Oh Shoot

According to TCA, your permit will be suspended or revoked for a 1359 violation. Again, we don't know for a fact if that has been followed through on or not in any actual conviction of a TN permit holder. ------------- "39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license. (a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder: (6) Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360" - OS

Yeah, it's a viable way to go if you're going to change to a free-float handguard that needs to cover it. Especially since so many of the ones with set screws or even bolts come loose, which ain't a worry with the existing pinned one. But leaving it visible has always seemed kinda tacky, even if well "finished". - OS

Meant to add, that a rifled shotgun slug from a smooth barrel also operates under this "knuckleball" technique too (and no, the "fins" on the slug don't impart any significant degree of spin). And though it's certainly not precise by any means, can be relatively effective and predictable at the 100 yard distance. But here you've got the dynamics of the heavy fore end weight of the slug combined with the hollowed out rear affecting the physics too. Which is all to say, dunno, but the whole idea just to get a "legal SBR" by sacrificing the accuracy of a rifled barrel seems rather absurd really, especially since an AR pistol with rifled bore outshines it by far, and can be used (again confirmed via ATF) by stabilizing from the shoulder with a brace same as with a stock. (As long as you didn't intend to do that from the gitgo, and all that, eh? ) - OS

The anomaly is called ASASSN-15lh, so just search for that if you want real info. From Google: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-b-1&ei=_BBpWpjuIcTrzgLynqOABA&q=ASASSN-15lh&oq=ASASSN-15lh&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i71k1l4.0.0.0.3325902.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.kXuX2nmrAV8 - OS

Yep, seems to me no reason to think it would be a linear progression with accuracy per distance. It's a knuckle-ball that has a high degree of randomness built in from the git go, so the conventional calculations for centrifugally stabilized projectiles wouldn't necessarily apply at all. - OS

If he's been in hospital this long I presume there were complications beyond normal bypass procedure, so I'll be interested in hearing the gory details, being the same age and having had my own round of heart surgery not that long ago. Dunno if you're reading any of this yet Doug, but continued best wishes for recovery. And see my previous post for contact number if you ever want to jaw about it in person. - OS

They've never stopped, Blazer line, ya see mostly 9mm, .357MAG, .38SPL, and .45ACP, but they've made it (or still do) in about 10 different handgun calibers. Never in standard rifle calibers though. http://www.blazer-ammo.com/blazer_chart.aspx - OS

Couldn't resist. - OS

If <26" seems to fit AOW to me, which is ATFs long standing ruling as to what "capable of being concealed on the person" means. - OS

Quite true, prob is that in the real world, it might take court procedure, maybe even appeal process, to get a ruling that strictly abides by the statute. Just look at how the carry in parks statute has been virtually ignored by various municipalities, eh? - OS

Well, not trigger. Gotta be the barrel design, either smooth (my original guess) or with the"straight grooves" (guy with vid I mentioned in previous post), a way to get around the "rifled barrel" term in US code rifle definition. Plus of course the 26" in OAL to remove from any chance of AOW status too I guess. - OS

https://www.shootersnation.com/forum/threads/il-go-first.22/

Very basic questiion: are you pulling the bolt back and releasing to load the first shell? (also echo Chances advice) edit: looks like correct mag to me - OS

As always, in the exceedingly rare chance you're charged for it, a judge or a jury will ultimately decide whether it's "legal" or not. - OS

Thing is, what would it have cost in bulk, adding maybe a quarter or something? I mean, being able to use iron sights is a pretty basic AR15 spec. Matter of fact, this may the first one I've ever seen that didn't come with either a front sight or a way to attach one. - OS

Jeez, they couldn't at least have used a railed gas block so you could run irons? - OS

That was one letter regarding a certain pistol brace, and it "suggested that it might" make the device into an SBR; I'd say that's far from any kind of blanket ruling by the ATF in general. Seems rather absurd to consider that if you think about it as it would make maybe half or more the existing rifles in existence "not rifles". Heck, standard max LOP for an AR with milspec adjustable stock is right around that, AK Warsaw config about 12.5, etc. Saw another vid yesterday where a guy swears it's gonna have "straight grooving" or somesuch, like cuts that run straight down the length of the barrel, which wouldn't really be "rifling" in the sense of the definition. So it would basically throw a more "controlled knuckleball" with reasonable accuracy to 50 yards or so. Wacky as that sounds I wonder if it might not be right, sort of a enhancement of the purely smoothbore idea I've been leaning toward. - OS

Ya know, your property taxes don't have to be paid until late Feb of the next year, if you want to spread that out... - OS

Well, they'll have to amend 18 US 922 to do it. Hasn't been touched since 1994 and even that expired reverting to what it was in 1986, so it's obviously not so easy. Of course that could all change pert durn quick in 2021. Or not. - OS

Yeah, I don't know how this stuff plays out legally. Meaning that the "non-metallic cartridge" doesn't appear in the original USC statutes and only in one of the two CFRs that correspond to them. On the other hand, the same type of extra term happens with "pistol" definition too, with "originally made" mysteriously appearing in one CFR, and that has been upheld at least indirectly by SCOTUS even. Yep, I'll give you that. Though it might only take a proprietary bullet (like with rifled slug type vanes and hollow base or whatever), not a change in caliber or anything else but that. Whatever it is, I'm sure they're counting on the allure of actually owning an "SBR" without a tax stamp as being enough to sell. But then again, that's really all a pistol with a brace is in reality. Hell, some of them are more comfy against the shoulder than an actual stock. Yep. - OS

"Rifled bore" and "single pull of trigger" is in both USC and both CFR sections. But like you, I'm still betting that barrel tech is gonna be the real kicker, the trigger function just seems too fine a line to moi. I still opine that a non-shot shell through a non-rifled barrel wouldn't fit the defs of "rifle" or "shotgun". If this is indeed the basis, the real mystery is still how a bullet gets stabilized enough to be effective, and I still wouldn't rule out some kind of proprietary ammo, like the equivalent of a rifled shotshell slug in a rifle caliber cartridge. - OS

Well, I don't think they were able to use the 84 year old definition of a Short Barreled Rifle somehow tp make their short barreled rifle an exception. Or same for Short Barreled Shotgun. Whichever factor or combination of factors in the ruling they got almost certainly has to do with separating their heater from the definition of rifle or shotgun altogether in the first place. Which of course is what they are already claiming. Is that big obnoxious orange field around the trigger a clue? Wish I could find a pic where you could read the three markings on it. Maybe as others have suggested it is indeed as simple as the fact that you can't "pull" it to fire, but only "push" it. Hell, maybe the trigger only "cocks" and you fire it from somewhere else on the thing, who knows! - OS

================================ You are quoting US Code from the original National Firearm Act. It is simply defining example of an NFA firearm (SBR in this case). Yes, it becomes a firearm. An NFA firearm. You are conflating this with the non-NFA "firearm/other firearm" type as exemplified by rulings in the last few years such as with VFGs on 26" pistols, PGO shotties, and even the short barreled Shockwave shottie design. But that entire paragraph A1-A8 from which you quoted simply defines firearms which fall under NFA purview. Full paragraph from "26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions": "(a) Firearm [meaning, NFA firearm] The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device." - OS

I've read nothing except it wouldn't be revealed until SHOT. Where you see a dead link? - OS

There is a possibility (I didn't think of it first) that they are able to skirt the definition of rifle in this case by using a non metallic cartridge. Though neither "26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions" , nor "18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions", mentions "metallic", and neither does the corresponding "27 CFR 479.11 - Meaning of terms", "27 CFR 478.11 - Meaning of terms" does. So, 1 out of 4 mentions "metallic cartridge" . This is not the first time the CFR, which is only supposed to "clarify" the actual USC as passed by Congress, has added a term not even suggested in the original. Such as the "originally made" to describe "handgun", and hence the basis for the "first a rifle, always a rifle" ruling. - OS