morfeeis
01-18-2015, 02:40 PM
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-11615-atf-issues-open-letter-declaring-the-shouldering-of-sig-brace-illegal/
Only the federal government could try and tell someone that if they use a product in a way that father almighty didn't say was ok then they could spend years YEARS!! in jail. In fact less than a year ago they said the same practice was ok and that how you use something isn't redesigning it(which is correct under legal thinking). I posted this here more so as a question than anything else. to add to the hubris of this letter he didn't even use the correct term from the dictionary, he states that it says alter (which it doesn't) but in fact the dictionary say revise.
Can anyone think of or know of any legal case were an item is switched from one part of the body to another and therefor transforms it from being a legal action to an illegal one?
Even if you hate firearm this is worth reading and studying, an unelected branch of government just put tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people in jeopardy of being sent to jail for a minimum of tens years with the swipe of a pen.
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-11615-atf-issues-open-letter-declaring-the-shouldering-of-sig-brace-illegal/
Only the federal government could try and tell someone that if they use a product in a way that father almighty didn't say was ok then they could spend years YEARS!! in jail. In fact less than a year ago they said the same practice was ok and that how you use something isn't redesigning it(which is correct under legal thinking). I posted this here more so as a question than anything else. to add to the hubris of this letter he didn't even use the correct term from the dictionary, he states that it says alter (which it doesn't) but in fact the dictionary say revise.
Can anyone think of or know of any legal case were an item is switched from one part of the body to another and therefor transforms it from being a legal action to an illegal one?
Even if you hate firearm this is worth reading and studying, an unelected branch of government just put tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people in jeopardy of being sent to jail for a minimum of tens years with the swipe of a pen.