and with GGF.

[1911su16b870]

Yes there was Spaceghost. It was also a Stan thread. Looks like he decided to go ahead with it. Ahhh to be young and have nothing to lose again...

...hopefully he is articulate, polite and legal so he doesn't get pop-ed by the po-po and da and lose his right to own firearms...

[popndrop]

yep yep very aware. don't try this at home obviously applies. i posted this a couple times in the thread already, and mentioned that i hope the thread doesn't get deleted as i'm being very clear on how this sits legally and with GGF.

So why is it important to you to have the thread? If you're not advising others to do it?

I don't understand you Stanly...as I've told you in person.

Risks like this seem to add further confusion to the folks that already can't seem to get their feeble minds around it (Antis). So why not fight the battles that we're already engaged in that have a chance of winning, rather than start new ones. We just experienced a loss in OC from a splitting of focus (Hunt/Other guy vs. Whatshername). I think a united front is the way to go. Back-burner this project until we have a better overall position. Maybe we could get something of value, instead of a useless Franken-gun. ...good luck Stan.

[stan]

So why is it important to you to have the thread? If you're not advising others to do it?

I don't understand you Stanly...as I've told you in person.

Risks like this seem to add further confusion to the folks that already can't seem to get their feeble minds around it (Antis). So why not fight the battles that we're already engaged in that have a chance of winning, rather than start new ones. We just experienced a loss in OC from a splitting of focus (Hunt/Other guy vs. Whatshername). I think a united front is the way to go. Back-burner this project until we have a better overall position. Maybe we could get something of value, instead of a useless Franken-gun. ...good luck Stan.

if you take issue with my build then what is your position on

1919A4
AR pistol
mossberg cruiser
M2HB

if you understand those, then why do you feel differently about this build? i'll leave it at that.

[stan]

So why is it important to you to have the thread? If you're not advising others to do it?

and it's important for me to post this thread because just like everyone else on this forum i like to talk about my new toys. no different than anyone else. i am ending up addressing a lot of controversy as well, but that is not the intent of the thread and i would be more than pleased if nobody felt the need to argue that i'm wrong on this when i clearly am not

[CSACANNONEER]

I'm a little frustrated with myself... There was an article in Small Arms Review magazine within the last year that featured a legal article on the subject.

The article included a letter someone wrote to the ATF regarding this subject, and ATF's reply that it didn't matter how it was DROSed. What matters is that once a rifle, always a rifle.

I've tried to find the article, but there are a lot of issues of Small Arms Review floating around (much to the chagrin of my wife). Sorry I can't be more authoritative.

A little Googling wasn't successful either. I'll try more later.

Did ATF really refer to DROSing a receiver in Ca? Or, are you just talking about how the 4473 forms are filled out? I have not seen any ATF decissions on how they classify a firearm if one state calls it a "rifle" or a "pistol". It would be interesting to read the article.

[popndrop]

if you take issue with my build then what is your position on

1919A4
AR pistol
mossberg cruiser
M2HB

if you understand those, then why do you feel differently about this build? i'll leave it at that.

My position is that they already exist. They were made to serve a purpose. You're blasphemy to Mr. Stoner (not a ref to your haircut, but to Eugene ) serves no other purpose than in saying you've done it. If you want one of those other cool toys, you should get one if they're available.

Good Luck.

[stan]

My position is that they already exist. They were made to serve a purpose. You're blasphemy to Mr. Stoner (not a ref to your haircut, but to Eugene ) serves no other purpose than in saying you've done it. If you want one of those other cool toys, you should get one if they're available.

Good Luck.

ar pistol is not a "blasphemy to mr. stoner" and not a modification of an existing design?


and it definitely does serve a purpose, it allows evil features + regular magazine release + any capacity magazines. featureless, without the featureless neutering. "saying you've done it" is worthless to me, this is purely for function.

agree to disagree, but admit that my points are just as valid as anyone elses .

[stan]

oh and it serves the purpose of being something that will ultimately be on a pintle on the roof rack of my mercedes for desert turret gunning

[Shadowdrop]

stan, you've got my support. But after working in a police department and seeing how little knowledge the average officer has regarding firearm laws, you will probably get to demonstrate its legality in court pretty quickly.

I just saw a report at work this week: Ruger 10/22 with the stock sawed off to make a pistol grip. OAL was 32", barrel was 18". It was found in a minor's possession who is on full gang terms , but he got charged with "possession of a concealable weapon." Not sure that one is going to stick in court...