Jump to content

pistol builds don't need virgin receivers anymore?


Recommended Posts

I thought I remember Reading somewhere that you could build rifle pistol rifle and that was okay from a virgin receiver anyone know what I'm talking about?

Does that apply to a factory built rifle or does the receiver need to  B of Virgin Origin i.e. never a rifle or shotgun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno.  The ATF arm brace ruling changes things?  Or not at all?  A virgin lower is a lower?  Would it make any difference what some stamping or etching on the receiver reads?

 

It does create a legal situation.  Building that M4 replica with the 14.5 bbl now beckons as long as a "arm brace" CAR stock is installed?  Now quite $possible$?  Dunno again.

 

All Oregon State, US Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember some court ruling a long time ago that said that a receiver is only a part of a gun, and that it is the full combination of parts that determines whether it is a rifle or pistol.  That was for the fireball pistols made from bolt action rifle receivers.

 

If someone can find that case, it would apply to AR receivers as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it grimace.gif pistol and AOW need to start with a receiver or frame that has never had a stock attached.

 

The simple fact that we are actually here discussing this subject is a big clue that the rules are not meant to be black and white, fully understood, and they may be designed to relieve us of our right to bear arms. Ignorance is not an adequate defense. It sucks, but that's my view of it. Always proceed with caution.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are over-regulated and those regulations are over-worded. I'd rather not have so many regulations that were created because of the actions of a fraction of a percent of people or just a handful of individuals, but the least that could be done is to simplify the wording so the minimally intelligent yet not mentally defective (people who qualify to own firearms) could understand them and apply them. I have lost days of my life trying to ensure that I fully understand certain rules. I could have been generating income in that time, but instead I am barely tip-toeing forward into whatever I am trying to do with extreme caution. I can either do that or lay it all on the line and hope for the best. I've never been very lucky, lol.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say two pages, but otherwise I'm inclined to agree. I'm in the business of writing agreements, etc. Most people have no idea how much work it takes to make a sentence which has exactly one clear meaning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That and the fact that words themselves tend to have more than one meaning.

 

your 100 word statute rule would tend to do 2 things. 1) It would generate a definitions section with 67 of your 100 words being clarified which of the possible meanings apply. Preferably biasing towards a compromise between plain English and using the word consistently with how it is used in other laws. 2) without that, you open the door to either judges or regulators creating definitions and applications for each short phrase. Odds are both would happen. The effect of that is that you are choosing between one long law, with all the information you need to apply the law in one place, or one short law, with a need to check 3 or four sources, and probably compile sub-rules from a composite of prior decisions.

 

This is not some devious trick of evil lawyers, it is the natural result of trying to apply language to the real world.  

 

State a rule to your child, and within a few days you will learn from them every way the law can be interpreted, stretched, and deliberately misunderstood. And with you, there's no right to an appeals court, and only two parents making and interpreting decrees.

 

If the law doesn't spell out each potential application, eventually a judge will have to do so. That's how common law happens.

 

"Thou shall not murder" is a good law but even the bible plays out definitions later and case law to show what is murder and what isn't.

Edited by GunFun
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just be happy when ABC government agency cannot make law via "rulings". How in the hell does this pass even a trivial Constutional challenge? Oh wait that's right, both sides of the political aisle covet that power once they are in control.

Edited by Spacehog
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

That and the fact that words themselves tend to have more than one meaning.

 

 

State a rule to your child, and within a few days you will learn from them every way the law can be interpreted, stretched, and deliberately misunderstood. And with you, there's no right to an appeals court, and only two parents making and interpreting decrees.

 

 

 

I used to do this to get around my nitpicky, power-hungry, micromanaging old boss. I'd get it in writing, and when he tried to call me on it, I'd pull out his email and ask him to please explain what I did that went against what he wrote.  He hated that. It's called a white mutiny, and, when properly applied, is quite effective and maddening. I am soooo glad he "retired" (got laid off).

 

Since then, over the last 7 months, I've gotten promoted two bumps, I'm functionally my own boss, and have been selected for several high-end contracts.

Life is good.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do that for all bosses as a practice. - as a positive thing. It helps them know I listen. Then the next day I show them which of the tasks they've assigned that I finished, and let them prioritize the carryovers with the next day. If they give conflicting instructions of priority, I ask them which of the two+ "first things" is the real first.... If not snarky this helps them to give better assignments and appreciate how much I get done, and it keeps me from working backwards or getting pulled from one half finished task to another constantly. It also keeps them from semi abusively giving me impossible requirements and resenting me for not pulling it off. 

 

I've had good success with that with a number of controlling employers, who tend to undervalue employees and manage by putting out fires rather than planning. 

 

With individuals and employers, you can enforce "the spirit of the law". If your bosses recognized that you were doing the white mutiny, they could say, "This guy resists everything I try to do. I hate working with him." Then fire you. Parents can legitimately pull the , "you know what I meant" card. The state has no right nor power to compel citizens to obey the spirit of the law, only the language. Any ambiguity or leeway must necessarily be interpreted in the way least restrictive to the citizen.


I'll just be happy when ABC government agency cannot make law via "rulings". How in the hell does this pass even a trivial Constutional challenge? Oh wait that's right, both sides of the political aisle covet that power once they are in control.

 

After Wickard v. Filburn, we ceased to be a representative government. We are now an administrative government. The 4th branch legislates, enforces, and judges. No voting on rules, no elections. Just publication, comment on what's going to inevitably happen, and promulgate.

 

It makes me laugh bitterly about the constitutional minded folks who get huffy when people call our nation a democracy, then correct them to say we are a constitutional republic. On paper we might be, but as it is practiced we are nothing of the sort. Federal? -- not so much. there isn't any meaningful reservation of police power to the states. Republic? -- nope. Republics elect representatives to make laws. Our government's laws by volume of text, or by scope of effect are primarily written by un-elected officials. "As the Secretary of _______ shall determine"....

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Words have a common meaning or two or three, BUT ----- the definition of a word is not LEGALLY found in Merriam Webster.  The LEGAL definition of the words in contract or document is defined in a book called "BLACKS LAW". I ran into this many years ago when I wrote my separation agreement with my devious ex- wife.

anyone dealing with contracts and agreements would do well to go to the library and research EVERY word and phrase in that agreement for it's LEGAL meaning with a copy of Blacks Law! Judges and lawyers DO NOT USE THE SAME LANGUAGE AS THE REST OF US!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

PS          I came out on top, a bad situation was a lot easier to take, because she used a women's anti-male group legal assistant and they DID NOT run every word by Blacks Law!    I filed a plea to have the separation agreement "incorporated but not merged" with the divorce. decree. All the fancy maneuvering by her 'legal advisor;' was for nothing, because those words LEGALLY mean that the prior agreement stands in full, and all the bullshit in the divorce decree had NO STANDING - the original agreement was the one that takes president - any thing that contradicted that was MOOT.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, I hate to break it to you, and Black's is a handy book, but it is not incorporated by reference into all law. I've maybe seen a couple of court opinions that cite to it as non-binding authority. It's intended to let you know which definitions are most popular for particular purposes, as well as alternates, just like webster, or the OED. I've actually seen a lot of court opinions, particularly by the late justice Scalia cite to the new collegiate edition of Webster's.

 

For the most part, we work rather hard to make sure that we do use plain language. It's lazy lawyers who try to hide their incompetence behind obscure phrases. 

 

As a rule of interpretation, unless a statute etc. supplies its own definition, all words are presumed to have their plain meaning. That means the most common usage as would be interpreted by a sampling of average people, and as found in a normal dictionary.

 

A lot of people claim to write plain language, but it becomes difficult. Particularly when clients try to 'help.' Ask a normal person a question or to supply a written statement in any legal setting, and they start talking as they have never talked before. More or less like a random word generator that has a pile of contracts from the 1880s as it's phrase database. Then you have to go to all the work of asking them to just say what they mean like they were talking to one of their kids. Usually this gets them to talk like a sane human again. It's usually less work to just write the documents from scratch than to edit a client's statement into a coherent narrative.

 

 

Don't even get me started on the illiterate and unhelpful garbage that cops write/testify. They get trained how to write a good report, then the oldest shift sergeant with the most stilted language in the hemisphere helps retrain them to ensure nothing they ever write again will be sensible or definitive as a statement.

 

WITNESS ADVISED THAT HE MIGHT HAVE SEED A GUY RUNNING THAT WAY. i PROCEEDED WEST THEN PERFORMED AN OPEN PALM STRIKE TO DETAIN HIM. 

 

(no record in this report mentions that there were 3 other individuals on scene plus four officers and camera footage. We only learn this because the newest officer writes a coherent report with all the facts, whether he saw something personally, or was told about it by another cop or witness [and which witness/cop],actual quotes distinguished from summaries of statements, and admitting any mistakes the LE made. i.e. usable evidence that a human jury would believe)

 

(attached medical record from the paras details reattaching a severed leg or something.)

 

Officer then actually talks like that on the stand, contradicts himself, then blames the prosecutor for not doing his job. Later I'd probably hear him complaining about the situation to a coworker and tell the whole story in plain English, in a believable way that would have gotten a conviction.

Edited by GunFun
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought this up because most of us just do not need lawyers every day, and contracts are NOT written in "standard" English! A bit of research with the LEGAL definition (this is whatever some Court somewhere decided that that IS) can tell you real quick when you need to Lawyer up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good contracts are written in normal every day english.

 

 

Bad contracts & east coast contracts are written obscurely.

Yep!

 

My lawyer writes contracts in English.

 

I know one who writes in legalese, and he's a snake. His math skills suck too.

Edited by patriot
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason I left Maryland!!!!  The last few times I needed a Lawyer in Maryland , it cost me $$$$$$$ and got me NOTHING!  It takes a pile of cash and a JURY TRIAL just to recover the Earnest money from a failed contract. More $$$$$$ than it is worth. 3-5 THOUSAND up front, and 50/50 chance of getting my money back.

I could go on and on about the lack of LEGAL ETHICS in Maryland, but instead of arguing, I GOT THE HELL OUT OF THAT HELL!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a good laugh out of all of that, but it is all very true. I think they write contracts so long around here in an effort to make you give up on reading it, so you won't notice the pitfalls. My pool company contracts are very simple and easy to understand and people pretend to not know what was in it later. My partner used to give in and I finally put my foot down and said if they are too damned lazy to read that simple contract then they can suffer the consequences of it. It gets to me when you look someone straight in the eyes and ask them if they read it, they acknowledge that they did, and later want to act like they didn't understand the simple terms like the fact that if they do not stay current on draw payments for work performed then we will halt work until they are current. We want to get paid in a timely manner, we don't want to finance a $100k+ pool build, and we want the work off of our books. It seems like the wealthier someone is the worse their ability to pay in a timely manner is, then they get all wound up when the project gets drawn out because they essentially put the brakes on it. Why isn't anyone there working? Read the contract again and get a clue. Ridiculous. Sorry, pool company nonsense drives me nuts and it is nice to get some of it off of my chest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a good laugh out of all of that, but it is all very true. I think they write contracts so long around here in an effort to make you give up on reading it, so you won't notice the pitfalls. My pool company contracts are very simple and easy to understand and people pretend to not know what was in it later. My partner used to give in and I finally put my foot down and said if they are too damned lazy to read that simple contract then they can suffer the consequences of it. It gets to me when you look someone straight in the eyes and ask them if they read it, they acknowledge that they did, and later want to act like they didn't understand the simple terms like the fact that if they do not stay current on draw payments for work performed then we will halt work until they are current. We want to get paid in a timely manner, we don't want to finance a $100k+ pool build, and we want the work off of our books. It seems like the wealthier someone is the worse their ability to pay in a timely manner is, then they get all wound up when the project gets drawn out because they essentially put the brakes on it. Why isn't anyone there working? Read the contract again and get a clue. Ridiculous. Sorry, pool company nonsense drives me nuts and it is nice to get some of it off of my chest.

 

There is such a thing as a "mechanic's lien'. Those generally apply to things like construction where your work value becomes inseparable from the dirtbag client's property.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago when in the Trades in California, (and I am sorry) we filed many a mechanics lien for non payment of goods and services.  Usually home remodels.  We also had a draw full of Judgments rendered by the Court for non payment.

 

Could not collect.  Even 30 years ago California had all sorts of special administrative rules and regulations requiring US to jump through in order to collect ONE DIME from the dead beat home owners.  And ... it gets even worserer than that.

 

Seems the dead beat low income home owners who owed us big bucks for remodeling their homes had NO INTENTION on paying off 100% on the debt financing the job.  Seems the BANKS and LAWYERS coached them on how not to pay off!

 

Also Social Services. 

 

Yep.  Sounds like Alice and Wonderland but all true.  Our ironclad contract for goods and services was considered to be nonenforceable by the very Courts that issued the Judgment on the Mechanic' Liens in the first place.  Contract Law Sucks?

 

What we quickly did is just demand payment as scheduled through a third party Escrow instructions.  A block of payment upon completion of a percentage of the remodel.  Back on topic.  Does anybody possibly understand the BATFE at all here?

 

Does the Arm Brace ruling specifically deal with only type and one specific manufacture?  Also I do not know if a standard CAR type receiver extension tube can be used or not that is capable of accepting a standard collapsible CAR butt stock.

 

Does a specific special different extension tube need to be used that will NOT accept OEM type collapsible butt stocks?  I dunno.  Looks like some of the arm brace look very much like a CAR butt stock.  Anyhow, just another reason the BATFE ...

 

.... remains that 400 pound Gorilla.

 

Respectfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing to understand is that BATFE is an administrative agency. They don't and can't do rulings. They can do opinions, which do not have anything like the same weight as a ruling.

 

I hope if I repeat this basic fact enough on these threads, eventually it will leak into the collective conscious here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts do rulings.

 

BATFE opinions are a suggestion of what they think courts might apply, and what their own lawyers might argue if a court is ever involved. Some judges will borrow language from them, but when it comes down to it, they are a glorified speculation.

 

They have some value as a shield under a doctrine called "official reliance" but they are very weak as a sword, since the govt still has the whole burden of proving all of the claims and the reasoning that make up the guidance..

 

BATFE has never made this illegal (since they don't have that power), and it's never been made illegal by statute, or ruled illegal in a court, not once over this whole vacillating process. What Batfe has done is flip flopped on whether you can rely on their opinion that it is for sure legal. During the periods when their public opinion letters are in effect and not rescinded, if anyone is charged with this as a crime, they can point to the letter and get the case thrown out.

 

During the periods in which the opinions are rescinded, then someone charged with a crime still would probably win, because the BATFE would have to prove in court from scratch that it IS illegal, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the law is not void for vagueness, because a normal citizen would be able to tell what is legal and what is not. I honestly do not believe BATFE could meet their burden in court for any of those elements. They might be able to get it past one dodgy judge, but not all the way up the appeals chain. Too much scrutiny to contradictory claims would apply, and they would be forever pinned down to interpreting things one way. Even if they win, they lose, because now they are pinned down. I don't think the BATFE could ever risk that happening, so I don't think they will ever take it to court.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I got a good laugh out of all of that, but it is all very true. I think they write contracts so long around here in an effort to make you give up on reading it, so you won't notice the pitfalls. My pool company contracts are very simple and easy to understand and people pretend to not know what was in it later. My partner used to give in and I finally put my foot down and said if they are too damned lazy to read that simple contract then they can suffer the consequences of it. It gets to me when you look someone straight in the eyes and ask them if they read it, they acknowledge that they did, and later want to act like they didn't understand the simple terms like the fact that if they do not stay current on draw payments for work performed then we will halt work until they are current. We want to get paid in a timely manner, we don't want to finance a $100k+ pool build, and we want the work off of our books. It seems like the wealthier someone is the worse their ability to pay in a timely manner is, then they get all wound up when the project gets drawn out because they essentially put the brakes on it. Why isn't anyone there working? Read the contract again and get a clue. Ridiculous. Sorry, pool company nonsense drives me nuts and it is nice to get some of it off of my chest.

 

There is such a thing as a "mechanic's lien'. Those generally apply to things like construction where your work value becomes inseparable from the dirtbag client's property.

 

Generally, the intent to lien gets most people's attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...