Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by defaultdotxbe

  1. Wasn't the Volcanic a lever-action? Since its not semiautomatic it wouldn't need to registered regardless of magazine size I believe.
  2. Oh yeah the choice of domain names is a whole other thing that probably should have been reviewed as well
  3. Somewhat OT but who proofread that card before printing? The first item isn't even a valid URL, the Wordpress and Ning URLs shouldn't have www in front of them (Wordpress and Ning will sanitize the link so it works though) and generally using www isn't considered best practice anymore, in fact most people of my generation would call it a "Boomer thing" to use it at all.
  4. I think it has to be a Modest Proposal, because it simply couldn't work. If we made a state out of each neighborhood in DC and then passed the proposed amendments, that would set the minimum district size for the House as the population of the smallest neighborhood. I can't find population stats for individual neighborhoods, but if we take the ward with the smallest population (Ward 7, population 77,456) and assume that population is divided equally among its 31 neighborhoods that means a House representative can represent no more than about 2500 people, which would mean the House would need to have 136,000 members to ensure equal-sized districts nationwide. It would also set a similar minimum size for their proportional Senate, assuming each state has to have at least 1 Senator it would mean a 136,000-person Senate as well.
  5. The presence of a third hole (for the auto sear pin) is how the ATF differentiates a semiautomatic AR-15 from an automatic M16. (so if you drill it, you don't want to tell anyone)
  6. I believe the ATF interpretation is any use in the last 12 months makes you a current "user," after 12 months you are clear again.
  7. IIRC the first case has 4 FFLs listed, the second had about 70, assuming the third had similar numbers chances are your local FFL is not a plaintiff anyway and can't say anything but no.
  8. I would also assume a plaintiff can buy non-firearm items (such as magazines) out of state from anyone willing to sell them to you, and bring them back in state. Firearms are a different story since an out of state FFL would still have to comply with IL laws, so not being a plaintiff would mean the transfer would be barred, but they could theoretically ship to a plaintiff FFL in state for you to pick it up, again assuming you can find an FFL willing to conduct the sale in the first place.
  9. Assuming we are only talking about braced ARs. Other pistols are a different store, I believe a CZ Skorpion with a folding brace comes in at 25.5in. A Micro Draco AK would be even shorter.
  10. Don't quote me on since there was a lot of confusion when it was passed but IIRC you only need a CCR for <26in OAL. <16in barrel with >26in OAL doesn't need CCR. In any case I would hope the ATF would take a pending CCR application along with the form 1 and let it play out as long as everything is filed within 120 days.
  11. I still find it odd they demand you dispose of or alter the brace if you choose to remove it, but don't demand you dispose of or alter the short barrel if you decide to remove that instead.
  12. There are multiple interstate compacts regulating driver's license reciprocity. The full faith and credit clause is in respect to records, not licenses. It would apply to using a DL as identification in another state, but not as a license to operate a motor vehicle.
  13. Driver's licenses are example of voluntary reciprocity working the way it should, but CCW never did work that way. Whether Bruen will change that is too early to tell, we are still waiting on the cases that got GVR'd to be decided again, let alone any new cases.
  14. Form 1s regularly take longer than 88 days as it is, so clearly the time to run the background check is only a portion of that. I doubt the load the background check system will be any higher than it is now as they process any new Form 1s
  15. A few specific pistols with detachable stocks are exempted as C&R firearms, the Fiala is one of them. https://www.atf.gov/file/128116/download
  16. They haven't even deemed them illegal, the rule explicitly states braces are not banned, only certain configurations of braced pistol are deemed SBRs rather than pistols. So they want you to destroy something that is still legal, but they hope you'll be intimidated into destroying it anyway.
  17. If you convert a registered SBR to a pistol configuration its still an SBR, and still legal so long as its registered (you have to notify the ATF of any change to OAL though) At that point it will be a "weapon made from a rifle." You can petition to have it removed from the NFA registry if its in a non-NFA configuration and you don't plan to go back to an SBR, but this is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and my from understanding almost never approved.
  18. The ATF has never applied the concept of constructive possession in the manner you're stating though. There is "collection of parts" language in the NFA, but it doesn't apply to SBRs (only machine guns, suppressors, and destructive devices) And if they are applying it to SBRs (despite not having the legal authority to do so) it expands a lot farther than just the braces. Read through their worksheet, you can turn a legal braced pistol into an SBR by swapping out the optic. Are they making you destroy all your scopes too? It says I can replace the barrel with one that's 16 inches, but I don't have to destroy the short barrel? Why do they trust me not to put that back on? I think they are just trying to strong-arm people into destroying their property when they have no legal authority to do so.
  19. The rule specifically says they aren't banning braces, but also says I have to destroy my brace if I remove it from my pistol rather than registering or putting on a longer barrel? How does that make sense, why should I have to destroy something that isn't being banned?
  20. I guess it would apply to someone who had a FOID, bought a gun, and then let the FOID expire. Or someone who moved from out of state with guns and never got a FOID.
  21. I already explained my position here, basically it means the mere presence of a firearm isn't sufficient evidence for the state to deduce how it got there (which pretty much should go without saying, but here I am having to say it anyway) Plus there are plenty of ways for the firearm to be there without an intentional crime being committed: Family member had a FOID and passed away. Firearm was purchased very long ago before FOID was a thing. Person moved from out of state with the gun and never got a FOID. Give me some time and I can probably think of more As for ammo, almost any state in the union will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID
  22. Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy. The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing. Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone. My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime
  23. Very Good Point. My interpretation is you can still be convicted for not having a FOID for anything beyond simple possession inside your home, and the case was remanded because striking the entire statute was overkill
  • Create New...