The twisted “logic” of gun control laws.

This is a 10-22 receiver. By US law, this is considered a firearm. If you bring this item to a “gun-free” zone, you would be guilty of a felony. In case of Browning M1919 machine gun, the “firearm” is merely a flat rectangular sideplate with a serial number, no different from any other sheet of steel except for the serial number.

By US law, this muffler for rimfire cartridges is also considered a firearm. So bringing this tube with baffles to a school would also be a felony.

If two people own the same model muffler and accidentally swap them at the range, nominally they are both guilty of crimes for turning a restricted item over to somebody else — even though neither person gained any new capability from the act nor harmed anyone.

A friend emailed me this picture. DIAS stands for drop-in auto sear, it’s a part of a trigger mechanism. Possession of this tiny piece of metal which has to be made  before 1986 without registration and payment of $200 excise tax is a felony, same as an unregistered machine gun. And yet it’s just a part so simple that putting it with bolts and fixtures on a hardware store shelf wouldn’t attract any attention.

* * *

The examples I bring up are obscure trivia, but they can and sometimes do lead to real prison terms and felony criminal records, and to lifetime loss of voting rights. Gun control treats guns as black magic fetishes. It’s not clear how having a flash hider on a rifle harms the public more than having a muzzle brake, or how having a 15.9″ barrel harms people more than having a 16.1″ barrel, or…the examples are countless. The entire concept of prosecuting innocent possession instead of harmful actions is actively malicious because it ruins real lives over imaginary offenses.

This entry was posted in civil rights, rkba, sound suppressor, weapon and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The twisted “logic” of gun control laws.

  1. herddog505 says:

    What we have is the need to draw the line SOMEWHERE. Unfortunately, that line is often drawn by people who have no idea what they are talking about…

    • Oleg Volk says:

      It would make more sense for the line to be drawn on uses/misuses of guns, not the technical features.

    • Kristophr says:

      I draw the line at nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

      If it is carried by an infantryman or a cop, I should be able to buy it mail order, without any government bullcrap.

      • ChrisJ says:

        Instead of naming specific technologies, I’d probably go along the lines of discriminate versus indiscriminate weapons. A bullet flies in one direction along a minuscule arc-angle of space and only exert an effect along that one path. Where as the indiscriminate weapons you listed, of which we’ll also have to add explosives to the list, are omnidirectional and effect everything within their range.

        P.S. An interesting aside is that virtually every household already contains the compounds for chemical weapons.

        • Oleg Volk says:

          Shaped charges and explosively formed projectiles are fairly directional — and could have made a difference in Waco. Besides, sometimes grenades and command-detonated mines are important — not everyone lives in cities. Plenty of South African and Rhodesian farms were defended from terrorist attacks with wired mines.

        • LarryArnold says:

          And then you have shotguns, which shoot pellets that scatter.

        • Kristophr says:

          I can set off a grenade without killing all my neighbors.

          And infantrymen are issued them.

          So I should be able to buy one under the second amendment.

          • Paul Koning says:

            Interestingly, the notorious Miller case, which is often mentioned as a defeat of gun rights (because it upheld the short barrel ban) has some good points — one of which is that it specifically said that military style weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment. The reasoning is the militia reference. Miller failed to protect short barrels because of malpractice — counsel for the defendant never bothered to show up, so the court was never shown any evidence showing that short barrel guns have military use.

    • Mr Evilwrench says:

      How about if we draw the line at actually shooting someone with it, rather than some technical specifications being interpreted as “intent” of some sort?

  2. staghounds says:

    And something is always right next to every line we draw.

    And actually I’m rather glad that the definition of firearm is so very narrow, most places it is MUCH broader and incorporates such things as barrels, cylinders, bolts, and stocks.

    I agree that mufflers and barrel lengths ought to be unregulated.

  3. Old NFO says:

    And according to TSA, a SCOPE is a rifle part… sigh…

  4. Kristophr says:

    A silencer is considered a “firearm” because the NRA, in it’s very first political act, got a friend in congress to substitute the word “silencer” for “pistol” in the first draft of the NFA law.

    The original intent was to ban pistols as well as machineguns ( $200 1934 dollars tax = approx $17000 2013 dollars ).

    Which is why all that language about barrel and overall longarm length is in the act.

  5. staghounds says:

    I agree, but I live in the actual world.

    Like speed limits, firearm regulations of some sort are here to stay.

    Full auto weapons will, at the very best, remain no more regulated than they are now. Arguing for any wider availability of machine guns will do more harm than good in this climate.

  6. LarryArnold says:

    Had a friend who was considering having a shotgun barrel reduced to 18″ but couldn’t find anyone willing to go shorter than 18.25.

    Because the difference between 18″ and 17.9″ = ten years.

    Note also that the overall length of a rifle or shotgun must be at least 26″.

    Unless, of course, it’s a black powder shotgun.

  7. Cargosquid says:

    “but they can and sometimes do lead to real prison terms and felony criminal records, and to lifetime loss of voting rights.”

    Unless you’re David Gregory.

  8. Angus McThag says:

    Mr Miller had disappeared by the time his case came before the supremes.

    I don’t think it’s malpractice to stop working if your client stops paying.

  9. Drew says:

    The more confusing the gun laws, the more innocent people can be caught up in the drag net. The ultimate absurdity of this can be seen in a document called the Calguns Rifle Flowchart.

    The Federal gun laws are built on an increasingly unstable framework: National Firearms Act 1934, Gun Control Act 1968, “Firearm Owners Protection Act” 1986, “Gun Free School Zones Act” 1990 & 1995. Add state law and stir. In states without preemption, add local laws and ordinances to the point where crossing a street may become a crime.

  10. Scott J says:

    What sickens me most about the NFA community are its members who don’t want regulations relaxed because their “investments” might go down in value. They allow their greed to trump everyone’s freedom.

Comments are closed.