[slavboj]

The only thing he is actually charged with is possession of a short barreled rifle. The prosecutor's documents do not even have photographs of the portion of the firearm that would establish whether it was configured as a "rifle" - it is perfectly legal under federal law to possess an AR style pistol with a naked buffer tube or a pistol brace, without a tax stamp.

In the one photograph they do have of this firearm, they intentionally crop it so that it is not possible to evaluate.

[jvanderbot]

The suspect informed a confidential source that he had a 10" barrel rifle. The source provided pictures of the rifle to authorities, and had seen it before several times, including going shooting with the suspect. The source provided several other points of data supporting him caching weapons and possessing a short rifle.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.56...

You might be referring to this image? Which is fairly clear, but I'm not sure how they measure barrel length here, but to my eyes it is 13" (unless the last 3 are a suppressor of some sort that isn't counted).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.56...

This is from the probable cause affidavit, which I guess is used to obtain a warrant?

[twalla]

In the eyes of the ATF, this is considered a pistol, which has no restrictions on barrel length.

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-lpuqsi1cy6/images/stencil/12...

Additionally, this is _also_ considered a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" (which are subject of much contention and confusion)

https://www.sb-tactical.com/wp-content/uploads/sbpdw-install...

The GP's complaint is that the linked photo contains insufficient context (for us, at least) to determine if the firearm in question is, from a legal standpoint, an SBR.

[Tuna-Fish]

> You might be referring to this image? Which is fairly clear,

The issue is that it is entirely legal to have an AR-15 configured as a pistol with a very short barrel, without any tax stamps. That is, not having a stock attached to it. The image provided does not prove that he has a short-barreled rifle, because you cannot see whether it has a stock.

[jvanderbot]

Oh thank you. That's a very clear distinction.

[ImPostingOnHN]

The muzzle device looks to be a flash suppressor, possibly a Noveske KX3 or something similar. Muzzle devices don't count towards barrel length, except in some cases where they're permanently attached.

That said, 13" is also a short-barreled rifle length. If this is indeed a rifle, and not an AR pistol.

[generalizations]

> You might be referring to this image? Which is fairly clear

The buffer tube extends off the rear, which has been cropped from the image.

[jvanderbot]

I understand now, thank you

[declan_roberts]

It seems to me like they busted an eccentric collector.

Men love this kind of stuff. If TNT was legal to own there would probably be a collector for it.

[llamaimperative]

What if he had ISIS flags hung around his home?

[potato3732842]

Make them communist flags, I don't care. Political signaling wouldn't change anything for me unless there was evidince he was going to engage in violence.

[llamaimperative]

I know this is easy for people to say in theory, but as mentioned elsewhere, if this materialized into an attack people would’ve retrospectively seen that as “certain” evidence of intent.

[petre]

That kind of evidence usually turns up when the suspect ends up shooting people. When it's already too late.

[rickandmortyy]

alexa play minority report lol

[franktankbank]

If TNT was legal to own I'd be buying it for my farm.

[lazide]

it is legal to own with the right permits, in most areas.

The more dense the population, the more heavily restricted in general.

[franktankbank]

There's legal and then there's needing 5 certifications, yearly renewals etc etc in order to avoid destroying your tractor for handling common nuisance on the farm.

[motorest]

> There's legal and then there's needing 5 certifications, yearly renewals etc etc in order to avoid destroying your tractor for handling common nuisance on the farm.

You're grossly representing what regulation covers or means.

In this context, regulation means things like health and safety. Those who feel the need to buy explosives need to transport them around and store them. This means sitting in traffic next to someone carrying them in the trunk, or living next to someone sitting on a supply. Society is fine with you blowing up your tractor, but not killing your neighbors, employees, or any passer-by due to your gross irresponsibility. Consequently, if you really want to buy explosives then you must learn and prove that you know how to safely handle them.

Do you think that is too much to ask?

[defrost]

The health and safety aspects of routine handling of TNT have more to do with the carcinogenic possibilities and absolute risk of anemia and abnormal liver function if not treated as a toxin.

As an explosive it's relatively stable .. but those health risks are exactly why the regulations around it are strict and why the "bomb girls" in WWII factories turned yellow and died young.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Girls

[lazide]

i agree, which is why it’s harder to run across now. Notably, it’s about the same amount of paperwork or less than owning guns in most European countries.

[fasa99]

A lot of regulations are a mess. As I understand it, agriculture drones full of fertilizer are beginning to be used throughout, makes sense. And tractors run on diesel since forever. So add diesel to the fertilizer drone now you have a viable powerful weapon... unregulated. I'm sure tens of thousands of farmers have this in their pocket right now, just not their intent. Same with firearms. A pea shooter .22, highly regulated, felony charges everywhere. Now, a 50 caliber airgun? No gunpowder, not a firearm. They even make automatic airguns. Arguably with a large air supply and large ammo clip, and airgun could trounce some automatics, primarily because their barrels won't overheat, they might overcool though because physics of expanding gasses. And yet the humble .22 is the highly regulated one.

Some governments and regulators attempt to enumerate every possible conceivable bad thing and outlaw it. Problem is it's not enumerable, there will always be dozens of missed loopholes, which the regulations will steer people into. Parallels the warping and skewing of trying to fix an economy through proclamation versus distributed capitalism.

[motorest]

> So add diesel to the fertilizer drone now you have a viable powerful weapon... unregulated.

You're talking out of ignorance. I recommend you do a cursory read of the basic applicable regulation to understand both how you are wrong and what is actually covered by regulation.

[trod1234]

The simple fact of the matter is regulators in corrupt societies believe that laws are only good if the public generally breaks them.

These societies may deceitfully claim to follow a rule of law, while objectively being rule by law.

They generally believe that if you can't use the law to coerce people to some form of arbitrary action after-the-fact through blackmail, the law is useless, and they glory in their power and control of others (privately).

This is why they write law ambiguously enough so it can apply to just about anything, and twist it later just like how it is written in Animal Farm.

Safety is just one of many propaganda narratives used, its all for the benefit of society where everyone is equal, some people in such societies are more equal than others.

Corruption is generally not done by the brightest, it often neglects rational principles for long-term survivability. The problem is these people become delusional warping things until collapse under a de-facto state of non-market socialism drives ecological overshoot into a great dying, if no other crises takes them first.

The chancellor will have his butter while everyone else starves, right up until he can't.

You can't have capitalism under a money printing fiat regime, where the majority of the market cooperates. Economic calculation requires independent adversarial decision-making, and for production in the economy to continue, in general, it requires producers and consumers to make more than enough to cover costs (in purchasing power, disconnected from currency debasement), a profit.

Fractional reserve issued debt, with no fractional reserve (0%) is money printing, its been that way since 2020. Basel III uses valuation as a capital reserve, so when valuations based in fiat change suddenly to the negative, the few banks left can collapse without warning. Value has credibly been shown to be subjective, it changes for every person, so you have to ask who decides the value. The same people issuing the debt as a reserve get to decide, which is a recipe for delusion, and chaotic collapse.

A conflict of interest like this never results in fraud /s...

Government has long been trying to make the public helplessly dependent on them so that no matter what they do (even if they break oaths and the constitution), they'll still retain power through a corruption by dependency. Its sad that such evil blind people have been allowed to get into these positions of power.

Survival will in the near future come down to whether or not we can oust such people from those positions or if people will complacently just follow them to their deaths believing lies.

Lies of omission, even unknowingly and without intent, are still lies, and result in the same destructive outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2nb4x9BiQY

[tw04]

I guess what is it you're trying to imply? Because I find it EXTREMELY unlikely the FBI agents in question don't know what qualifies as an SBR vs. a pistol. Furthermore, even if he does have a naked buffer tube, if the gun was registered as a rifle at the time of purchase, it is a rifle. You cannot "convert" a rifle lower to a pistol if it was defined as a rifle when you bought it.

It also seems EXCEEDINGLY unlikely the FBI would make a giant press release before anyone verified if the rifle in question was actually violating any laws. There would be almost nothing to gain, and a LOT of egg on everyone's face if the guy walks because nobody at the FBI knew the difference between an SBR and an AR pistol.

[ty6853]

The feds recently convicted a guy by arguing a piece of metal (basically a metal business card) with a drawing of a machine gun conversion device on, as having sold machine guns.

They can literally just lie about the law and confuse the ignorant jury as they did for matt hoover. In a couple years he'll get released on appeal, who cares, they already destroyed his business and relegated his wife and childs mother to begging for money on YouTube.

[tw04]

So link to the court case and details?

When you create an account just to post in this thread endlessly defending what appears to be at minimum someone who probably shouldn’t own guns in the first place, it’s difficult to believe you’re here for anything other than stirring the pot.

Oh, I found it. He was literally selling a machine gun conversion kit and claiming it was a business card. It very clearly wasn’t. And it wasn’t a “drawing” it was the metal pieces to convert an AR to fully automatic by breaking out the pre-cut pieces with a pliers.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/atf-arrests-florida-man-s...

[ty6853]

It was not the metal pieces. It was one flat piece with a drawing of the pieces on it. And the atf followed (cut with a dremel for 40 minutes) the drawing and it didn't even work as traced, nor did they ever get their own design to do anymore than a hammer follow malfunction that a fully legal AR can do without adding parts.

The distinguishing feature between this and a metal business card is the speech on it makes ATF sad face.

[motorest]

> It was not the metal pieces. It was one flat piece with a drawing of the pieces on it.

That is the attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Even the seller was marketing their machine-gun conversion kits as AR-related devices that the ATF wished didn't existed.

The seller even posted puerile pseudo legal disclaimers such as don't use them to do anything illegal

It's baffling how these puerile arguments boil down to expecting everyone to be binded to a very specific and far-fetched literal interpretation of a specific part of the law while keeping to themselves the fact that it is actually a blatant violation that's kept as an in-joke. When their poorly-thought-through stunt blows up on their face and see the law still applies, they clutch their pearls claiming they demand law enforcement should be stupid and incompetent enough to fall for their gimmicks.

[ty6853]

You've fallen for a trick. Rather than rehash all the ways you've defamed and lied, your claims are thoroughly disproven in the appeal that will prevail [0]. He sold a metal plate with sad speech on it, that atf testified did not induce automatic fire. Unless every non-stamped ar-15 is an illegal machine gun, this card can't be.

https://www.scribd.com/document/772241091/AutoKeyCard-Case-A...

[motorest]

> The feds recently convicted a guy by arguing a piece of metal (basically a metal business card) with a drawing of a machine gun conversion device on, as having sold machine guns.

I feel you're grossly and purposely misrepresenting the case.

The case you're referring to was over unregistered machine-gun conversion devices. The guy was selling them online and was caught with over a thousand machine-gun conversion kits.

What makes this case noteworthy is the dissimulated way kits were being marketed and sold, such as bottle openers, pen holders, or business cards.

The guy also marketed his machine-gun conversion kits as an AR-related device and "the parts ATF wishes never existed".

I believe you are well-aware of this fact. Yet, you chose to misrepresent it.

[ty6853]

They were not kits, and even if you did classify them as one it would necessarily result in every ar-15 being a machine gun because the parts sold in one can do the same hammer follow malfunction without possessing or reshaping the metal card.

It's a metal business card shape with a drawing of the parts of a lightning link on it, that the state admitted didn't even function as one when dremmeled out using the blueprint. Even if you cut into the shapes, ATF could not get it to induce automatic fire. This is primarily a first amendment case and will get overturned as soon as a non-lukewarm IQ judge sees it. It's inevitable.

[motorest]

> They were not kits (...)

That's a personal assertion you're stating, and one that ignores and contrasts with all facts presented in the case.

I won't waste my time debating this.

[ty6853]

That's a hilarious criticism considering the case was about a specific statutory definition, and your personal rewording to reduce to 'kits' which apparently means a flat single piece of metal with a (wrong) blueprint on it is. In that case the anarchist cookbook is a kit since it includes flammable paper that could spark the fire of one of the designs inside, therefore also violates the NFA.

A kit is usually sold to make it easier to do something. In this case the kit makes it even harder to induce hammer follow than simply using the parts already in an ar. Some kit, lmao. It is scary speech on the same kind of metal plates that sometimes instead have business card type speech.

[jt2190]

As a legal filing, perhaps it’s important to show a picture of the weapon in a neutral way, in order to avoid an argument over the filing itself. (I’m not a lawyer just speculating.)

[wl]

They could have photographed the entire firearm from buffer tube to muzzle device in a neutral way.

[strathmeyer]

OK but what about all the dangerous explosives and the intent to murder innocent people?

[ncr100]

"Soon": Get the process going, ankle monitor strapped and movement of suspect restricted, continue the law enforcement investigation, and make additional charges if violations are identified.

[giantg2]

That's the question - why isn't he charged with those more blatant infractions. Maybe he will be, but just hasn't yet.

[ceejayoz]

That's not uncommon; Luigi Mangione was first charged with having the unpermitted handgun and fake IDs. They want enough to hold and investigate further initially; they'll have taken all the bombs.

[rustcleaner]

I have a dream... that one day we will have a DEA which only regulates purity and accuracy of dose for drugs, and an ATF which only regulates quality and accuracy for firearms. These laws do little to protect the public and they mire enthusiasts with steep and discouraging legal (and thus personal physical) risks. This sort of thinking about the role of government has to stop; it is human civilization's chief sickness.

[anon7000]

“Chief sickness” is pretty strong when there are dozens of other human problems that are considerably worse.

[bigfudge]

But drugs and firearms have very different risk profiles for other people. Perhaps it bears repeating: US lax gun laws and culture which glorifies violence leads to an order of magnitude more violent deaths than comparable countries in Europe.

[cyanydeez]

I have a well regulated militia dream.

give up guys.

[sneak]

The 2A is interpreted both popularly and legally as an individual right: it is the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

And, as I’m sure you know, the term “regulated” as written in 2A does not mean the same thing as “regulated” in terms of “government regulation”. In context, it means approximately “well-functioning” or “reliable”.

[dr_dshiv]

“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”

An individual right to participate in a well regulated militia.

[Pyxl101]

In historical context, the “militia” was everyone, every able bodied person who could participate in common defense. It wasn’t a specific organization like we’d think of today

Beyond that, the right is entirely unconnected with service in a militia. That clause at the beginning “A well-regulated Militia …” does not scope or bound what comes next; it offers one explanation for why that right is protected.

SCOTUS explained the historical meaning of these words in more detail in District of Columbia vs. Heller, including an in-depth examination of the language as part of its opinion that the right is an individual right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...

The SCOTUS decision itself is quite readable.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

Notably:

> Held:

> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[dmoy]

> In historical context

In current federal legal context, the "militia" is all men between like age 18-45, plus all people in the national guard, or something like that. That's what the US CFR says.

[Aloisius]

Are we really to believe that slave states ratified the 2nd amendment with the belief that they were giving every individual the right to keep and bear arms?

Because that seems absurd given their rather large population of slaves.

[herewulf]

Worth noting that this was a 5 vs. 4 ruling and thus reeks of politics.

[jandrewrogers]

The militia is every able-bodied person, both as a matter of history and as literally defined in US law for centuries. Furthermore, this militia is expressly recognized as "unorganized" in law i.e. separate from organized militias created by the government.

In the US, the militia is explicitly independent of the government. Even if one were to accept your narrow reading, which no court has, I don't see how it would materially change anything given that any random group of blokes without any government involvement is a militia as a matter of law.

[dr_dshiv]

It is constitutionally ok to require that certain guns can only be kept at well-regulated gun clubs.

Those clubs, or militias, could own tanks, drones, explosives.

Ie, all those things that aren’t allowed today in the hands of private owners.