"Stand Your Ground" homicides/killings.

[5-90]

The way i see it, everytime some nutbag goes and shoots his school teacher neighbor for playing his music too loud, it convinces more people to put more stringent regulations on guns.

Deadly force responses should be reserved for lethal threats. When some nubag goes and shoots someone for playing "music" too loud, he damned well should be penalised for it (leaving aside that most of the ersatz "music" being played too loud is offensive to anyone who isn't stone deaf. I seem to recall several years ago, down your way, that some kids who were playing that "gangsta" crap loud enough to be heard a block away were sentenced to go buy a few classical albums, then go to the PD and listen to them and be witnessed doing so. Vivaldi's The Four Seasons, I believe, was involved. I consider this appropros - it was an offensive action to the public that was not threatening, and was met with something that the perpetrators would probably have found personally offensive. Spot on, Your Honour!)

Im a gun owner, i enjoy shooting them. But the "pro-gun argument" is flawed. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.

Have you ever done any long-range work with a good .50BMG? It induces an almost Zen-like concentration. And, check the UCR and see how many .50 rifles have been used in street crimes, or even crimes in general. (I already know the answer.) A "cheap" .50BMG rifle is still going to run about four large and a bullpup .50 rifle is still going to be about three feet long - not a useful firearm for street crimes, and more than a gang-banger is willing to spend. Why ban them? Their primary civilian use is in long-range competition, with long-range hunting taking a distant second.

Submachine guns/assault rifles/machine guns? This is in keeping with the original intent of 2dAM - that the private citizen may, if he so desired, equip himself with small arms substantially similar to that of the individual soldier. So, yeah, LAW rockets and suchlike aren't generally needed - but if the M4/M203 combination is common (it is - either M4/M203 or M16/M203,) then there's no reason I can see why we shouldn't be able to buy them privately - and easily. The mere fact of registration is anathema to 2dAM (Second Amendment - I get tired of typing it all out,) leaving alone NFA34, GCA68, the various "Crime Bills," and the like. Or the Hughes amendment to the Firearms Owners' Protection Act signed by Reagan, or the Bush 1986 ban (which effectively artificially fixed the supply of Class 3 firearms in this country for no good reason. Now, anything on the Class III lists made after 19MAY1986 may not be sold to a private individual, or both the buyer and the seller can face ten years in Club Fed. Felons by Fiat.)

If this argument has two sides, as most political debates often do, one side says all guns are ok, 30round magazines and bayonette lugs, grenade launchers, all cool.... i cant side with you guys, i dont want to live in that country...

We have a number of freedoms - including the freedom to leave. I felt better when firearms were readily available to the citizenry - mainly due to Heinlein's Dictum, previously stated. (It's an older principle than Heinlein, he just codified it.)

But the otherside often completely lib's out, and says hunters should rent their guns under heavy regulation, thats bullshit too... cant side with that either...

The problem I have with "sensible firearms regulation" is simple - it doesn't remain sensible. It continues to expand. I refer to you the Arab parable of "The Nose of the Camel." Look it up. That's how laws progress, if they're not stopped early on. NFA34 stood because the government's attorney lied through his teeth for US v. Miller, and Miller couldn't be found to retain counsel and respond. The judges hadn't had any wartime service, and therefore it was "outside judicial notice" that short-barrelled shotguns did indeed have valid militia use (cf: "trench guns.")

Leaving aside that NFA34 came about shortly after the 21AM, repealing 18AM (Prohibition.) Thousands of "revenooers" were still on the books, and .gov didn't want to fire them and put them back to productive work. That's why NFA34 was passed as a tax law instead of a criminal law - by making it a tax law, the IRS could handle enforcement - and who do you think all of the "revenooers" that handled liquor prohibition enforcement worked for? That's why the relevant sections of law making up NFA34 can be found in 26CFR - Internal Revenue Code - instead of 18USC - Crimes & Criminal Procedure.

As usual, the complicated debates become A vs B, when the best solution lies in between (Not the center).

Those of us who support the rights of firearms owners are painted as "rabid" by those who want to ban them - mainly for the reason previously given ("sensible regulations" don't stay "sensible," they get worse over time. NFA34, while a tax measure, was the beginning of a downhill run. And, it seems to be accelerating.

(Granted, NFA34 wasn't the first firearms ban to be officially enacted. I know that New York City's "Sullivan Law" preceded it in 1911, and the late 1800's saw a number of selective bans against segments of the population, although the laws were merely crafted to effect this and didn't state such outright (in the Deep South, laws were enacted to prevent Negroes from owning firearms. Out West, it was the Asians/Chinese that were targetted. A "selective law" is a bad law, no matter who gets singled out for enforcement or exception. This is why I have issue with Congress, "civil disservice," or LE being exempted from laws - they're supposed to set the example for the rest of us, not pass laws from which they are specifically exempted.)

Of course, you give your location as "LAX." Recall the exchange between Ronnie Barrett and LAPD a few years back as well - you can probably still find the letters on his site. LAPD had sent in some of their Barrett-built rifles for regular service, then pulled that publicity stunt saying that fifty-calibre rifles should be banned (and holding up an M82A1 as an example.) I don't recall how that resolved, but the one thing that Barrett was least willing to do was to service the rifles and return them - I think he was torn between simply keeping them (to make a point) and returning the rifles unserviced and returning the payment for such service (less return shipping.)

Feinstein wanted to ban .50 calibre firearms in general (this would have included the .50AE, .500S&W, .500 Linebaugh, .50 Beowulf, et al) specifically because "the round can penetrate an armoured limousine."

1) Except for the .50BMG and .50 FatMac, those are all pistol rounds. They won't penetrate an armoured vehicle.
2) Who drives around in armoured vehicles? Generally, people who consider themselves officially important - like elected representatives. If they're worried about getting shot, what are they doing to deserve it? What are they doing wrong? If a Senator cannot go for a walk out in public without needing an entourage and a squad of bodyguards, then they're damned well doing something wrong. "No, sergeant, I shall walk alone. Let the people see that I can." That's actually from a comic, but the principle applies.
3) The .50AE was, as I recall, in common manufacture about this time. The other three I listed were not. Firearms regulations tend to stifle firearms development - look what's happened every time some new firerams reg has been passed. Just when developers start to get their feet under them, the rug gets yanked again. Also, it artificially inflates the prices of things, due to the costs of the permits and the costs of regulation and enforcement. Ex:

In Europe, it is actually considered "rude" to go out target shooting without a suppressor (one of the few things they've gotten right.) Suppressors are both effective and inexpensive there.

Here? The permit to manufacture suppressors for sale is $5,000 per annum. Each suppressor is subject to a $200 "NFRTR Transfer Fee" (tax) each time it is transferred. Even if you have only one NFRTR item, you can look forward to a visit from F Troop every year - where you have to show them the suppressor and your original paperwork with the original ATF tax stamp showing you paid the $200 - because they might have lost your paperwork. If you can't produce your copy, you get 10 years and $10,000-$100,000 fine - for their mistake! They screw up, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

A good suppressor can be made for <$50 in parts, with a little creativity. If you make it for yourself, you still have to have a serial number assigned, fill out a Form 4 for it, pay the $200 manufacture tax for the single item, and it may never be sold or transferred (since it wasn't made by a Special Occupational Taxpayer.)

I ask you, does that make any sense?

The pity of it is that the firearms industry is the most heavily-regulated industry in the country (even moreso than the medical industry in general,) it's ineffectively enforced, the agency that is in charge of enforcing is rife with selective and/or harrassing prosecution, and they've got an extensive history of putting people away for technical violations where ATF screwed up! Or "retaliatory enforcement." ATF also has about the most "paid informants" on the books - usually people who traded information for immunity.

And ATF has only gotten worse since they were spun off from the IRS in 1972. Look at their history, tell me what you think. I think they should be disbanded.

 

[Darky]

In California you cant have detachable mags, unless they require a tool to remove.

and if someone was going to commit violent crime you think the bulletbutton is going to remain on their AR?

get real. That thing is coming off, and they're using "parts kits" to assemble 30 round mags.

Criminals will always be well armed, they don't care about your silly detachable mag ban.

and still, you can have detachable mags, you just can't have any other evil assault weapon features like a pistol grip or a bayo lug. Cause the inclusion of a pstol grip automatically makes any rifle an infant killing machine.

I was gonna say...my little bolt action .22LR has detachable mags and I know it's legal. Now, if I swap stocks for a pistol grip stock, suddenly it would be illegal. With its 10 round mag, bolt action, and varmint stoppin rounds...:huh:

 

[tbburg]

Good 'ole second amendment debate. Off-topic, but fun to read anyway.

Statistics can be used to show anything. While they state justifiable homicide is up, of course it is up, it is now easier to kill a scumbag in your house and not go to jail for it. Also, it doesn't state in those articles while justifiable homicide is up, homicide in general is down from 10 years ago.

While whites are higher on the justifiable homicide lists, they aren't topping the homicide list. So, are whites a-holes because they have a reason to kill someone? Or are browns a-holes because they kill people without a legally justifiable reason?

I may have written something misleading, you may have misunderstood, or you didn't read the linked summaries. White people aren't killing more people, more white people are getting killed(legally) As I stated, the race of the shooter was not mentioned.

I wasn't knocking the laws. I agree with them. The main thing I found of interest in these studies was that the vast majority of "Stand your Ground" shootings seem to have white targets, and that statistically no other "race"/demographic seem to be affected. Struck me as weird. I was trying to think of a reason why.


As far as the off-topic 2nd am. debate: I like guns. No problem with full auto,.. suppressed,.. pretty much what ever. Personally I'd love to have a suppressed 22 for plinking. Unfortunately the suppressor and transfer tax raise the price of a 300 dollar .22 to around $1500.00 - a little pricy for plinking.
The biggest problem I have with gun restrictions or registrations is overreach/creep.(see "The camel's nose") Every place that puts a "reasonable restriction" in place eventually "reasonably" restricts ALL firearms. Every registration scheme turns into confiscation - using the registrations lists as a starting point.

Biggest surprise I had in the last decade was when the assault weapon ban actually expired after it's original 10 years. If I ever meet George Bush, I'll shake his hand and thank him just for that.(even though it cut the value of my "pre-ban" AR almost in half overnight.)

 

[Darky]

I see no problem with Stand Your Ground laws, if they aren't abused...The big debate we had in a couple of the Criminal Justice classes I recently took centered around Trayvon/Zimmerman and whether the Zimmerman could legally be considered to have been acting in self defense. There was debate about the shifting role of aggressor. Zimmerman gets out of his car, he's the aggressor. Martin feels threatened by this strange man following him and turns and confronts him, now he's the aggressor. Zimmerman has the responsibility to protect his gun and is therefore justified in shooting Martin.

My thoughts are that if he chose to get out of his car and follow Martin, he instigated the attack. Had he merely reported Martin and maybe kept track from his car until Martin was out of sight, no one would know his name and Martin would be alive. But he got out of his car and followed Martin on foot. Zimmerman took on the role of aggressor because he put himself in a threatening position towards Martin. He may have the responsibility to protect his firearm, but in my opinion that means not seeking out confrontations. You don't put yourself in a position where you may have to use your gun on someone and call yourself responsible. You keep it for defense in case someone else puts you in that position.

 

[FlexdXJ]

You don't put yourself in a position where you may have to use your gun on someone and call yourself responsible. You keep it for defense in case someone else puts you in that position.

This is why I prefer to carry concealed. If you don't know me, you don't know I have a 9mm in my pocket. It should only be pulled for one reason only, not waving it around trying to be John Wayne.

 

[machinisttx]

The way i see it, everytime some nutbag goes and shoots his school teacher neighbor for playing his music too loud, it convinces more people to put more stringent regulations on guns.

Im a gun owner, i enjoy shooting them. But the "pro-gun argument" is flawed. No civilian should own a .50cal tactical rifle, nor full auto assault weapons. Some makes should be blacklisted, your saturday night specials, uzi's, so to speak. We as a nation should be able to pick and choose, say 'no... these uzi's, tec-9's or AK's, or whatever gun, shouldnt be legal' Dont bullshit me about your rights being trampled... your rights are often limited for the sake of the group. You cant scream fire in a theatre, every rule has exceptions.



If this argument has two sides, as most political debates often do, one side says all guns are ok, 30round magazines and bayonette lugs, grenade launchers, all cool.... i cant side with you guys, i dont want to live in that country...

But the otherside often completely lib's out, and says hunters should rent their guns under heavy regulation, thats bullshit too... cant side with that either...

As usual, the complicated debates become A vs B, when the best solution lies in between (Not the center).

Lulz. Your line of thinking is not only flawed, it's the same line of thinking that results in nobody having guns except the police and military(in other words, a police state). Guns are inanimate objects. They're neither good nor evil. They are tools, no different than a fork/knife/ballbat/20 oz framing hammer.

Alternatively, we can apply your reasoning to four wheel drive vehicles. "Nobody needs a lift over four inches or tires taller than 35 inches." "It's safer and there is less chance of driving over another vehicle in an accident." Blah, blah, blah.

Here's something of note:

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

It's just completely :wierd: to suggest that that the people not possess arms equal to that of the militaries of the period. Oh, and one last thing...in order to legally possess an actual grenade launcher, one has to pay a $200 tax to the BATF, in addition to fingerprints, photographs, a law enforcement signoff, and a few other things. Legal machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and weapons falling under the "Any other weapon" category of the National Firearms Act of 1934 must abide by the same requirements.

Here's a website for you, currently monitoring "one of those evil guns". http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

 

[machinisttx]

Actually it is the people moving into California from other states (and countries) that continue to screw it up.

Eh, not really. Kommiefornia has maintained many retarded gun laws since the gold rush in the 1840's.

 

[machinisttx]

Deadly force responses should be reserved for lethal threats. When some nubag goes and shoots someone for playing "music" too loud, he damned well should be penalised for it (leaving aside that most of the ersatz "music" being played too loud is offensive to anyone who isn't stone deaf. I seem to recall several years ago, down your way, that some kids who were playing that "gangsta" crap loud enough to be heard a block away were sentenced to go buy a few classical albums, then go to the PD and listen to them and be witnessed doing so. Vivaldi's The Four Seasons, I believe, was involved. I consider this appropros - it was an offensive action to the public that was not threatening, and was met with something that the perpetrators would probably have found personally offensive. Spot on, Your Honour!)



Have you ever done any long-range work with a good .50BMG? It induces an almost Zen-like concentration. And, check the UCR and see how many .50 rifles have been used in street crimes, or even crimes in general. (I already know the answer.) A "cheap" .50BMG rifle is still going to run about four large and a bullpup .50 rifle is still going to be about three feet long - not a useful firearm for street crimes, and more than a gang-banger is willing to spend. Why ban them? Their primary civilian use is in long-range competition, with long-range hunting taking a distant second.

Submachine guns/assault rifles/machine guns? This is in keeping with the original intent of 2dAM - that the private citizen may, if he so desired, equip himself with small arms substantially similar to that of the individual soldier. So, yeah, LAW rockets and suchlike aren't generally needed - but if the M4/M203 combination is common (it is - either M4/M203 or M16/M203,) then there's no reason I can see why we shouldn't be able to buy them privately - and easily. The mere fact of registration is anathema to 2dAM (Second Amendment - I get tired of typing it all out,) leaving alone NFA34, GCA68, the various "Crime Bills," and the like. Or the Hughes amendment to the Firearms Owners' Protection Act signed by Reagan, or the Bush 1986 ban (which effectively artificially fixed the supply of Class 3 firearms in this country for no good reason. Now, anything on the Class III lists made after 19MAY1986 may not be sold to a private individual, or both the buyer and the seller can face ten years in Club Fed. Felons by Fiat.)



We have a number of freedoms - including the freedom to leave. I felt better when firearms were readily available to the citizenry - mainly due to Heinlein's Dictum, previously stated. (It's an older principle than Heinlein, he just codified it.)



The problem I have with "sensible firearms regulation" is simple - it doesn't remain sensible. It continues to expand. I refer to you the Arab parable of "The Nose of the Camel." Look it up. That's how laws progress, if they're not stopped early on. NFA34 stood because the government's attorney lied through his teeth for US v. Miller, and Miller couldn't be found to retain counsel and respond. The judges hadn't had any wartime service, and therefore it was "outside judicial notice" that short-barrelled shotguns did indeed have valid militia use (cf: "trench guns.")

Leaving aside that NFA34 came about shortly after the 21AM, repealing 18AM (Prohibition.) Thousands of "revenooers" were still on the books, and .gov didn't want to fire them and put them back to productive work. That's why NFA34 was passed as a tax law instead of a criminal law - by making it a tax law, the IRS could handle enforcement - and who do you think all of the "revenooers" that handled liquor prohibition enforcement worked for? That's why the relevant sections of law making up NFA34 can be found in 26CFR - Internal Revenue Code - instead of 18USC - Crimes & Criminal Procedure.



Those of us who support the rights of firearms owners are painted as "rabid" by those who want to ban them - mainly for the reason previously given ("sensible regulations" don't stay "sensible," they get worse over time. NFA34, while a tax measure, was the beginning of a downhill run. And, it seems to be accelerating.

(Granted, NFA34 wasn't the first firearms ban to be officially enacted. I know that New York City's "Sullivan Law" preceded it in 1911, and the late 1800's saw a number of selective bans against segments of the population, although the laws were merely crafted to effect this and didn't state such outright (in the Deep South, laws were enacted to prevent Negroes from owning firearms. Out West, it was the Asians/Chinese that were targetted. A "selective law" is a bad law, no matter who gets singled out for enforcement or exception. This is why I have issue with Congress, "civil disservice," or LE being exempted from laws - they're supposed to set the example for the rest of us, not pass laws from which they are specifically exempted.)

Of course, you give your location as "LAX." Recall the exchange between Ronnie Barrett and LAPD a few years back as well - you can probably still find the letters on his site. LAPD had sent in some of their Barrett-built rifles for regular service, then pulled that publicity stunt saying that fifty-calibre rifles should be banned (and holding up an M82A1 as an example.) I don't recall how that resolved, but the one thing that Barrett was least willing to do was to service the rifles and return them - I think he was torn between simply keeping them (to make a point) and returning the rifles unserviced and returning the payment for such service (less return shipping.)

Feinstein wanted to ban .50 calibre firearms in general (this would have included the .50AE, .500S&W, .500 Linebaugh, .50 Beowulf, et al) specifically because "the round can penetrate an armoured limousine."

1) Except for the .50BMG and .50 FatMac, those are all pistol rounds. They won't penetrate an armoured vehicle.
2) Who drives around in armoured vehicles? Generally, people who consider themselves officially important - like elected representatives. If they're worried about getting shot, what are they doing to deserve it? What are they doing wrong? If a Senator cannot go for a walk out in public without needing an entourage and a squad of bodyguards, then they're damned well doing something wrong. "No, sergeant, I shall walk alone. Let the people see that I can." That's actually from a comic, but the principle applies.
3) The .50AE was, as I recall, in common manufacture about this time. The other three I listed were not. Firearms regulations tend to stifle firearms development - look what's happened every time some new firerams reg has been passed. Just when developers start to get their feet under them, the rug gets yanked again. Also, it artificially inflates the prices of things, due to the costs of the permits and the costs of regulation and enforcement. Ex:

In Europe, it is actually considered "rude" to go out target shooting without a suppressor (one of the few things they've gotten right.) Suppressors are both effective and inexpensive there.

Here? The permit to manufacture suppressors for sale is $5,000 per annum. Each suppressor is subject to a $200 "NFRTR Transfer Fee" (tax) each time it is transferred. Even if you have only one NFRTR item, you can look forward to a visit from F Troop every year - where you have to show them the suppressor and your original paperwork with the original ATF tax stamp showing you paid the $200 - because they might have lost your paperwork. If you can't produce your copy, you get 10 years and $10,000-$100,000 fine - for their mistake! They screw up, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

A good suppressor can be made for <$50 in parts, with a little creativity. If you make it for yourself, you still have to have a serial number assigned, fill out a Form 4 for it, pay the $200 manufacture tax for the single item, and it may never be sold or transferred (since it wasn't made by a Special Occupational Taxpayer.)

I ask you, does that make any sense?

The pity of it is that the firearms industry is the most heavily-regulated industry in the country (even moreso than the medical industry in general,) it's ineffectively enforced, the agency that is in charge of enforcing is rife with selective and/or harrassing prosecution, and they've got an extensive history of putting people away for technical violations where ATF screwed up! Or "retaliatory enforcement." ATF also has about the most "paid informants" on the books - usually people who traded information for immunity.

And ATF has only gotten worse since they were spun off from the IRS in 1972. Look at their history, tell me what you think. I think they should be disbanded.

Sir, I'd be honored to buy you a round of your drink of choice. The government's atty in the Miller vs U.S. case did lie through his teeth. The judges were idiots and failed to do their jobs properly---THAT is why the NFA was not struck down. The .50 Beowolf is NOT a pistol round though. It was designed for use in AR15's.

One thing to add....the BATFE has been caught in the act of framing individuals. Google "JPFO John Glover".

 

[machinisttx]

Good 'ole second amendment debate. Off-topic, but fun to read anyway.

I may have written something misleading, you may have misunderstood, or you didn't read the linked summaries. White people aren't killing more people, more white people are getting killed(legally) As I stated, the race of the shooter was not mentioned.

I wasn't knocking the laws. I agree with them. The main thing I found of interest in these studies was that the vast majority of "Stand your Ground" shootings seem to have white targets, and that statistically no other "race"/demographic seem to be affected. Struck me as weird. I was trying to think of a reason why.


As far as the off-topic 2nd am. debate: I like guns. No problem with full auto,.. suppressed,.. pretty much what ever. Personally I'd love to have a suppressed 22 for plinking. Unfortunately the suppressor and transfer tax raise the price of a 300 dollar .22 to around $1500.00 - a little pricy for plinking.
The biggest problem I have with gun restrictions or registrations is overreach/creep.(see "The camel's nose") Every place that puts a "reasonable restriction" in place eventually "reasonably" restricts ALL firearms. Every registration scheme turns into confiscation - using the registrations lists as a starting point.

Biggest surprise I had in the last decade was when the assault weapon ban actually expired after it's original 10 years. If I ever meet George Bush, I'll shake his hand and thank him just for that.(even though it cut the value of my "pre-ban" AR almost in half overnight.)

Umm...wut? The most expensive .22 rimfire suppressor I can think of is made by Liberty and costs a tad under $500. It's also capable of suppressing up to a .22 hornet without damage(IIRC). The transfer tax is $200. Cost to have a barrel threaded = around $100. Dealer transfer fees vary, so you're on your own there. The suppressor isn't registered to a particular gun, so you can swap it between whatever guns you want. Having a gun modified for an intregal suppressor is a bit more pricey though.

 

[Beezil]

Xcm...your worm is strong

 

[Boatwrench]

Eh, not really. Kommiefornia has maintained many retarded gun laws since the gold rush in the 1840's.

Really?

 

[5-90]

Sir, I'd be honored to buy you a round of your drink of choice. The government's atty in the Miller vs U.S. case did lie through his teeth. The judges were idiots and failed to do their jobs properly---THAT is why the NFA was not struck down. The .50 Beowolf is NOT a pistol round though. It was designed for use in AR15's.

One thing to add....the BATFE has been caught in the act of framing individuals. Google "JPFO John Glover".

1) The .50 Beo wasn't designed as a pistol round, true. However, there are pistols that fire the .50 Beo - build in the AR platform (ever seen an AR pistol? No buttstock, just a spring compensator tube, and a bbl ~8" long.) An error of omissions on my part, my apologies. But, the fact of the AR-15 having been converted into a pistol (by Olympic Arms, I believe,) means that there are a number of small rifle calibres that can now be considered "pistol" rounds. In addition, there's the T/C Contender - a single-shot, break-action pistol that has been chambered for some unGodly number of calibres - I've seen it from .22LR up through about .308 Winchester. Barrel 12" or less, although a rifle/carbine version is available for the T/C as well.)

2) John Glover wasn't the only case of entrapment/frame-up/whatever by ATF. I'm sure I can come up with names if I pillage around, I haven't thought about that in a while.

3) The keystone of the NFA34 decision was that the US attorney lied through his teeth (he was a WWI vet,) and the aforementioned "information outside of judicial notice" (none of the judges were veterans, and no-one briefed them in.)

Look at the history of BATF(E) since 1972 - and then see if you can tell me why they're commonly known as "F Troop"...

 

[machinisttx]

1) The .50 Beo wasn't designed as a pistol round, true. However, there are pistols that fire the .50 Beo - build in the AR platform (ever seen an AR pistol? No buttstock, just a spring compensator tube, and a bbl ~8" long.) An error of omissions on my part, my apologies. But, the fact of the AR-15 having been converted into a pistol (by Olympic Arms, I believe,) means that there are a number of small rifle calibres that can now be considered "pistol" rounds. In addition, there's the T/C Contender - a single-shot, break-action pistol that has been chambered for some unGodly number of calibres - I've seen it from .22LR up through about .308 Winchester. Barrel 12" or less, although a rifle/carbine version is available for the T/C as well.)

2) John Glover wasn't the only case of entrapment/frame-up/whatever by ATF. I'm sure I can come up with names if I pillage around, I haven't thought about that in a while.

3) The keystone of the NFA34 decision was that the US attorney lied through his teeth (he was a WWI vet,) and the aforementioned "information outside of judicial notice" (none of the judges were veterans, and no-one briefed them in.)

Look at the history of BATF(E) since 1972 - and then see if you can tell me why they're commonly known as "F Troop"...

I'm well aware of AR pistols, thought I wasn't aware anyone had actually built a .50 Beo version. I guess I shouldn't be surprised(they are like lego's for adults), though I have to wonder why. Probably the same reason I'm considering building one of my FAL kits as a pistol with an 11" barrel. It'd go well with the 8" barreled AK pistol I built. I've seen a PSL pistol...muzzle blast has to be horrendous on that one.

Yeah, Glover isn't the only one, just the only example that came to mind.

Yes. The government's atty stated that sawed off shotguns and rifles had not been used by any military force. That was easily proven false, as both sides were documented as having used them in the civil war, and one particular military unit was well known for employing them from horseback on raids of enemy camps.

I think we both have the same opinion of the ATF.