Watch That Barrel Length: SBR Edition

The St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office has posted an announcement on their Facebook page describing a sting operation in which they cooperated with ATF agents to purchase an unregistered SBR from a local trying to sell the rifle online. Peter Chirco, the owner of the rifle even knew that the rifle was under the legal 16-inch barrel length when he posted it online, in addition to even being barred from several local shooting ranges because the range staff realized the illegality of the rifle itself.From the Facebook post-

From the Facebook post-

Sheriff Detectives and members of the ATF set up an undercover buy of this illegal short barreled AR-15 style rifle yesterday. The gun was listed for sale online by Peter Chirco, 25, who told detectives he knew it was illegal and had even been banned from gun ranges because of it. Chirco was arrested and charged with possession of a short-barreled gun/rifle and booked into the St. Lucie County Jail on a $15,000 bond.

To think that a mere pistol buffer tube could have made the difference between this fellow being charged with a felony and having a successful purchase just baffles those of us who pay so much attention to staying within the legal limits that we have to adhere to on a daily basis. Or even the fact that he was a mere several inches to be within a legal barrel limit. It appears that the barrel is probably 12 inches with a compensator attached to it. If this was a case of he probably didn’t realize the extent of NFA laws or was just ignorant about the barrel length, maybe we could have some sympathy, but it is hard to with this blatancy.



Miles

Infantry Marine, based in the Midwest. Specifically interested in small arms history, development, and usage within the MENA region and Central Asia. To that end, I run Silah Report, a website dedicated to analyzing small arms history and news out of MENA and Central Asia.

Please feel free to get in touch with me about something I can add to a post, an error I’ve made, or if you just want to talk guns. I can be reached at miles@tfb.tv


Advertisement

  • Drew Coleman

    The laws are dumb, really dumb, but until they’re changed they are the law. No one should be surprised at being charged/arrested for breaking them.

    • PK

      Exactly this. I disagree with the entirety of the NFA… but I still follow the law. I contact my representatives at least once a year to push for the removal of practically all firearms laws, and whenever there’s a vote coming up for anything which does that in any meaningful way.

      You can disagree with laws and push for their removal, all without breaking said laws. Breaking them, and not even trying to have them removed, isn’t very productive.

    • gunsandrockets

      Yep.

      He got busted. And now the police, courts, and jails will deal with him. And he will live the consequences of a lifelong felony conviction at age 25, looking at the prospects of a second class citizenship and lower class life at his young age. No doubt that will bear ugly fruit in the coming years. And all of this paid for on the taxpayers dime.

      This points out not just how dumb our gun-control laws are, but also how destructive those laws are to our social order.

      Wouldn’t have been better for everyone to just have a police officer phone the idiot and tell him, “knock it off!”? But nope. Too many statistics, and patting yourself on the back for ‘fighting crime!’ were at stake, right?

      That’s the problem with most victimless crimes.

      Now maybe the idiot was also up to his eyeballs in other more serious crimes. Well and good he got busted then. But then so what about the idiot’s gun crime.

      Which points out how prosecution of victimless crimes diverts the limited law enforcement resources away from the pursuit of real crimes with real victims. Would you rather have your money used to put that SBR idiot in jail? Or some parolee on the loose who has taken up robbery?

      My apologies to everyone for indulging in a purely political rant. And I completely understand if this comment is deleted for violation of the spirit (or law?) of TFB.

      • Button Gwinnett

        “Wouldn’t have been better for everyone to just have a police officer phone the idiot and tell him, “knock it off!”?”
        According to the article, several ranges told him exactly that. They told him it was illegal and that they feared legal consequences. He ignored all those warnings. Some men, you just don’t reach. So, you get what we have here today. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it! Now, I don’t like it any more than you. But when we attempt to police our own, and they refuse to be educated, it’s a natural consequence.

        • John Yossarian

          You’re right – This kid was a real “Fool Hand Luke”.

        • Madcap_Magician

          Some people are just bound and determined to get exactly what they want, good and hard.

      • Squirrel

        What a BS comment. I’ve personally contacted people online in order to warn them about the legality of selling an unregistered AOW in its posted configuration. I’ve advised a lady that her pen-gun that she received from her husband “after the war” needed to remain a close family secret. I wasn’t looking to create statistics or pat myself on the back. Not that anything that I say will dissuade you from you youtube education on law enforcement.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        “This points out not just how dumb our gun-control laws are, but also how destructive those laws are to our social order.”
        Overturn the law. Don’t disobey it just because it’s stupid.

        “Wouldn’t have been better for everyone to just have a police officer phone the idiot and tell him, ‘knock it off!’?”
        I guess it doesn’t count if every range in the area told him that, right?

        “That’s the problem with most victimless crimes.”
        Like all crime, this was not “victimless.” The victim was social order and, by extension, government authority.

        • William Elliott

          First of all, the law violates the constitution, so the primary victim is the social order and the criminal is the government that is ignoring its own laws and limitations
          Second of all, the “social order” cannot be a victim. The social order does not have rights that can be violated. A victimless crime is one in which individuals rights are not violated. This is the definition of a victimless crime as assembling said firearm infringes on no one’s rights, or in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.
          I agree that we are bound by these laws, and as the saying goes, big boy rules, big boy penalties, but this young man has a case now that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law is violating his rights and HE is the victim.

          • FlaBoy

            Good reply. Bad laws should be changed, but easier to say than do, due to politics and bureaucratic inertia. In the meantime, they should be ignored,when and where possible. There are literally thousands of bad or stupid or out-of-date laws on the books. And then there are laws, like “disturbing the peace” or “resisting arrest” that are so open ended they are what ever a LEO wants them to be.
            RE the LEOs involved: they may think or say otherwise, but they are agents of the state. Good law, bad law, smart law, dumb law…makes no difference. The state and it’s agents are not necessarily your friend. And note, they are allowed to lie to you and pretend to be your friend, so they can arrest you.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            @disqus_jZfBAXaWTX:disqus — There is a difference between what you and I are saying (it’s a bad/stupid law that needs to be obeyed) versus what @disqus_0BMUJWl1G5:disqus is saying (it’s an unconstitutional law that should be obeyed). In my humble opinion, he is doesn’t really believe what he was saying since he things an unconstitutional law should be followed.

          • William Elliott

            I’m not saying it should be obeyed, because I think its right. I’m saying you should be conscious of the consiquences of disobeying it, despite it being an unconstitutional law. You want to, and have the resources to fight that fight, go for it. Otherwise…
            Until local, state and federal law enforcement remeber their oaths and stop “just following orders” it is dangerous to disobey an unconstitutional/illegal law. We had that problem here in Texas with some municipalities enforcing laws that were unconstitutional with respect to the state constitution, UNTIL we got governors that stood up and had the state AG slap them down. Unfortunately, many people lost property and had their lives ruined potentially before hand because they did not know or have the resources to fight the city, and the state blew it off.
            And yes, I know I was taking Thomas Jefferson out of context, however the same logic applies. What he was doing neither picked anyones pocket nor broke anyone’s leg, therefore it should not be considered a crime.
            and your explanation of “why a social order can be a victim” is exactly why we are in so much chaos as a nation. People are letting the “just following orders” thugs get away with enforcing bad laws, to “protect the social order” at the expense of the RIGHTS of the individual.
            But hey, I’m a hipocrit what do I know. [BTW, thanks for the insult, lets me know where I stand with this crowd, I will be sure to parse my language better next time instead of just speaking my mind]

          • Gun Fu Guru

            “First of all, the law violates the constitution, so the primary victim is the social order and the criminal is the government that is ignoring its own laws and limitations”
            “I agree that we are bound by these laws, and as the saying goes, big boy rules, big boy penalties, but this young man has a case now that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law is violating his rights and HE is the victim.”

            If you’re worried about the law’s consequences, you truly don’t believe the law is invalid. Stop being two-faced. Either the law is unconstitutional and should be obeyed or it’s valid and it must be obeyed (on penalty of incarceration).

            “Second of all, the ‘social order’ cannot be a victim. The social order does not have rights that can be violated. A victimless crime is one in which individuals rights are not violated. This is the definition of a victimless crime as assembling said firearm infringes on no one’s rights, or in the words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'”

            #1. That wasn’t the purpose of Jefferson’s statement. The context was about why he drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which disestablished the state church. He said: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Essentially, “why should I care what someone else believes when it doesn’t impact me?” (Fun fact: this was one of three accomplishments he authorized to be on his tombstone.)

            #2. “Social order” is understood by lawyers, political scientists, and others to mean the stability of society (institutions, values, practices, etc.) which all citizens have an inherent duty to uphold.

    • SuperFunkmachine

      There old and where meant to have a pistol ban at the same time.

  • thedonn007

    In the picture, the stock is not installed. Therefore, it is a pistol, and not a rifle. Unless the lower was orginally a rifle, in that case, the rifle will always be a rifle.

    • Drew Coleman

      > lower was orginally a rifle, in that case, the rifle will always be a rifle.

      Such a stupid rule.

      Also he does have a standard buffer tube on there.

      • Phillip Cooper

        What is the difference between a pistol buffer and a standard?

        • Joe

          Pistol tube is fatter to prevent stock instillation. Lacks the LOP adjustments that a carbine buffer has. I’ve seen people mill out the holes on a carbine tube for compliance, as well as using a rifle tube with the threads at the rear for a fixed stock removed.

      • thedonn007

        I do believe that the carbine buffer tube does not matter as long as there is not a stock attached.

        • Drew Coleman

          It shouldn’t, but it’s a lot harder to argue you never had or intended to put a stock on there with one on there. To be clear I think the law is stupid, but it is what it is.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Its stupid but pretty straight forward an unambiguous.

        • Swarf

          So you could use a brace with a carbine buffer tube?

          I’m not new to shooting (I’m not old to it either. Middle school), but I’m new to ARs. Never wanted one until I heard about the Flat Spot lower kit I can weld together myself, now I think I’m going to build a pistol in .300blk, but I’m still trying to learn the ropes.

          • Havok

            Currently, I’m not aware of a “brace” that fits on a standard carbine buffer tube. However, the Thorsden Cheek Rest uses the standard carbine buffer tube and will not allow a stock to be mounted while it is installed.

          • thedonn007

            No, a pistol brace will not fit on a carbine buffer tube.

          • Flounder

            NO. Don’t put a rifle buffer tube on a pistol build.

          • Cymond

            KAK sells pistol buffer tubes for $20.
            The only legitimate reason to use a carbine tube is if you already have one and you’re too cheap to get a KAK.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            The law only recognizes “stocks.” The buffer tube is entirely irrelevant. You could have a regular carbine buffer tube with nothing on it, and that would be a pistol. You could add a Thordsen Custom cheek rest, and that would be a pistol. If you add a stock, that becomes a rifle.

    • Flounder

      Wrong wrong wrong!!!! DUDE! The buffer tube is installed!!! It is a rifle buffer tube! You can’t have that on a “pistol”!!! EVER!

      Why do you think all the pistol buffer tubes are weird and smooth or proprietary?

      • SGT Fish

        he is correct actually. but it still isn’t a good idea. they make those weird smooth proprietary “pistol” buffer tubes for two reasons, 1-to make money and 2-to stay away from the gray area.
        a stock is a stock. a buffer tube is not a stock, even if it is standard commercial or mil-spec buffer tube. a rifle has a stock, a buffer tube is not a stock

        • Flounder

          Alright. So the ATF has mutliple letters on this. It is constructive intent if you own a stock that can be installed on that buffer tube. This includes stocks on other guns.

          They have a general letter out saying don’t do it. It would put any agent in a stupidly awkward postition and the agent should arrest you and let a judge decide.

          So my original comment was wrong.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            @disqus_IxDFpivhkj:disqus — I call your bluff. Where are the ATF letters? The law says that stocks—not buffer tubes—are the determining factor in whether a weapon is a rifle or pistol. The ATF has reinforced this by sending letters to many companies that manufacture buffer covers and cheek rests saying that those products on a regular buffer tube do not turn the weapon into a rifle. See one letter that the ATF sent to Thordsen Custom: http://www . thordsencustoms . com/media/wysiwyg/ATF_Response_letter_for_AR_pistol_pack.PDF

            The ATF’s position since the Thompson Center ruling is that constructive intent only applies when an individual possesses the parts which can be used to convert a pistol into an SBR as long as those parts have no other useful purpose. For example: if you owned only [1] an AR15 pistol with a buffer tube but no stock, [2] an AR15 rifle with stock, and [3] a separate stock, you couldn’t be charged with a crime because you swap that separate stock with the one on the rifle. See page three of https://www . atf . gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

          • BillC

            You are completely right.

            However, it’s useless to argue with the people who adamantly defend pistol tubes only, because they believe the ATF boogeyman may lurk into closets and start counting AR rifles and pistols for “constructive intent”. I used to argue against them. In the end, they aren’t doing anything wrong, and all I can do is put the info out there with links.

            This is also why these laws are so stupid. It has EVERYBODY wrapped around the axle on a dang tube that hosts a buffer and spring, and *gasp* MIGHT facilitate a stock!

          • nicholsda

            Here is another example.
            An M2 Carbine is always an M2 Carbine unless it is cut per ATF rules ( torch cut >1/4″ 3 places on the receiver) and then welded back together as a semi auto. Not safe in my opinion but legal. The same thing is being done with M14 heels welded to new receivers which have no functioning giggle switch. But just owning the 9 parts to make an M1 Carbine an M2 will get you in trouble unless registered to you. Because the total of the parts have no other function but to make an M2 Carbine.

        • thedonn007

          I bought pistol buffer tubes for my AR pistols just to be safe.

          • SGT Fish

            same here. I can get stamps for stocks. don’t need to play stupid games. if its a pistol, it gets a pistol buffer tube.

    • Flounder

      deleted. Sorry, double posted.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        False. Buffer tubes do not constitute a “stock” in the ATF’s position. If that were the case, my Thordsen Custom buffer tube cover wouldn’t come with the letter that it did. What the ATF has consistently maintained since the Thompson Center Supreme Court case is that having the parts to convert a pistol into an SBR demonstrates constructive intent to violate the law as long as the parts in question have no other reasonable purpose given the circumstances. Example: if you had [1] a pistol with buffer tube without a stock and [2] a rifle with stock attached and [3] a separate stock, they couldn’t charge you because you could swap out that stock with the one already on the rifle.

        However, all of this is moot. The suspect acknowledged that it was an unregistered SBR. He made an ad online saying that he wasn’t allowed to shoot it at local ranges because he didn’t have a stamp.

        • I wunder

          Atf ain’t going to prosecute a simple constructive possession case. They are too scared that it would be struck down. Consider how rare nfa charges are in the first place when excluding people caught with nfa while being arrested for other charges, and those idiots that get busted trying to sell nfa items. It is rare indeed for someone to get busted soley for a can, sbr, or even f/a that they aren’t completely retarded with it. When was the last time buba got busted in North Georgia for just dumping a burst in his back yard from his dpms oracle with a kitchen table dias? How about his gunshow special maglite can? It just isn’t common, to the point that if everyone ignored them from a personal use weapons stand point, nfa charges would be as rare as honest politicians.

          • I wunder

            They are counting on you too self regulate to the point of even excluding lawful things. See people worried about type of buffer tube on ar pistol and 922r freaks for further info.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            Your view of constructive intent is an anachronism.

            Prior to the Thompson Center ruling in 1992 by the Supreme Court, the ATF held that simply having the parts to make an unregistered NFA weapon in the same area was enough to constitute a NFA violation. Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion and stated: “Congress must, then, have understood ‘making’ to cover more than final assembly, and some disassembled aggregation of parts must be included. Since the narrowest example of a combination of parts that might be included is a set of parts that could be used to make nothing but a short barreled rifle, the aggregation of such a set of parts, at the very least, must fall within the definition of “making” such a rifle.” Since that ruling, the ATF has changed its usage of constructive intent to match the Supreme Court’s ruling. The ATF now says, like I before, that having the parts to convert a pistol into an SBR demonstrates constructive intent to violate the law as long as the parts in question have no other useful purpose given the circumstances.

          • I wunder

            I wasn’t talking about the TC case. I was talking rubber meets the road. Share some cases where someone was busted soley on the principle of constructive possession with no other criminality being a factor. …. Go ahead I will wait. Before you site the guy in Fl who was busted for selling a mp5 pistol without the stock mounted, they dropped the charges and returned the weapon. Fact of the matter is, nearly nobody is charged on nfa without being dumb, such as trying to sell nfa items or being caught for another crime while in possession of nfa.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            “I wasn’t talking about the TC case.”
            Funny. Neither was I.

            “I was talking rubber meets the road.”
            You are trying to distract away from what I said (that your view of constructive intent is anachronistic) to what you want (constructive intent generally doesn’t lead to criminal trials). We are both right.

            “Share some cases where someone was busted soley on the principle of constructive possession with no other criminality being a factor. …. Go ahead I will wait.”
            [1] As in the present case, the overwhelming majority of NFA violations are prosecuted at the state level because state law often uses federal definitions. (The USDOJ generally doesn’t take over “small” prosecutions regardless of the violation being charged.)
            [2] There’s United States v. Drasen where a FFL was sent to prison for selling SBR part kits and United States v. Endicott where a guy was sent to prison for buying all of the parts needed to make a silencer. Of course, these are just the ones that are off the top of my head. You can also look on TFB for a 29 September 2016 article titled “Faces up to 10 years in prison for illegally making and selling silencers.” In that article, it says that the suspect was selling solvent traps without drilling them out. He ended up pleading guilty.
            [3] You didn’t wait long. Just about an hour.

            Fact of the matter is, nearly nobody is charged on nfa without being dumb, such as trying to sell nfa items or being caught for another crime while in possession of nfa.
            To your point, you are correct: it’s rare to have constructive intent cases. The parts have to be separated and found in that manner for constructive intent to apply. That typically doesn’t happen without a search warrant for an unrelated matter.

          • I wunder

            Wrong. If you are talking of US v Endicott circa 1989. He was a Washington based ffl hosed by the ATF for selling a machinegun (Fn fal) and two undocumented pistols to a paid ATF informant named Jones. He lost on appeal to the 9th circuit. The case had nothing to do with suppressors. Once more, it involved an idiot selling papeless nfa items.

          • I wunder

            Also. Us v Drasen, once again involved an idiot selling things. You also left out that the motion for dismissal was granted on the sbr charge i.e he beat constructive possession on the sbrs.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            You clearly did a Google search and responded off of the first thing you read. That’s generally a bad idea, and it doesn’t work in your favor in this case. The district court dismissed the charges. The Seventh Circuit overturned the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. The defendants pled guilty to the previously dismissed charges on the condition that the sentences would be served concurrently. (I can’t find a link to their plea deal, but I know that is what happened. Generally, district court pleadings are not noteworthy enough to be put online unless they come up later somehow.)

            Motion to dismiss: http://www . law . justia . com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/665/598/1668878/

            Appeal: http://www . openjurist . org/845/f2d/731/united-states-v-drasen

            Supreme Court Denial: Docket No. 88-430 on PDF page 141 https://www . supremecourt . gov/orders/scannedjournals/1988_Journal.pdf

            Pled guilty: http://www . constitution . org/waco/affidavt.htm

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Ive never seen a range employee check stamps before.
    This guy must have been running his mouth.

    • Flounder

      This! SOOOO MUCH THIS!

      The ATF is not going to waste their time on one single person unless they are being such a huge loud mouth that the ATF would loose credibility by ignoring them.

      Yes, I made myself laugh at that last sentence. But it highlights just how loud this dude must have been to get hit by the ATF. A sting? For ONE dude and ONE sbr? Holy crap dude. You win the idiot of the year award.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Yeah, I mean say whatever about the law but unless you are a complete moron you should be able to slide under the radar. I wouldnt try it myself but they dont have the resources to go after every individual at every range.

        • nova3930

          When my wife’s uncle passed, they cracked open the gun safe and found about a dozen unregistered MGs. 4 Browning 1919s, a PTR-91, a couple PPSH-43s and the remainder ARs. Got away with it because he kept his darn mouth shut about em…never told a soul as far as anyone can tell…

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            A dozen?
            Was your wifes uncle an Italian “Legitimate Businessman”?

            I dont even know what the hell id do in that situation.

          • nova3930

            He liked playing in the machine shop after he retired so I think it was just for fun. Lucky there was a nice note in there telling them to call the attorney that did his trust and let them handle it.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Sweet, I hope the cops dont end up blow torching them.

          • nova3930

            I’m not sure what happened in the end. I just know they said it was handled…

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Id make damn sure before I told anyone.

          • nova3930

            They told me everything was on the up and up. Any number of ways to handle things legally.

          • KestrelBike

            Good for him.

          • Banjo

            Although the machine guns were manufactured prior to 1986 and would be transferrable, but because they were not registered to him, his family would not be allowed to maintain possession unless the person(s) were trustees listed in his trust.

          • iksnilol

            Blow my cocaine and hookers budget on ammo ?

            That’s what I’d do.

          • supergun

            U funny.

          • Paul Rain

            Unfortunate. Would’ve been better to leave a note regarding where the capped plumbing pipes in the woods were.

          • FlaBoy

            When my father-in-law died, we found a sawed-off short barrelled Remington semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun in his stuff. The barrel was about an inch longer than the lower magazine. He had worked for many, many years for the State Dept in Central and South America. I believe this gun is the one he kept for “home protection” while out of the country. He should have been able to clear an area with that thing. When we found it, the rest of the family had no idea it was illegal or why it was even an issue. Didn’t know about the ATF nonsense. They thought I was overdoing it when I cut it up, wrapped the pieces in lots of paper and discarded them into the trash. Certainly didn’t want to be a “good citizen” and notify the authorities.
            Grandpa was not only a long term govt employee, but was a Pearl Harbor survivor. Just goes to show, you never know.

          • Brasstard

            You could have just got rid of the barrel of your grandpa’s shotgun no need to throw the whole thing away

          • supergun

            Not too much difference between a short barrel AR and a AR pistol. Especially with a shock blade.

          • gary

            Same thing happened to a buddy of mine. His grandfather was in the 101st and fought from Normandy to the Battle of the Bulge. He had a closet that had 6 pad locks on it, and we were warned never to go near it (we used to play pool in his basement as teenagers). Anyway, when he passed away, his wife finally let us pry the locks off. Even she didnt know what was in there. He had so much WW2 memorabilia including a Gewehr 43, an MG34, A luger, a P38, an MP40, and a Mauser Broom Handle. The only thing missing was an MG42 and a KAR98K Mauser, or else he would have had a complete collection. He was wounded and sent home, or else I think he would have completed it. We didnt know the gun laws then, but we knew damn well we better not take machine guns out to play. Wish I knew what happened to the collection….

          • BeenThereDoneThat

            Not taking sides or positions on whether it is illegal or not, but the part that I question is “WHY?” Why have them if one can’t do anything with them? Can’t shoot them, go to the range, show your friends without risk that one of them will blab … Right or wrong, the real downside is that it leaves those who inherited/found those firearms with a HUGE liability not to mention the possibility of criminal prosecution (PROVE THAT THEY DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THEM!!!) It is patently stupid to leave your family members at risk for the mere possession of those!!! There were several “grace periods” opportunities after the war (WW-II and Korea) for those type guns to be turned into the “authorities”, no questions asked.

          • Broz

            They could only be donated to a museum that would be willing to take them for historical purposes…otherwise the receiver would have to be destroyed and the rest parted out…sad to say, but them’s the facts…..keepin’ yer trap shut is the wisest way to keep the ATF off yer case…they don’t have the resources or the PC to check every firearm owner in the US!!!

      • Gun Fu Guru

        The ATF took a backseat to the local sheriff’s office on this case. One of the deputies saw an advertisement for the gun online that said something to the effect of “own it today, cash only.” The deputy set up a buy and contacted the ATF who sent one agent. At the meet, the suspect acknowledged that the range employees told him it was illegal. The SO detained the guy, the ATF agent determined that the weapon was an unregistered SBR (which violates both state and federal law), and the SO charged the suspect under state law. He is now free on $15,000 bond.

        • supergun

          Amazing that the 2nd Amendment is abused daily.

      • FlaBoy

        ATF works through intimidation, just like the IRS. So, I disagree. I expect they will attempt to crucify him, making an example out of him to intimidate the rest of us “subjects”. A good subject is a compliant subject. (Realize the state does not see us as citizens, but as subjects. Govt employees and LEOs do not see us as their employers, but as their subservients, who should immediately and unquestioning “obey” their commands, although we pay their salaries.)

        • Gun Fu Guru

          If by the ATF you mean one agent who simply verified that the weapon was an unregistered SBR, sure. He was booked on state charges. The feds don’t generally handle “petty” offenders.

        • jp2336

          You kinda’ went off the deep end with that one and blanket statements. But are you saying that said individual shouldn’t be prosecuted to the fullest? The guy blatantly didn’t give a crap, should be awarded the punishment and the most you can do is wish him and his o-ring best of luck.

        • Jason Adams

          Subjects is a pretty lofty term for they way they view the live stock. Brand them and keep them in line.

      • supergun

        Now if they could focus their work on the real criminals that are killing people, then we could say, “a job well done”.

    • John Williams

      He was selling it to a undercover cop

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Well, thats just the cherry on top of the stupid sundae.
        It doesnt explain how he got booted from all the local ranges.
        He probably told a range employee about his little friend and since its a small town they probably called the other ranges and warned them.

        • Flounder

          The ranges probably got annoyed that the shooter was louder than his SBR and asked him to leave.

    • PK

      I’ve been asked for stamps twice in about twenty years of going to public ranges, and both times I had to explain what they were even looking at, paperwork-wise. I haven’t been asked for anything like that for a decade.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Ive never been asked in all my years once.

        • PK

          Once was in a very busy indoor range in Lancaster OH, once was while visiting an outdoor public range just outside of Denver CO. Both had dozens of range officers, lines to get in, and so forth.

          • KestrelBike

            Lemme guess, the range near Denver was Cherry Creek State Park (Family Shooting Center). They’re pretty hardcore when it comes to ROs, and they kinda need to be because some very derp people go there to play with the deagle/S&W500 they just bought off armslist.

          • PK

            Good guess! If I’m remembering correctly, it was indeed Cherry Creek, and I only went there that once. That was back in 2007 and I’m sure it’s only gotten worse since.

          • KestrelBike

            Yeah I went in 2012, woof never again haha.

          • will ford

            You mean lots of “RANGE NAZI’S”?

          • KestrelBike

            Honestly they really needed to be. The firing booths/benches were wood, and there were plenty of bullet holes in them where people derp’d NDs. It was nice to see that people really did bring their whole families with them to shoot, but good grief there was no clue as to safe-handling of weapons/etiquette. It was an incredibly stressful job for those ROs at that particular range the day I was there.

          • will ford

            yes they do ,BUT when the range is empty and they still ride the few that are there like a bronc bucks over stupid rules. THEY ARE range nazi’s imo

          • jp2336

            Have you ever had the opportunity to RSO a range? There are a ton of people at public (hell even military qual ranges) that should not be there or be there alone. Keep in mind that an RSOs job is ensuring the range is safe and keep the liabilities as low as possible.

          • will ford

            I stopped going to PUBLIC ranges. After a while it gets aggravating at a point. That is why I joined a PRIVATE range. I know what a R. O. job is. I became a NRA certified shooter IN 1966.

          • PK

            No joke, it was pretty awful… but I missed messing with my fun guns, I was only in the area for long enough to get the .20 back by fax and have it make sense. I was there long enough that it made sense to bring the toys, and I’m glad I did, but I really thought they were about to call the cops on me. The one RO was convinced that MGs were illegal, never mind the 40mm.

          • SGT Fish

            what range in Lancaster? Im moving closer to there next month. finally getting back out of the city

          • PK

            It was inside of a gun store, I can’t recall the name, this was in the early 2000s. Big green roof on the building.

          • LGonDISQUS

            Oh man, I’ve never seen a RO. Buddies and I do casual 2/3-gun shoots on public land often. (WV)

          • PK

            I no longer shoot on ranges that busy or that open to the public If open to the public, I tend toward smaller ranges in the parks. I don’t miss having to wait in line, or having to be inside, or paying to shoot.

          • r h

            as do i when my range is “moderate” traffic i head home and come back another day. im a fan of damp drizzly cold mornings. i usually have the range to myself..
            my range also videos everything so if they even see things on video they WILL call you in and ask. ( my cousin was once called in, the video showed him trying to two gun shoot like a videogame hero. he was ALL ALONE at the range, but they were concerned he was shooting his pistols on the rifle range LOL..)

          • nicholsda

            Ohio Valley Outdoors is the old name. Ohio Valley Trading Post is a group of stores in Ohio and WV that sell firearms. Ohio Valley Trading Post, LTD is also a firearms shop. They all are owned or operated under the same company. Lancaster, OH and Parkersburg, WV have indoor ranges. Ohio Valley Trading and Ohio Valley Trading & Exchange are pawn shops. The OVTP Lancaster store also has a pawn shop. Makes it confusing but a lot of stores use the Ohio Valley part for part of their name.

          • PK

            I recall that from when I lived in Lancaster for a time. It was fairly amusing to see as part of so many names… in any case, there was absolutely a pawn shop as part of the store, as I bought many oddball guns during that time.

          • nicholsda

            Yep, pawn shop is in the building to the left of the main building. Now we bypass Lancaster on the way to Columbus on US-33. Same way with Nelsonville and most of the cities on that route. OVTP/Lancaster is on the old US highway.

    • Erik DeShane

      i definitely have…You must not have been around the head shed much or NFA items.

    • supergun

      You are right. More to this than reported.

    • jp2336

      I have been asked and witnessed it on numerous ranges across the country and take zero issue with it. It’s their house afterall, right? An RSO worth their salt SHOULD always be on the lookout and verify paperwork as a self check for the range/business. Same should go for the individual(s) as a courtesy to the RSO, just ask them if they want to see it ahead of time. After that a relationship can be established and as I have experienced they just want to see/know if the toy you brought is new. Public ranges dont want the hassle associated with unregistered items. Everyone is on the same “team”, the vast majority are fine w/it, but sadly some people going to ranges feel the need to get pissy when asked for their paperwork. Said paperwork should always accompany each item anyways in paper or electronic form i.e. pics on your phone.

    • Banjo

      I waited 282 days to get my form 1 back from the ATF for my SBR. On the very first
      trip to the range – a military range no less – I was asked by the third
      person if it was legal, to which I did not have to hee-haw or lie
      about. I agree, he must have been blabbing and proclaiming at the same time that he knew it was illegal! :/

  • mosinman

    this just shows how stupid this law is. why do we put with this?

    • Swarf

      Because the Democrats, with whom I actually agree on many issues, are dead wrong on guns, and ignorant about them to boot, yet they keep passing gun laws.

      Edit to add: not that the Republicans are any better. Their motives are just different. e.g. Ronald Reagan’s pants pissing fear of open carry Black Panthers.

      It’s not politics if I say everybody sucks, right?

      • PK

        Hear, hear. On firearms, all major players in the USA are utter garbage and have been for a long time now.

        I’ll change my opinion when someone with real political power reads the Second Amendment at a press conference and states that it’s already clear and explicit and zero laws are needed on top of that.

      • mosinman

        yes this isn’t really a left vs right issue as it is more of a libertarian vs authoritarian issue. i just don’t understand why we collectively let such asinine laws stand and why the NRA and other groups just twiddle their thumbs

        • iksnilol

          Because if the NFA and Hughes Amendment were repealed nationwide today, then the NRA wouldn’t have much of a job left. Now would they ?

          • Lowe0

            Sure there would. Form a new Firearms and Explosives Division in Justice to handle 4473s and NICS, and move BAT back into Treasury to administer taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and take over cannabis border enforcement from DEA. (The states themselves can then treat cannabis as a controlled substance it taxable item, and take care of their own enforcement thereof.)

            Edit: oops. Read ATF instead of NRA.

          • mosinman

            true… although they could accept the role of watchdog to prevent such things from coming back. but that wouldn’t be as profitable

  • Johnsmyname

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  • MrBrassporkchop

    There was a boom in sales the past few years I’m not surprised noobs would fall into this trap with how dumb the laws are.

    That being said, he deserved it since he knew it was illegal since he’s been banned from ranges because if it.

    All he had to do was take the upper off and sell them separately. The guys an idiot.

  • ActionPhysicalMan

    Maybe put this article in the “In case you are a moron” section. The guy in the story certainly is.

  • gendar

    Good, one more thug off the streets.

    • john huscio

      Sarcasm? In 2017, i cant tell anymore….

  • john huscio

    Take a stock off a lower, put a shorty upper on it and now its a pistol……..put the stock back on and its an illegal sbr…

    Federal voodoo magic.

    • Echo5Charlie

      Unless that AR lower started life as a pistol, you’d be breaking the law with your analogy

      • john huscio

        Which in itself proves my point.

        Ok, pistol lower + short upper = ok

        “Pistol” upper + rifle lower = prison

        All still federal voodoo.

      • BaconLovingInfidel

        Or if it’s a built lower which has never been built into anything. Then you can just drop the stock and add any upper.

        • Echo5Charlie

          I think you mean virgin lower.

          • BaconLovingInfidel

            Yes, I think so. I thought that was the same as a stripped lower, but I never thought about it before.

            Still new to this AR thing, trying to build a pistol this month.

  • SP mclaughlin

    Did his dog make it?

    • Flounder

      It was deaf and blind after seeing the dude shoot the sbr too much. It stayed in bed during the sting.

      • Cymond

        In others words, No, the dog didn’t make it.

  • Rob

    It’s splitting hairs, I suppose, but lost in the breathless reporting of these types of cases in the MSM, is the fact that these types of firearms are NOT illegal. His crime was illegal possession. He committed a crime (according to the current law) by not properly registering the firearm, passing a background check, and paying a tax. Anti-gun types love to equivocate terms in there reporting, but there is actually an important difference between an illegal firearm and an illegally-possessed firearm.

    • Gun Fu Guru

      This firearm was illegal. MSM is accurate in this case.

      Unregistered SBR = contraband

      • Rob

        I see your point, and I suppose their description is technically accurate.

        But I feel that the report gives the impression that SBR = contraband, which is not the case. It’s a fine point, but I think many people who are not gun-types would read this report and get the impression that any SBR is illegal.

        • Gun Fu Guru

          Similar to how all machine guns in civilian possession are illegal, eh?

  • Some Rabbit

    Never understood the point of the SBR rule. Clearly the gun isn’t easily concealable, nor does it’s short barrel and shoulder stock make it any more lethal than a standard rifle. And what was the ATF really enforcing if not tax revenue? Meanwhile drug dealing gangs run rampant armed to the teeth in every major city.

    • Flounder

      It’s from the 1920s dude… It is not relevant to today. Nor was it a good solution then. It was something extra to prosecute gangsters and robbers for.

    • Alex Agius

      The “point” was to give all the prohibition agents jobs after alcohol was released

    • Gun Fu Guru

      “Clearly the gun isn’t easily concealable”
      I call BS on that point. Clyde Barrow hid a sawed-off BAR inside his suit jacket. The trick is to not leave the magazine in the magwell so you can keep a smaller profile.

      And there plenty of alternatives to think about. For example, UZIs with stocks are SBRs. In the ’80s, a Secret Service agent hid an UZI in a briefcase off body. (Granted, his was a machinegun because of the happy switch.)

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a6c3b696fd09b3ad196dc8f4925f3dd5326d9dfcdb5ba6ee67da29f5e70bde4.jpg

    • RocketScientist

      It’s one of the more ridiculous aspects of NFA. NFA originally was going to include handguns along with MGs, etc. In that context, with no barrel length restrictions on shotguns/rifles, you could easily have a similar situation to what he have now with “pistol” ARs, but in reverse. Can’t get an easily concealable handgun, because they’re heavily-restricted NFA items. But you COULD get a “rifle” or “shotgun” and cut the barrel and stock down so they’re not much bigger than a pistol, and just use that for your nefarious criminal endeavors. So they included minimum barrel lengths for shotguns and rifles. Then there was huge public push-back against the inclusion of handguns under the NFA, and that part was removed. However, the minimum barrel length requirements on shotguns and rifles, originally put in to keep people from getting around the handgun prohibition (that was now no longer included) stayed. Because Gov’t.

      • iksnilol

        I often say it, but it gets misunderstood equally often: Barrel length restrictions make sense for the government if pistols are banned/controlled. Otherwise, why not just get a pistol if you need/want a concealable weapon?

        • DW

          Because criminals also read ballistic by the inch.

          • David Silverstein

            You win the internet. That’s hysterical.

    • Paul Rain

      What’s the point of the first turn of the thumbscrew? Sets a precedent.

      • milesfortis

        “sets a precedent”?

        This isn’t the first guy who ever got tagged for in flagrante delicto NFA violations.

        • Paul Rain

          True, if you completely miss the point.

          However, the NFA _was_ the first (real) infringement on gun rights (for people the founders intended to be citizens, that irrelevant 19th century stuff doesn’t count). Certainly the first at the federal level.

          • milesfortis

            Nothing professional, but attempting to make a point – especially on the webz – is best done directly with a sharply pointed instrument.

            Subtlety online rarely works as planned.

          • Paul Rain

            Fair call.

            I guess my point would be- read ‘Unintended Consequences’, and follow it like you’re Timothy McVeigh and it’s your ‘Turner Diaries’*.

            * In case you’re not very sharp, or are not familiar with the Turner Diaries and McVeigh, he didn’t really follow it very closely, and he was by no means a ‘neo Nazi’. Just a regular joe who didn’t like the feeling he had when he was picking off regular Iraqi joes at 2km away who couldn’t retaliate if they wanted to, and realised that the US government was doing the same thing to his folks back home.

          • milesfortis

            Apropos of nothing in particular, the following facts, which have absolutely nothing to do with each other, or the subject of the article, should be noted.

            I read the Turner Diaries within a year or two after it’s second edition was published. Racist, neo-nazi drivel. Useless for anything other than masturbatory fantasy.

            My first business transaction with John Ross was in 1988. I was probably one of the first 100 people to read UC. Liked it.

            While I didn’t serve in any unit even closely associated with McVeigh, those I later ran across who did happen to have ‘professional contact’ with him described him as an antisocial delusional loser. And furthermore, he was incompetent.

            But to your point; You do understand that TTD and UC are fiction and not technical manuals, right?

  • Michael W

    Tries to sell $400 AR15, instead spends $20k plus in lawyer fees and/or fines and the potential of multiple years in a federal prison, he not so smart.

    BTW, what range checks for stamps?

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      Several of them in the Tampa area do.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        That’s as intrusive as having to deal with the ATF in the first place; it’s no one’s business to know what I shoot. The guys at my range generally ask what we shoot but don’t say “you can’t shoot here” if we don’t tell them. They like knowing what people are buying so they can stock it.

      • Paul Rain

        Geez. I could understand asking people to ‘please explain’ if they start bump firing, but the only relevance to the range operator of a shorter-barreled rifle is that it’ll do less damage to their backstops.

    • Lowe0

      My usual range checks paperwork on SBRs and suppressors. I’ve seen the RO ask, not just posted as a policy for CYA.

  • USMC03Vet

    The guy is a convicted felon. They are throwing the book at him as they should.

    • Flounder

      I don’t see that anywhere in the article?

      • PK

        It’s on arf, there was a thread about this and other articles/sources were posted. The main issue is felon in possession, and how those charges don’t tend to stick so they hit him with this.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      I didnt see that in the post but if true then yeah, lock him up.
      Idiots like this in the news make us all look bad unfortunately.

    • David Silverstein

      Wait, you skipped a step. Why should convicted felons, who have completed their sentences, have less rights than the rest of us?

      • USMC03Vet

        That is the law? Why are you trying to excuse criminal behavior and the usurping of law and order so you can arm dangerous people?

        • David Silverstein

          Wow. You are clearly a bootlicker and wrong on so many points.

          1. A law simply being the law is not sufficient justification for said law. That’s like saying that murder is against the law for no reason other than that a law was passed. I asked why a convicted felon (who has served his sentence) should be denied rights. “Because it’s the law” is not sufficient reason.

          2. You assume that a prohibited person is synonymous with a dangerous person. There are countless people with non-violent felony records.

          3. If a person is a danger to society, he is a danger with or without a gun and, thus, should still be incarcerated.

          4. A person’s criminal past does not change his inherent right to defend his life, even with lethal force. He should be allowed access to the tools necessary to do so. (2nd amendment violation)

          5. This (unlawful) revocation of rights can happen without a trial. If someone files a restraining order against you, you don’t have the right to fight it in court. You are just ordered by the court to not contact that person or go near him/her. But you still become a prohibited person, even if you did nothing wrong in the first place. It’s someone else’s word against nothing; you don’t get to defend yourself in court. (6th amendment violation)

          6. If a person has fulfilled his court-ordered sentence, further punishing him is illegal. (Supreme Court, Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S.)

          • nicholsda

            #4 is not violated but it is restricted. He may still defend his self with a weapon that goes bang. It just has to be a black powder muzzle loader. Agree with you mostly on #5 but you can fight them in court.

          • David Silverstein

            Yes, you can go to court to fight a restraining order, but it’s in force until you are successful, making you a prohibited person in the meantime. If you own guns during this period, it also makes you guilty of a felony gun possession charge (although it is admittedly unlikely that you would be charged or convicted of this).

          • USMC03Vet

            haha “bootlicker”.
            Watch out, muh ATF coworkers gonna come and get ya for 922r compliance violations!!!!

          • David Silverstein

            What violations? 922r IS the violation. It’s a clear violation of the second amendment.

      • zipper

        You’re being too generalized. “Convicted felons” covers a lot of ground. Here in FL, if you get caught driving with a suspended license, it’s a felony! Should that preclude that person from owning firearms, or voting? Not in my mind.
        Conversely, you have violent criminals with a certain mind-set(I knew one) who should NEVER have the right to own a gun restored.

        • David Silverstein

          Please reread my comment. I think you misunderstood. I’m asking USMC03Vet why HE THINKS convicted felons should automatically lose their rights.

  • PeterK

    Is it a dumb law? Yes. Is this guy even dumber? Debatable. ;p

  • Rock or Something

    Ironically, he could have just swapped out the stock for any litany of arm braces or similar “not-a-stock” products and poof, not illegal to possess anymore.

    • Friend

      But no because it’s a rifle lower. That only works on a so-called “pistol” lower… lower could never have been a “rifle” originally.

      Does this make sense? Nope.

      Is it true? Unfortunately.

  • PK

    “To think that a mere pistol buffer tube could have made the difference
    between this fellow being charged with a felony and having a successful
    purchase”

    Well… no. He was also a felon and unable to legally own firearms.

    • Paul Rain

      Eh, I don’t know. He doesn’t have any arrests that confirm he’s a danger to regular citizens.

      The drug charge isn’t great, but it sounds like just regular possession for the purposes of being a druggie piece of crap. Then more drug related stuff, which is not surprising.

      And the domestic assault? Yeah, that mugshot’s online. Looks more like ‘mutual combat’ than ‘wife beating’ to me.

      • BaconLovingInfidel

        Sounds like an all around winner. Deserves a Free Mumia type campaign.

    • J Jac

      I see arrest records but no record of an actual conviction.

      Cases, especially drug and domestic can be disposed of in ways which end with the case being dismissed with no conviction entered on the record.

      It’s entirely possible that the gentleman participated in what’s known as “diversion” programs which, upon successful conclusion, do not create a prohibited person. Such programs can include things like probation, fees, fines, and other terms. Revocation of such a program doesn’t automatically happen for an alleged violation of probation which.. he has.

      Arrest record =/= Conviction

      And that’s something the peanut gallery on BARFCOM tend to ignore.

      Unfortunately, my career would be in jeopardy if I pulled this gent up in NCIC to see if he had any actual convictions without a valid reason.

      I will say that it’s also very insulting to the responding and booking officers to make such an assumption. The first thing that pops on a DL check is Prohibited status and convictions in an interaction with an individual.

      If he was actually a prohibited person you’d see a laundry list of charges and not just a lone NFA charge.

    • r h

      its this stuff that folks forget. people who wont abide by ANY law.. really arent impressed with new ones.. this guy got what he deserved. NOT for having a harmless SBR but for being a loser who has no common sense.

  • Cal S.

    True story, I ran across an firearms trainer/FFL at a gun show three weeks ago that was selling an SBR as a pistol without paperwork. I recognized it right away as a homemade Hera Arms CQR with the stock, foregrip, and the whole 9 yards that made it look and hold like a P90. I picked it up and was handling it, shouldered it and everything.

    The guy came over to talk shop and I said “This is a nice little SBR you’ve got here”.
    He looks at me and says, with all sincerity, “That’s not an SBR, it’s a pistol.” I correct him by pointing out that the Hera Arms stock is, in fact, a stock and not a brace (instantly regretting that I’d actually handled the darn thing). His response, I wish I was joking was “Yeah, but we’ll let it go as a pistol”. He then goes into this stupid explanation about how it’s a pistol because of the barrel length, and how the Mossberg Shockwave is an NFA shotgun that doesn’t require paperwork, and how somehow the entire NFA went *poof* because the ATF clarified their position on the pistol brace. He simply wouldn’t listen to my interjections about how the ATF is less interested about what he calls something than what it is, and how he, his armorer that put it together, and the poor soul that bought it would be charged with a felony.

    My father, being the wiser one, gently led me away before I could throw in that last bit, but I was fit to be tied. As another instructor, I couldn’t believe that idiot’s ignorance,
    especially since he might be telling other people that. Really should have reported him to the organizers, but I’m one that hopes he would have gone home and actually looked it up rather than get him charged with a felony. I will next time I go, if it’s still there. Not because I’m vindictive, but because he could send someone else to jail for his negligence.

    • PK

      You can lead a horse to water…

      For what it’s worth, you did the right thing by just walking away. You haven’t been hired by the citizens of the USA to enforce Federal gun laws, so leave it be. He could indeed be getting multiple people in trouble, but again, that’s not your job to worry about.

      Mentioning it to the show organizer in a “hey this could get someone in trouble” way, that’s fine. Calling the law or similar would be overkill.

    • feetpiece _

      My favorite was an LGS having an unmarked SBR on the counter for display.

    • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

      Except a shockwave isn’t actually a shotgun. It’s a title 1 “other” firearm that happens to be chambered in 12ga with a smooth bore.

      That’s one of the parts that makes it legal.

      • Cal S.

        Right? I corrected him on the spot saying, “No, it’s a ‘firearm’.” At that point I don’t think he caught that I was referring to a legal definition.

    • Cymond

      I once contacted a seller on GunBroker who was selling custom “Charger pistols” built on standard 10/22 receivers. I was concerned he didn’t understand. Turns out that he knew and didn’t care. I don’t care what someone does on their own, but selling them as legal pistols puts others in danger without their knowledge/consent. I consider that fraudulent. I would have reported him, but someone beat me to it. He later reposted all the builds using legal receivers.

      • Squirrel

        An example of how ridiculous the firearms laws can be. I once bought an T/C Encore rifle, thinking that I could convert it back and forth from rifle to pistol. After I found out that I could only go from pistol to rifle, I had to sell that receiver to a gunshop (at a loss) and buy the exact same style of frame as a pistol. I felt a little concerned and sold off all of the rifle bits and just kept it as a pistol. The whole thing was just nuts

        • Cymond

          I don’t know when that was, but FWIW nowadays, all Contenders are now initially built as handguns, and ATF 2011-4 clarifies that a handgun can be temporarily “reconfigured” as a rifle, and then returned to handgun form.

    • Gun Fu Guru

      I’m the type of asshøle who would call the police on him just to prove my point.
      After such a display of blatant idiocy, I’d figure coloring books are more his speed.

      • nicholsda

        That would be me if it was like the idiot on GB who was selling a M2 Carbine with the Serial Number ground off. Let the person know and a week later it was still up. The seller likely got a visit as a week after that, the ad was taken down before it was to expire. Being an idiot has consequences. That is what happened in this story’s case.

  • Ark

    He knew the law, was willfully breaking the law, voluntarily announced to the world that he was breaking the law, and got banned from several ranges for breaking the law. Enforcing NFA stuff is by and large a waste of time, IMO, but this guy went out of his way to make it as easy as possible.

  • The Punisher

    Reading these comments and it becomes clear why the NFA and other stupid ridiculousness will never, ever be repealed. Everybody not only is truly scared of the jack booted thugs, but they call out as stupid anyone who has the temerity to stand up to the tyranny.

    Good thing none of you were born when the Boston Tea Party happened. Half of you guys would’ve called the Redcoats yourselves and the other half would’ve laughed and called the participants stupid for daring to break the King’s “laws”.

    • Swarf

      Standing up to tyranny?

      Yes, let’s make this convicted felon and suspected halfwit a martyr and the new spokesman for the cause of firearms freedom.

      Florida Man: he’s not the idiot/hero we wanted, but he’s the idiot/hero we need!

      • The Punisher

        LOL, well when the State can arbitrarily decide what makes one a “felon” that doesn’t hold much weight. In the past if anyone caught with Whiskey would’ve been labeled a “felon” by the State. So because of that you now can’t defend yourself with a firearm? That precludes ones 2nd amendment rights? Remember the State doesn’t define or enumerate rights, it merely needs to be restrained in NOT infringing on them.

        So if this guy is a “felon” because he was caught with an amount of some substance that is labeled as contraband, then I find no basis or warrant for taking away any of his rights.

        If the man was convicted of murder, assault, rape, theft or some other grievous crime then the question must be asked: Should this person be in civil society? If the answer is ‘no’ then he either needs to be incarcerated for life or put to death.

        But if the State deemed his punishment to be 7 years or whatever and he is now free then I see no reason not to restore all of his rights. Does an “ex-con” not have the freedom of speech? Does he not have the freedom of religion? If he has those things then he should also have all of his other rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

        • Bill

          It isn’t the “state,” its the legislature.

          • The Punisher

            State as in .gov as in Nation State vis a vis government.

        • Dakota Raduenz

          Look up George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion.

          The Revolution was about a lack of representation. Once you can send your choice to make the laws, you live with it or send someone better.

          • The Punisher

            Oh I’m well acquainted with the Whiskey Rebellion.

            I’m assuming that since we live in a democratic republic and you’re saying that if we have “bad laws” then we either live with it or send in better representatives that the same should’ve held true for the American Revolutionaries no?

            But you say, they had no representatives!

            True, but Westminster (the Parliament) claimed to have Sovereignty over them, and since they were British Colonies logical arguments is, as you say, that they should have just lived with it until such time as their government could be changed. After all, Ben Franklin was able to persuade Parliament somewhat…he was able to get them to drop the Stamp Act tax. But by the time he was sailing back to the colonies the revolution had already begun despite his peaceful political efforts.

            If we are to “shut up and obey” now, then we must at least admit that our Founding Fathers were terrorist rebels who illegally broke away from England when they had no right…after all, weren’t the Southern Confederates viewed the same way? Much like the Whiskey Rebels and Shay’s Rebels.

            Can we at least have intellectual honesty then?

    • BaconLovingInfidel

      “Everybody not only is truly scared of the jack booted thugs, but they call out as stupid anyone who has the temerity to stand up to the tyranny.”

      Ridiculous. He wasn’t standing up to tyranny. Dollars to donuts, he couldn’t spell tyranny if you spotted him the vowels.

      He was just an idiot who got burned by the man because he doesn’t have enough neurons firing inside his thick skull.

      Hopefully, he doesn’t get raped too often, but I’m pretty sure he’s got cell b!+c# status in his future.

      • The Punisher

        One, I don’t know the guy, I haven’t read anything about the man. That’s not the point.

        The point is: The State says if your gun has a barrel less than 16″ we’re going to use force of law to incarcerate you and take your money. This guy, IQ not withstanding, had the temerity to stand up to that ridiculousness and here we are sitting here berating him, calling him names, hoping he gets anally raped in prison, etc.

        This kind of attitude and behavior is why we have the government we have. And unfortunately it’s definitely the government we deserve because nobody has the wherewithall to actually understand that if the 80+ million gunowners were to all collectively give the ATF the middle finger on the NFA or whatever then what would their recourse be? Likwise if a large number of people stopped paying their taxes what kind of change would that make almost instantly?

        But no, by all means, let’s just vote in the next election and hope “our guy” gets in and changes everything. Yeah…let’s keep doing that, that’ll work.

        • Karmen

          Punisher is dropping atomic bombs of truth on all you statist boot lickers.

        • Gun Fu Guru

          “The State says if your gun has a barrel less than 16″ we’re going to use force of law to incarcerate you and take your money.”
          The state doesn’t ban barrels under 16″. You can have pistols with those barrels. That’s half of why people are calling this guy stupid. The other half is because he is a convicted felon who sold the SBR to an undercover cop and acknowledged that the gun wasn’t registered.

          • The Punisher

            Still can’t see the forest for the trees.

            The state does ban short barrels and even by your own admission. They have to use a fiction called an “SBR” to distinguish from a “pistol” even though the only difference is the piece of plastic/wood/metal you put on the back of the object.

            The fact that he was a convicted felon makes no difference to me.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            What I said: “The state doesn’t ban barrels under 16″.”
            What you said: “The state does ban short barrels and even by your own admission.”

            Are you high?

          • The Punisher

            You’re being completely pedantic and you’re cherry picking parts of my post and using them out of context. It’s a classic tactic.

            I said: “The State says if your gun has a barrel less than 16″ we’re going to use force of law to incarcerate you and take your money.”

            I would hope anyone can clearly see that this is a generally true statement.

            If I must spell it out that means that if, as an example I have a “gun” e.g. AR15 so specifically a “rifle” or perhaps “carbine” and it has a barrel less than 16″ – such as in this case – then yes if you don’t have permission, as in a Tax Stamp for an “SBR” then you will be incarcerated and fined, again as we see in this case of this individual in Florida.

            I said: “The state does ban short barrels and even by your own admission. They have to use a fiction called an “SBR” to distinguish from a “pistol” even though the only difference is the piece of plastic/wood/metal you put on the back of the object.”

            Again, if I must spell it out for you, I’m clearly communicating that unless you’ve configured your “gun” into a fictitious configuration such as a “pistol” or you’ve properly gained permission from the State to have it in a “SBR” configuration then yes the possessing and owning of a “gun” with a barrel length less than 16″ is effectively banned – meaning to own or possess it is to own contraband.

            Who’s high here?

          • Gun Fu Guru

            “You’re being completely pedantic and you’re cherry picking parts of my post and using them out of context. It’s a classic tactic.”
            #1. The law is very pedantic.
            #2. I took nothing out of context. If it was out of context it’s because you didn’t supply the context.

            “I would hope anyone can clearly see that this is a generally true statement.”
            Your statement isn’t “generally true.” It’s patently false. The law allows an option to have a weapon with a barrel under 16″ without a tax stamp: own a pistol. You acknowledge this at the end and contradict yourself.

            “fictitious configuration “
            Arbitrary? Yes. Fictitious? No.

          • The Punisher

            It is a generally true statement. Look at any retailer or manufacturer of rifles or carbines in this country and what do you see? They’re all 16″ or longer because to have a rifle or carbine with a barrel shorter than 16″ is forbidden. I do not understand why you are picking this nit.

            And yes the configuration is as fictitious as it is arbitrary. Ask any lay person – someone who isn’t generally aware of the “pistol” and “SBR” nonsense – what that AR with the short barrel is and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that while they may classify it as any number of things, the words “pistol” will not come to mind at all because it is obviously not a pistol. If you don’t agree with my definition or use of fictitious fine, we can then agree on arbitrary or capricious.

            But my right, being what it is, and the fact that it shall not be infringed, means that I should be able to own, keep and bear any sort of weapon I desire for self-defense regardless of any other trait or configuration. So the “law” in this case is not a law of any consequence – there is no victim. It is merely the whim of a politician somewhere who likes to ban things. It should not be tolerated. If your right can be defined away by a whim or majority – it doesn’t matter – then it’s not really a right.

            And seeing the various responses here it’s plainly obvious that people do not consider their right to keep and bear arms an actual right. They are content to see it as a permission that can be licensed and restricted in various ways depending on the direction that the political or cultural winds are blowing. Furthermore they’re also fine with happily obliging illegal infringements on their rights in order to avoid being coerced by force into obedience.

            “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” – Patrick Henry

          • The Punisher

            Oh,OK, my bad. So let me provide the context then.

            My argument and your argument can be summed up thus:

            I say:

            Generally speaking, people can’t own guns because they’ll get attacked and incarcerated by the State.

            That’s bad because: Rights. Liberty. You know, important stuff.

            So we really shouldn’t belittle people because they were just exercising their natural, God given rights. In fact we should all stand up and let it be known that we won’t tolerate our rights being trampled in this manner.

            Then you say:

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            So, generally speaking, people can own guns.

            But the law provides that:

            People cannot own guns with a barrel that is over X inches long without permission and payment of a tax. Oh and BTW people can’t do whatever they want with their property if it’s classed as an SBR (which we’ve arbitrarily but not fictionally called this thing), they must first notify the State if they are going to be moving that property anywhere else…need more permission.

            Furthermore people cannot own guns that fire in an automatic manner unless more fees are paid and more permission be granted.

            Also people cannot put suppressors on their guns because the State has termed that part as a “firearm” so it is the equivalent of a gun. You must pay further taxes and gain more permission.

            You may not also carry a pistol concealed on your person without getting permission and paying more taxes.

            Depending on your further jurisdiction,

            You may not carry a gun openly in public.

            You may not own a gun that has certain features, such as stocks, grips, flash suppressors, etc.

            You may not own a gun that has a detachable magazine.

            You may not own a gun that has a magazine that holds more than X rounds.

            You many not own a gun that fires in a semi-automatic manner.

            You may not own a gun that is a pistol.

            I could go on, there are many such provisions in the various laws…

            I would reply:

            So generally speaking people cannot own guns – i.e. you must get lots of permissions and pay lots of taxes/fees or face stiff fines/penalties and/or jail time.

            And then you would say:

            No, that’s patently false. The law allows us to own guns and provides avenues to own virtually anything. So clearly anyone wanting to exercise their natural and God given rights in any manner not proscribed by the law is a felon and a fool worthy to be prosecuted and scorned.

            Does that about sum it up?

          • DwnRange

            ACTUALLY, one can LEGALLY own rifles with barrel lengths less than 16 inches – one just simply has to attach the muzzle device PERMANENTLY to that barrel.

            A 14.5″ barreled M4 rifle is perfectly legal with a permanently attached Vortex G6 FS (or similar length FS) and it’s also around 5/8″ shorter than a 16″ bbl’d AR with the A2 FS installed.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            Barrel with permanently attached muzzle device = barrel

    • gunsandrockets

      Yeah, let’s just ignore the “long train of abuses” the Patriots put up with before declaring Independence.

      Your analogy needs a lot more work.

      • The Punisher

        1. We are taxed over 50% of our income in almost all respects. Much more than what our founders rebelled against.
        2. You don’t own your property. Even if you don’t have a mortgage try not paying your “property tax” and see how long it takes for an agent of the State to come and forcibly evict you and auction of your house and land.
        3. Civil Asset Forfeiture. Any cop at any time for any reason can steal whatever they want from you under any suspicion even if you did nothing wrong. And now the burden of proof is on you to prove that you weren’t doing anything wrong and you will have to pay lawyers and fight the courts to get your money/car/property back.
        4. No Knock Raids – If a SWAT team decides that you’re house is a drug house, whether rightly or wrongly and you try to defend yourself against unknown invaders of your domicile you might as well kiss your butt goodbye because you are either dead in several seconds or will be charged with attempted murder and assaulting officers.
        5. Prohibition. Have a plant the government doesn’t like? A gun that’s too short? A soda that’s too many ounces? It’s contraband and you’d better believe that they will take it from you.
        6. TSA Want to fly somewhere? Be ready to have your genitals potentially groped and x-rayed and photographed. Any verboten items will be confiscated. Make any remarks or comments they don’t like? Disorderly conduct charges.
        7. Want to be an entrepreneur and make a better financial future for yourself? Better make sure you have all of the proper papers/licenses/permits/etc otherwise you’re in violation and your business will be shuddered and your profits potentially taken. Little kids can’t even sell lemonade.
        8. Want to educate your children how you see fit? If your child isn’t enrolled in a mandatory government approved school then you are liable to all kinds of State sanctions including possibly haven your kids taken by Child Protective Services
        9. Drive faster than an arbitrarily posted speed and a State sanctioned tax collector will come and levy a fine on you all the while disrupting traffic and making everyone less safe.
        10. Want a gun to defend yourself? Better be sure you’ve been properly licensed and State approved otherwise you’re just as much of a felon as the guy trying to rob/assault/rape your or your family.
        11. Privacy. Ha just kidding. You have none.
        12. Freedom of Religion – nope – only to be exercised according to the State. If they don’t like how you exercise your religion then you will be penalized.
        13. Freedom of Speech. Look elsewhere. If what you say is deemed “hate speech” expect to run afoul of the law. In certain places they set up a nice zone for you at least. Also – don’t post memes about CNN or they will dox you…but that’s a separate issue.
        14. Did a law enforcement officer transgress you? Too bad, you have no recourse, they have immunity.
        15. Over $600 billion budget for “defense”. All to blow up people in caves and spread “democracy” (read: empire) across the globe and generally keep people pissed off at us.

        I can go on. Do you need more?

    • Gun Fu Guru

      Boston was utterly lawless in the 1760s-70s. I wouldn’t use it as a model of patriotism that we should glorify today.

      • The Punisher

        Have you watched the news lately? If you think the US is a lawful country then…

        • Gun Fu Guru

          By comparative standards, modern Chicago looks like Sweden compared to 1760s-70s Boston. I can’t think of the last time that a riot attacked, ransacked, and destroyed a governor’s mansion.

          • The Punisher

            Equating lawfulness with people not ransacking a governor’s mansion is a false equation, at least it seems to me.

            And if you’re referring to the Stamp Act Riots of 1765 I think they’re actually pretty mild compared to Chicago or the Ferguson riots even.

            The Stamp Act Riots, in addition to destroying the governor’s mansion, also included hanging effigies of political figures. I’m not aware that there were any deaths either by murderous violence or by “collateral damage” from the rioters. But – as the riots spread – this stopped the Stamp Act. Gee, wouldn’t if be nice if we could collectively come together to prevent bad political outcomes from happening…seems like a novel idea.

            Whereas in Chicago tens to hundreds of people are wounded and killed in a week or possibly even a weekend. That’s lawlessness. These aren’t people even rebelling against a cause.

            Ferguson did have at least some fatalities and again, the reason that riot was lawless was because the ire wasn’t even directed at the institution they were rioting against. It was just used as an excuse to loot and steal and cause general mayhem. More than 25 businesses were burned down.

            The Boston riot was nothing like that.

            And at this point I don’t even think opponents of the NFA would even need to riot. Imagine how easy it would be for several hundred or several thousand people to assemble peaceably in a park or town square in various cities and towns around the country all peaceably bearing “unregistered SBRs” (*gasp*) and then make the authorities either step up and prosecute all of the offenders or choose to do nothing and prove that the law has no teeth and is worthless. If they choose to prosecute a large group of people then it also becomes a much bigger media sensation and it provides crucial airtime to explain and demonstrate to the rest of the masses the reasons for the actions.

            But this will never happen. Because people are sheep and they’d rather feed off the teat of whatever the government will allow them to have versus having true freedom. And it takes conviction which most Americans do not have. If you have to pay a tax, get a license or generally ask permission before you do something – then it’s not a right – period. And it’s clear that even though we have a Constitution and that document enumerates unalienable, natural rights that no government or institution can infringe or transgress, we can see clearly that the document might as well be toilet paper for all the good it’s done to stop the government from completely infringing on every basic right.

    • Gun Fu Guru

      Here’s a thought: why don’t you demonstrate “the temerity to stand up to the tyranny” by violating the law in a public fashion so that the government notices to the point that it can’t ignore the crime. You’ll be arrested of course, but you can show the courts why they are wrong and you are right. You can be the gallant hero we need in America.

      If you don’t, you’re a two-faced püssy who’s “truly scared of the jack booted thugs.”
      If you do, everyone on here will “laugh[] and call[ you] stupid for daring to break the King’s ‘laws'” that are pretty set-in-stone.

      It’s easy to call yourself “The Punisher” and act like you’ve got big balls when you’re online.

  • ToddB

    What sort of loud mouth idiot do you have to be to get kicked out of several ranges? I can’t remember ever being asked for paperwork on anything at a range, you sort of need to call attention to yourself to get asked. 1 range, okay all it takes is on range nazi, but several, its you. And if he was notified several times it was illegal, that’s on him. Looks like he had the idea that if he simply took off the M4 style stock, then it suddenly became a pistol. Like the ATF would be so dumb to miss that loophole. Then come to find out he is apparently a convicted felon, well duh. Plenty of felons have guns, they just are smart enough to not let anybody find out, much less try to sell them on the internet.

    • mazkact

      At my club we see SBRs and Suppressed on a regular basis, no big deal. We are a 100% NRA club, rarely ever meet up with a jack wagon. You are right, in some way this jack wagon called undue attention to himself and acted wrongly to get himself banned from several local ranges.

  • Ratcraft

    I hate SBR’s. I hate video’s on them I hate the endless drooling and lust over one with a suppressor. I have an AR pistol. It’s not even close in accuracy. “But it’s for clearing rooms” What flipping room is anyone clearing with these? Who want’s to fight about it. I’ll fight you right here.

  • uncle bobedy

    Question, can one govt agency set up a sting to catch another govt agency?

    FBI sets sting for ATF agents who use entrapment to boost positive agency PR/headlines?
    ATF counter-stings FBI who uses entrapment to manufacture terrorist plans/attacks for positive agency pr/headlines?

    Yeah this is another case of what in the muthafluck is this maroon thinking?! But also, why in the what what are we stuck with these silly laws about barrel length? 16 in barrel is okay but 15.9 is wayyyy too deadly/illegal-er! What a joke, that we must all abide by.

    • milesfortis

      Originally the barrel lengths to define a SBRs was the same as SBSs ( less than 18″).

      When Uncle began surplusing out M1 Carbines after WW2, it was discovered that some manufacturers weren’t quite as careful as they should have been with the 18″ barrel specification standard.

      The vendors screamed bloody murder and honest politicians (definition of honest politician: One who stays bought) changed the SBR barrel length.

  • Mystick

    …or it’s an unnecessary, draconian “law” that has no place in a free society.

  • HM

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

  • MadMonkey

    I dunno about you guys, but I feel way safer now.

  • Broz

    I live in PSL…this was on the local news the other night…whatta MAROON!!!

  • Stephen Paraski

    No mention of fore grip. Even with butt stock removed this would still be a short barreled rifle. Remove those 2, drop price by $20 and throw them in deal for extra $20. This guy is stupid, but how many man hours and other resource’s, like computer and automobile time went into this? When you work for G you have to account for your day and what “tool’s” you used. I bet this was not even news in Port St. Lucie.

    • Gun Fu Guru

      “No mention of fore grip”
      The angled foregrip doesn’t change its classification.

      “Even with butt stock removed this would still be a short barreled rifle.”
      Sad thing is that if he never had a stock on it or with it, it would be kosher.

      “Remove those 2, drop price by $20 and throw them in deal for extra $20.”
      Legitimate constructive intent. Similar “fixes” (notably, ticket scalping) have led to criminal convictions that were upheld by appellate courts.

      • Righteous thou are

        Funny that the most recent such ordeal where a man in Fl sold a HK sp pistol with included unattached stock had charges dropped and firearm returned.

        • Gun Fu Guru

          #1. The ATF is often seen as a boogeyman to the majority of gun owners. It rarely gets involved with petty offenders like the current FL guy or the old one you mentioned. The ATF only answered a phone call in the old case and only sent a single officer to the arrest at the new case.

          #2. The old Florida case had nothing to do with the ATF’s constructive intent but rather the state’s possession law. He was charged with a state crime that penalized “possession of the parts to readily make a SBR, SBS, or Machine Gun unless…the firearms are lawfully owned and possessed under Federal Law.” I think he was let off because the firearm was “lawfully owned and possessed under Federal Law” at the time he was arrested. The state then changed the text of the state law less than six months after the charges were dropped.

          #3. The difference between the old Florida guy and almost everyone else who gets arrested for SBR laws is that he lacked any and all intent to create an SBR. I just read through the arrest report, and the suspect told the undercover deputy three times that he had to get the tax stamp before attaching the stock.

          #4. I’m pretty certain that the stock was not returned to him. The paperwork only says that the firearm—not any accessories—were returned. (Of course, they may not have seized the stock in the first place. There is no record of that either.)

  • jerry young

    Every AR I own has a 16 inch barrel or longer but I see all the time AR’s for sell online with 10.5 inch barrels and they call them pistols, so why is this SBR illegal? was it because of the stock? I’ve never seen much use for a rifle with a short barrel at least not if you want to accurately shoot any distance, I’ve never shot my AR’s over 100 yards that’s because our range is only 100 yards but in the military I’ve shot M16’s over 400 yards accurately, I doubt you could do either with an SBR consistently at least I doubt I could.

  • D Dub

    How does a pistol buffer tube change this situation? I guess I’m ignorant of that part of the law.

    • Icon

      If the weapon had been made from a new lower, that had never been built as a rifle, the use of a pistol buffer tube would have classified it as a pistol, not an SBR.

  • Gee

    Stupid laws are still laws. That being said, I don’t have sympathy for this person. Laws are public knowledge. Furthermore, knowingly breaking the law is no excuse.

  • mrsatyre

    Thank God for the police and the ATF to protect us from short rifles instead of long pistols!

    • BraveNewWhirled

      Imagine the carnage!

  • Gun Fu Guru

    “didnt you notice all the fighting going on to overturn these ridiculous laws and the various agencies refusal to comply with the constitution”
    I wouldn’t place too much stock in Congress doing that. I’m very good friends with six senior Republican staffers on Capitol Hill. It isn’t going to change as long as the current members are in office. There was some talk of amending HPA by raising the ATF tax to $1000 so it would stay prohibitive (which was the original purpose of the tax) in an effort to entice Democrats like Joe Manchin who are in states that Trump won.

    “thats just plain old fashioned bullshit.”
    Thanks for being blunt. Most aren’t. What was at stake was the government authority. We have laws that everyone has to follow, and we have to punish people that don’t follow those laws. That’s the nature of the justice system and criminal enforcement. It works the same against speeders, drug dealers, and murderers. That is why it has to work against people that break stupid NFA laws which defy common sense. We are all cogs in a system. If one cog is out of whack, the system has problems. Until the law is abolished, it needs to be followed.

    “the beancounters who didnt get thier 50 dollar SBR fee..”
    $200. It hasn’t changed since 1934. Back then, it was about the price of a new Ford.

    • r h

      the first reply i was pointing to your comment that implies a status quo that isnt being struggled against.
      the second stands as i said it. its utter bullshit to comply with laws we all agree are wrong. this is tacit approval of the law. this is why death camps are a thing this is why incarceration of people for pot crimes are a thing.. the “just comply until one day we get to be free”. is what people who are content to be sheep believe..
      my freedom is a right i was born with. im sorry yours is a privilege.
      maybe you should get an upgrade..
      i dont SUGGEST to others to break the law. im suggesting that if no one paid any attention to it theyd bankrupt themselves trying to enforce it Prohibition ring a bell?

      50 dollars was meant as an allegory
      how does ” didnt get his 50 silver sheckles” work for you?

  • Cecil D.

    Keep this in mind folks: The NFA is a TAX measure. Nothing more. If you register your SBR, you are registering to pay the NFA tax (which is why it is called a “tax stamp”)

    Moreover, the law is a federal, not state, law. So these Florida police are now enforcing federal law, and jailing someone and ruining his life over a $200 unpaid tax.

  • BR549

    Not to besmirch the many fine agents of the BATFE who believe they are diligently helping to keep our people “safe”, but shouldn’t the focus be on those people who have ill-intent.

    Let’s say, for a moment, hypothetically, that we do run the militant muzzies outta here and wake up the brain-dead leftards enough to recognize just what a gem our Founding Fathers had created for us in the way of a Constitution; then all we would have left are Constitution-oriented citizens who actually care about this country and the others who also choose to live here. Is the BATFE going to STILL try to micromanage our firearm usage under the guise of “keeping us safe” from one another …… or will they eventually wake the fcuk up and remember WHY the 2nd Amendment was created in the first place; to keep the Congressional swamp-dwellers at bay and particularly the socially dysfunctional Rothschilds and their table crumb hoarding sycophants?

    If this clown was considered to be a threat to society, it should have been based on some history of violating other people’s rights, NOT because his toys weren’t up to code.

    But, yes, it does appear that it was his own mouth that may have gotten him in trouble.

    • Bronson

      “Is the BATFE going to STILL try to micromanage our firearm usage under the guise of “keeping us safe” from one another”

      Yes, they will. Do you honestly think that they would willingly give up power?

  • jp2336

    You would feel “threatened” if someone asked to verify you didn’t have an unregistered and thus illegal item on their business property, seriously? I would hope that it may be a wrong word choice. For a business where firearms are being utilized, to ensure that all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed it’s not asking alot. If someone puts themself in their shoes and pay their monthly insurance and I think it may be seen differently.

  • cruzo1981

    Meanwhile on the streets of Chicago and Mexican and Canadian drug/gun runners…

  • trapman

    Well, the laws are laws. Just as we firearms owners applaud law enforcement when they apprehend gun thieves and those who use firearms in the commission of a crime, but to look the other way when someone builds an “illegal” piece gives folks in the community a bad name. Yes, a lot of the laws seem arbitrary and foolish. But the penalties are steep to violators who get caught. Some of us are tempted to mount that 7″ upper we can easily get online to a lower with an M4 stock. Just don’t do it. The ballistics are awful anyway. My .02

    • Bronson

      There’s a large difference between arresting a thief and arresting someone for a rifle that is considered illegal due to arbitrary laws. In one situation, someone stole valuable property from another creating a victim. In the other, a person bought/ built a rifle and is trying to sell it to another, but is being arrested because bureaucrats decided that due to barrel length the gun should’ve been registered. As the article stated, if his buffer tube lacked a ridge with holes drilled in it he’d be fine.

      • trapman

        Bronson. You know the laws. Petty or not, if laws are broken and you’re caught, then you pay. Gradually, NFA items are being re-classified, which is great. But until then, agree with it or not, watch that barrel length like the article states.

        • Bronson

          I think that you are missing my point. The difference is that when a thief is caught, there is some sort of justice for the victim and the cops deserve praise for helping to bring that justice. When someone is caught breaking the NFA, is there a victim who the law is seeking justice for? No. The only victim created by breaking an NFA law is the federal government since they didn’t receive the $200 for their tax stamp. Since there was no victim in the crime, why should people applaud the cops?

    • Barry

      This is a victimless crime. These laws should be nullified.

  • Colonel K

    Maybe this will become the next Miller case. If so, I hope the defendant evils long enough to have his day before the SCOTUS. The whole NFA defies the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

  • Jason Adams

    Yeah the police and the ATF should find something better to do than run around busting people for a couple of inches of barrel length. Yeah I know it is illegal but we should get that law repealed and find the morons that wrote it and make sure they are never in a position to write another law like it. Next it will be magazine capacities. We need to change these laws to something sensible like live and let live.

  • Dirk Dasterdly

    He got busted because of his mouth. At the range I shoot at, guys shoot full auto M16s and nobody is checking stamps. Not a rule that a range has to “play cop” and check stamps. It is a shame this dumbass apparently knew the rules and made it known he doesn’t care. And with the ATF finally relaxing on the shouldering of braces, why risk it with an unregistered SBR. Or just pay the $200 for the stamp and do it legitly. It’s also ironic that his bail was probably higher than if he was pimpin’ or slinging crack. How do those guys bond out so quickly?

  • Broz

    After thinking about this since the story first broke, this sounds to me like an anti-gun media plot that got stung back – right in the gluteii – but it’ll be kept quiet, as you’d expect…Sounds like the dude was seriously flogging this rifle in the hopes some doofo would try to buy it and get caught in the lights of Lie Witness Nudes…

  • Barry

    I would love to get on a jury for a case like this.

  • CavScout

    Hey Miles, wrong again. He didn’t need a ‘pistol buffer tube.’ He was selling the stock with it. Intent is pretty clear. ATF says you can use a standard buffer tube. That’s not what got him. What got him is a full up illegal SBR.

  • zipper

    ATF does NOT play games concerning full-autos. Had a customer where I worked buying these on a regular basis(we were Class 3). I thought: “How can an A/C technician afford to buy this stuff?” Long story short: He was illegally reselling them on the street.
    ATF surveilled him and moved-in; busted. He’s probably still rotting in a federal pen somewhere(heard he got 30 years).

  • 1inidaho

    Whoops!

  • LilWolfy

    I feel so much safer now. Imagine the combat assault rifle death he could have sprayed into my neighborhood!

  • J.E.Walker

    Stupid, silly law… but it is the law and you’ve got to take it seriously or you risk this silly kind of result.