An obscure but really interesting case

[WuWei]

@Steel-W0LF

@WuWei

@Steel-W0LF

I hope they eventually rule the whole pistol/SBR/rifle designation irrelevant.

Because it is irrelevant.

Suppressors.

Those too.

I’d like a tax refund for the ones I own.

The only thing I can figure is the ear plug lobby must be a lot stronger than the NRA.

[Steel-W0LF]

@WuWei

@Steel-W0LF

@WuWei

@Steel-W0LF

I hope they eventually rule the whole pistol/SBR/rifle designation irrelevant.

Because it is irrelevant.

Suppressors.

Those too.

I’d like a tax refund for the ones I own.

The only thing I can figure is the ear plug lobby must be a lot stronger than the NRA.

The lobby might be better than the earplugs.

I’m hopping I get something from the lawsuit over the defective plugs in the early 2000s.

[Samm]

@FloridaYankee

@WuWei

@FloridaYankee

@WuWei

@FloridaYankee

@Smyrna

That’s a pretty big oooops that’s been going on for decades. One has to wonder how this definition slipped between the cracks for so long?

A little more common sense and a little less technical jargon could go a long way towards preventing this kind of gaffe in the future. Phrases like “Made for the use of” and “Specifically designed for” could be a couple of examples.

It’s in the product literature in the box.

It needs to be in the legislation.

No, it doesn’t.

Common sense? Yeah, it does.

Common sense and legislation are rarely copacetic.

[Samm]

@WuWei

@Steel-W0LF

@WuWei

@Steel-W0LF

I hope they eventually rule the whole pistol/SBR/rifle designation irrelevant.

Because it is irrelevant.

Suppressors.

Those too.

I’d like a tax refund for the ones I own.

The only thing I can figure is the ear plug lobby must be a lot stronger than the NRA.

Yeah. In many countries that have highly restrictive gun laws and regulations, suppressors are required on high powered rifles.

[AlexMcAlpine]

@WildRose

An atty has successfully challenged the ATF’s definition of "firearm’ and claim/definition that makes the AR lower a “firearm”.

I wish you would have picked a more informative title for this thread. “Lawyer challenging ATF’s definition of firearm” would have been a lot better.

I was reminded of Russia, a few years ago, signing the chemical weapons treaty with no problem.

Then they changed the definition of chemical weapons and continued on just as they had before, perfectly legally.

[WildRose]

Do you usually find chemical weapons threads in the 2nd Amendment section?

[AlexMcAlpine]

@WildRose

Do you usually find chemical weapons threads in the 2nd Amendment section?

Sorry, I did not realize that you and Mr. Extrapolation were not acquainted.

It’s got nothing to do with chemical weapons, and all to do with an entity arbitrarily changing the definition of words so that they’ll be able to continue to do something illegal solely because they changed the meaning of the word so that they can claim it is not illegal.

[WuWei]

Did the lawyer define assault rifle?

[WildRose]

They haven’t changed the meaning of any of the words. What they did was point out that a lower does not meet the definition of firearm as laid out by the ATF.