Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:44 pm
leadcounsel wrote:Rather than doublding down on the complex artibrary fabricated definitions, it would be nice if they'd just go the opposite direction and disband all of the silliness.
I'd honestly propose no more legally consequential definitions and terms used only loosely to identify what the receiver is regardless as to whether it is a pistol that shoots rifle ammo or a rifle that shoots pistol ammo, etc. It's a firearm, with loose definitions as we generally use them.
Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:16 am
Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:36 am
zipties wrote:What I’d like to see is legitimate legislation to remove sound suppressors from the NFA, get Hollywood out of our gun laws, and not give them any reason to adjust these stamp prices for inflation.
Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:05 am
Have to disagree with you here. If it must be this way then the buyer gets the background check, not the firearm. If the buyer passes the BGC, him/her/etc, walks out with the gun, just like any other retail purchase. No other records. Gov doesn't need a database of all the firearms anyone owns. Period.JesseM wrote:leadcounsel wrote:Rather than doublding down on the complex artibrary fabricated definitions, it would be nice if they'd just go the opposite direction and disband all of the silliness.
I'd honestly propose no more legally consequential definitions and terms used only loosely to identify what the receiver is regardless as to whether it is a pistol that shoots rifle ammo or a rifle that shoots pistol ammo, etc. It's a firearm, with loose definitions as we generally use them.
Bingo. What they need to do is just remove SBR, SBS, AOW etc from the NFA. All of this silliness is because someone 90 years ago said "Short rifles need to be regulated and have a backgrond check."
Well now all firearms require a background check and in most states even private sales do as well.
So they should just say "All fire arms require background check so NFA isn't needed." but that will never happen.
Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:10 pm
Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:30 pm
leadcounsel wrote:Rather than doublding down on the complex artibrary fabricated definitions, it would be nice if they'd just go the opposite direction and disband all of the silliness.
I'd honestly propose no more legally consequential definitions and terms used only loosely to identify what the receiver is regardless as to whether it is a pistol that shoots rifle ammo or a rifle that shoots pistol ammo, etc. It's a firearm, with loose definitions as we generally use them.