In the one photograph they do have of this firearm, they intentionally crop it so that it is not possible to evaluate.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.56...
You might be referring to this image? Which is fairly clear, but I'm not sure how they measure barrel length here, but to my eyes it is 13" (unless the last 3 are a suppressor of some sort that isn't counted).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.56...
This is from the probable cause affidavit, which I guess is used to obtain a warrant?
That said, 13" is also a short-barreled rifle length. If this is indeed a rifle, and not an AR pistol.
The buffer tube extends off the rear, which has been cropped from the image.
The issue is that it is entirely legal to have an AR-15 configured as a pistol with a very short barrel, without any tax stamps. That is, not having a stock attached to it. The image provided does not prove that he has a short-barreled rifle, because you cannot see whether it has a stock.
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-lpuqsi1cy6/images/stencil/12...
Additionally, this is _also_ considered a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" (which are subject of much contention and confusion)
https://www.sb-tactical.com/wp-content/uploads/sbpdw-install...
The GP's complaint is that the linked photo contains insufficient context (for us, at least) to determine if the firearm in question is, from a legal standpoint, an SBR.
Men love this kind of stuff. If TNT was legal to own there would probably be a collector for it.
The more dense the population, the more heavily restricted in general.
Some governments and regulators attempt to enumerate every possible conceivable bad thing and outlaw it. Problem is it's not enumerable, there will always be dozens of missed loopholes, which the regulations will steer people into. Parallels the warping and skewing of trying to fix an economy through proclamation versus distributed capitalism.
You're talking out of ignorance. I recommend you do a cursory read of the basic applicable regulation to understand both how you are wrong and what is actually covered by regulation.
These societies may deceitfully claim to follow a rule of law, while objectively being rule by law.
They generally believe that if you can't use the law to coerce people to some form of arbitrary action after-the-fact through blackmail, the law is useless, and they glory in their power and control of others (privately).
This is why they write law ambiguously enough so it can apply to just about anything, and twist it later just like how it is written in Animal Farm.
Safety is just one of many propaganda narratives used, its all for the benefit of society where everyone is equal, some people in such societies are more equal than others.
Corruption is generally not done by the brightest, it often neglects rational principles for long-term survivability. The problem is these people become delusional warping things until collapse under a de-facto state of non-market socialism drives ecological overshoot into a great dying, if no other crises takes them first.
The chancellor will have his butter while everyone else starves, right up until he can't.
You can't have capitalism under a money printing fiat regime, where the majority of the market cooperates. Economic calculation requires independent adversarial decision-making, and for production in the economy to continue, in general, it requires producers and consumers to make more than enough to cover costs (in purchasing power, disconnected from currency debasement), a profit.
Fractional reserve issued debt, with no fractional reserve (0%) is money printing, its been that way since 2020. Basel III uses valuation as a capital reserve, so when valuations based in fiat change suddenly to the negative, the few banks left can collapse without warning. Value has credibly been shown to be subjective, it changes for every person, so you have to ask who decides the value. The same people issuing the debt as a reserve get to decide, which is a recipe for delusion, and chaotic collapse.
A conflict of interest like this never results in fraud /s...
Government has long been trying to make the public helplessly dependent on them so that no matter what they do (even if they break oaths and the constitution), they'll still retain power through a corruption by dependency. Its sad that such evil blind people have been allowed to get into these positions of power.
Survival will in the near future come down to whether or not we can oust such people from those positions or if people will complacently just follow them to their deaths believing lies.
Lies of omission, even unknowingly and without intent, are still lies, and result in the same destructive outcomes.
You're grossly representing what regulation covers or means.
In this context, regulation means things like health and safety. Those who feel the need to buy explosives need to transport them around and store them. This means sitting in traffic next to someone carrying them in the trunk, or living next to someone sitting on a supply. Society is fine with you blowing up your tractor, but not killing your neighbors, employees, or any passer-by due to your gross irresponsibility. Consequently, if you really want to buy explosives then you must learn and prove that you know how to safely handle them.
Do you think that is too much to ask?
As an explosive it's relatively stable .. but those health risks are exactly why the regulations around it are strict and why the "bomb girls" in WWII factories turned yellow and died young.
Simply:
What recommendations has the federal government made to protect human health?
The government has developed regulations and guidelines for 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene. These are designed to protect the public and workers exposed to 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene from potential harmful health effects of the chemical. Since 2,4,6- trinitrotoluene is explosive, flammable, and toxic, EPA has designated it as a hazardous waste. The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the transport of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene because it is a hazardous material. DOT specifies that when 2,4,6- trinitrotoluene is shipped, it must be wet with at least 10% water (by weight) and it must be clearly labeled as a flammable solid.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates levels of hazardous materials in the workplace. The maximum allowable amount of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene in workroom air during an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek, is 0.5 mg/m3. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that the concentration in workroom air be limited to 0.5 mg/m3 for up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-hour workweek.
I replied with an excerpt from a (US) Federal regulatory body?
No. We were talking about regulation.
And the DOT regulation doesn’t apply to things made and used on site? (Aka not transported)
( upthread @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42567255 )
US OSHA regulations do apply to agricultural operations.
Arguably, even subsistence farming is a commercial endeavor (per the Supreme Court) and requires an ATF license anyway. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn]
Who's 'we' kemosabe?
This isn't a Yevgeny Zamyatin novel and you're not the One State.
It also seems EXCEEDINGLY unlikely the FBI would make a giant press release before anyone verified if the rifle in question was actually violating any laws. There would be almost nothing to gain, and a LOT of egg on everyone's face if the guy walks because nobody at the FBI knew the difference between an SBR and an AR pistol.
They can literally just lie about the law and confuse the ignorant jury as they did for matt hoover. In a couple years he'll get released on appeal, who cares, they already destroyed his business and relegated his wife and childs mother to begging for money on YouTube.
When you create an account just to post in this thread endlessly defending what appears to be at minimum someone who probably shouldn’t own guns in the first place, it’s difficult to believe you’re here for anything other than stirring the pot.
Oh, I found it. He was literally selling a machine gun conversion kit and claiming it was a business card. It very clearly wasn’t. And it wasn’t a “drawing” it was the metal pieces to convert an AR to fully automatic by breaking out the pre-cut pieces with a pliers.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/atf-arrests-florida-man-s...
The distinguishing feature between this and a metal business card is the speech on it makes ATF sad face.
That is the attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Even the seller was marketing their machine-gun conversion kits as AR-related devices that the ATF wished didn't existed.
The seller even posted puerile pseudo legal disclaimers such as don't use them to do anything illegal
It's baffling how these puerile arguments boil down to expecting everyone to be binded to a very specific and far-fetched literal interpretation of a specific part of the law while keeping to themselves the fact that it is actually a blatant violation that's kept as an in-joke. When their poorly-thought-through stunt blows up on their face and see the law still applies, they clutch their pearls claiming they demand law enforcement should be stupid and incompetent enough to fall for their gimmicks.
https://www.scribd.com/document/772241091/AutoKeyCard-Case-A...
I repeat:
> When their poorly-thought-through stunt blows up on their face and see the law still applies, they clutch their pearls claiming they demand law enforcement should be stupid and incompetent enough to fall for their gimmicks.
And here you are, whining that others didn't fell for that pathetic gimmick.
I don't know who do you think you're fooling, or if you think everyone around you is a utter moron. The guy was selling machine-gun conversion kits. More specifically, he was selling lightning links which turns a semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully automatic machine gun.
You are asserting every single ar-15 is an illegal machine gun. You should read the testimony and about hammer follow to find out why you're wrong and why his case will absolutely be overturned.
I feel you're grossly and purposely misrepresenting the case.
The case you're referring to was over unregistered machine-gun conversion devices. The guy was selling them online and was caught with over a thousand machine-gun conversion kits.
What makes this case noteworthy is the dissimulated way kits were being marketed and sold, such as bottle openers, pen holders, or business cards.
The guy also marketed his machine-gun conversion kits as an AR-related device and "the parts ATF wishes never existed".
I believe you are well-aware of this fact. Yet, you chose to misrepresent it.
It's a metal business card shape with a drawing of the parts of a lightning link on it, that the state admitted didn't even function as one when dremmeled out using the blueprint. Even if you cut into the shapes, ATF could not get it to induce automatic fire. This is primarily a first amendment case and will get overturned as soon as a non-lukewarm IQ judge sees it. It's inevitable.
That's a personal assertion you're stating, and one that ignores and contrasts with all facts presented in the case.
I won't waste my time debating this.
A kit is usually sold to make it easier to do something. In this case the kit makes it even harder to induce hammer follow than simply using the parts already in an ar. Some kit, lmao. It is scary speech on the same kind of metal plates that sometimes instead have business card type speech.
give up guys.
And, as I’m sure you know, the term “regulated” as written in 2A does not mean the same thing as “regulated” in terms of “government regulation”. In context, it means approximately “well-functioning” or “reliable”.
An individual right to participate in a well regulated militia.
Beyond that, the right is entirely unconnected with service in a militia. That clause at the beginning “A well-regulated Militia …” does not scope or bound what comes next; it offers one explanation for why that right is protected.
SCOTUS explained the historical meaning of these words in more detail in District of Columbia vs. Heller, including an in-depth examination of the language as part of its opinion that the right is an individual right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...
The SCOTUS decision itself is quite readable.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
Notably:
> Held:
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
In current federal legal context, the "militia" is all men between like age 18-45, plus all people in the national guard, or something like that. That's what the US CFR says.
Because that seems absurd given their rather large population of slaves.
In the US, the militia is explicitly independent of the government. Even if one were to accept your narrow reading, which no court has, I don't see how it would materially change anything given that any random group of blokes without any government involvement is a militia as a matter of law.
Those clubs, or militias, could own tanks, drones, explosives.
Ie, all those things that aren’t allowed today in the hands of private owners.
These are all allowed today in the hands of private owners.
What are you even talking about?