Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Assuming 374 doesn't get vetoed...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Some Velvet-Fisted Brute
    Member
    • May 2013
    • 175

    Assuming 374 doesn't get vetoed...

    (And with the understanding that it's too late to amend it again. Mods, feel free to move/delete this if it would help revise/craft the pending legislation)

    I would like to propose a minimal compliance device. The idea is to have something that would satisfy the letter of the law while preserving our right to own and operate our firearms free from any registration requirements. The idea is with direct respect to the AR-15 pattern but could be applicable to anything comprising an upper&lower receiver which inherently separate the firing mechanism from the other operatiional components upon disassembly.

    What I think we can do is attach a small metal or plastic plate to the side of the upper receiver in such a way that the plate descends below the mating plane of the upper and lower receivers and physically blocks access to the magazine release button. It would have to be attached in some permanent manner. Most ideally would be to construct it contiguously from the same billet from which the upper receiver is machined but existing rifle could conceivably have one welded, glued, braised, pinned or screwed in place to potentially be acceptable. This would afford for magazines not being detachable from the assembled rifle, as is required by 374, without the action being broken open. It would, however, restore access to the magazine release by breaking the receivers' attachments to one another. The cover would need to rigid enough to not flex. This could be accomplished by installing flat plate over a bullet button or a U or L shaped plate over a traditional button. It would be inexpensive, easy to manufacture, and easy to install.

    I would like to additionally propose that the device be named the "Steinberg Shroud," and recommend that any other minimal compliance devices also include the name(s) of the politicians responsible for the laws with which the devices are designed to provide compliance.

    I feel that the idea is obvious enough so as to waive any rights of invention. I have no intention to develop it into any kind of commercial product and so provide the notion to the community as public domain free of any reservation. While I am not aware of any prior art, I cannot say beyond the shadow of a doubt that none exists.
    Sorry about the typos. I browse mostly on my tablet and phone, and neither the touchscreens nor the autocorrection apps like me much.
  • #2
    mixster13
    Junior Member
    • Dec 2011
    • 7

    already exists. i believe its called an ar mr2.

    Comment

    • #3
      hornswaggled
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2011
      • 1650

      Dude, not to be a dick. But now is not the time.
      sigpicNRA Endowment Member
      SAF Defender's Club

      Comment

      • #4
        Some Velvet-Fisted Brute
        Member
        • May 2013
        • 175

        ah. it seemed like an obvious enough solution that I'd be surprised if nobody had thought ofit before.
        Sorry about the typos. I browse mostly on my tablet and phone, and neither the touchscreens nor the autocorrection apps like me much.

        Comment

        • #5
          Yugo
          Calguns Addict
          • Feb 2011
          • 8357

          How about PHUK NO! Why should I or anyone else have to change? Which ****** part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
          sigpic

          Originally posted by WAMO556
          Voting for Donald Trump is the protest vote against: Keynesian economics, Neocon wars, exporting jobs, open borders, Washington criminal cartel, too big to fail banks and too big to jail pols and banksters.

          Cutting off foreign aid to EVERY country and dismantling the police/surveillance state!

          Umm yeah!!!!!

          Comment

          • #6
            glock_this
            Calguns Addict
            • Dec 2005
            • 8225

            Zero interest in modifying all of my ARs to this extent. Top load blows, I know as I was around then before the bullet button came along, but that's more appealing than modifying my AR.
            10 +1 in the chamber

            Comment

            • #7
              Some Velvet-Fisted Brute
              Member
              • May 2013
              • 175

              Why is now not the time? If the bill is no longer able to be amended, then I would expect discussion on minimal compliance would be an important contingency in the likely case the governor does not veto it. If we have multiple solutions while the assemblies seats still wreak of the filth normally inhabiting them, it shows strength and resilience, perhaps inspiring a veto in recognition of the futility of the legislature's efforts.
              Sorry about the typos. I browse mostly on my tablet and phone, and neither the touchscreens nor the autocorrection apps like me much.

              Comment

              • #8
                Paul_R
                CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                CGN Contributor
                • Jan 2011
                • 2847

                Originally posted by Some Velvet-Fisted Brute
                Why is now not the time? If the bill is no longer able to be amended, then I would expect discussion on minimal compliance would be an important contingency in the likely case the governor does not veto it. If we have multiple solutions while the assemblies seats still wreak of the filth normally inhabiting them, it shows strength and resilience, perhaps inspiring a veto in recognition of the futility of the legislature's efforts.
                Or...


                I just feeds the enemy.
                Fear is a social disease

                Got a jury summons? Know your rights! http://fija.org/

                Comment

                • #9
                  glock_this
                  Calguns Addict
                  • Dec 2005
                  • 8225

                  Then they just do to this what they are trying to do to the BB - ban it by name & function. At least the BB is a cheap, minimal, non-evasive non-permanant idea. This seems far more evasive & if it catches on, they would likely come after it. I would rather not put any focus on altering my weapons & instead put the time & money into fighting laws & proposed laws like I have been.
                  10 +1 in the chamber

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Alan Block
                    Veteran Member
                    • Jan 2007
                    • 3076

                    Am I correct that if 374 passes, all Semi auto replacebale magazine rifles would be banned from future sales. And that existing examples could be retained if registered like the RAW program of the past. Since the magazine ban has been shelved (for now). All bullet buttons can disappear and all legal magazines can be used in these rifles.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Some Velvet-Fisted Brute
                      Member
                      • May 2013
                      • 175

                      I'm not saying anyone should have to modify their AR's. I vehemently disagree with the actions the legislature has taken. I am suggesting we brasinstorm on how continue to possess our rifles while refraining from registration and avoiding the comission of any felonies. Please redfirect your hostilities toward someone wishes you harm.

                      That said, with the proper choiices in materials or construction, a Steinberg Shroud could be every bit as reversible as a modern bullet button. (and yes, I understand precisely why blocking the mag release is a bad idea. jams cannot be cleared safely. The legislature does not understand that. Minimal compliance is our message to them that they will ultimately not succeed in disarming us without first dismantling the constituton)
                      Last edited by Some Velvet-Fisted Brute; 09-12-2013, 10:13 PM.
                      Sorry about the typos. I browse mostly on my tablet and phone, and neither the touchscreens nor the autocorrection apps like me much.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        glock_this
                        Calguns Addict
                        • Dec 2005
                        • 8225

                        Not ever read any reliable data that confirms that AW registration means you can remove your BB. Seems logical, not confirmed that I've ever read.

                        And the ironic thing that I don't think they considered is that very notion. They want to ban the BB since they now claim it was a loophole & still allows for fast mag changes, but if we have to reg than why keep a BB but they will then surely contradict themselves and say we still need that. So is it a legit device or a loophole?
                        Last edited by glock_this; 09-12-2013, 10:18 PM.
                        10 +1 in the chamber

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          CAL.BAR
                          CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
                          • Nov 2007
                          • 5632

                          Originally posted by Alan Block
                          Am I correct that if 374 passes, all Semi auto replacebale magazine rifles would be banned from future sales. And that existing examples could be retained if registered like the RAW program of the past. Since the magazine ban has been shelved (for now). All bullet buttons can disappear and all legal magazines can be used in these rifles.
                          I've had this discussion a lot so far. And while the statute's final form is not certain, I am sure that they are not reopening registration on AW's registered in 2000. If they wanted to simply reopen and allow registration they would have said so. They didn't. For that matter why don't you argue that in 2000 they re-opened the registration for the banned by name rifles. (they didn't)

                          Look at the language of the bill. It specifically addresses weapons purchased from 2001 to 2013 (right?) what kind of weapon could you buy during that time? An AR 15 w/o a BB? NO. If you take off the BB on your AR you bought in 2012 you now have a rifle that had been banned for over a decade at that point. (right?) This bill WILL NOT offer amnesty for unregistered rifles, (will it? - NO) nor will it re-open the registration period. Re-read the bill. It SPECIFICALLY addresses ONLY weapons purchased from 2001 until 2013. ONLY those rifles will be registered. If you configure your rifle in a manner that takes it out of that specific group, then the registration will not cover it entirely. By the same logic you can't unpin the stock to have it less than 30"AOL b/c that was outlawed in 2000. You can't go back in time with your rifle. At least that is the way it had been interpreted and I can't fathom any State agency or court dong anything else.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            SemperFi1775
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2013
                            • 715

                            let's focus our efforts on making the power grabbers pay for their sins against us, rather than trying to figure out how to please the masters at this time....
                            "What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Alan Block
                              Veteran Member
                              • Jan 2007
                              • 3076

                              I cant believe they would develop a whole new registry for new guns. I dont know what comes up when an LEO inquires on his system about a RAW. Does it have the date the rifle was purchased? registered? It just seems unwieldly to have 2 sets of rules for identical rifles. Still, they have done stupider things.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1