Oh Shoot

  I didn't know that as never thought about it, but makes sense though, as federal definition of "shotgun" includes "designed to be fired from shoulder". So it would have to be "other firearm" on 4473 and not "long gun" to keep an 18 year old from buying one. However, as I understand it, it's fine to put a buttstock on it after purchase, so it would indeed be a shotgun then.   Would have to be same reason you must be 21 to buy a receiver (like an AR lower), because it's not a rifle or shotgun.   You can actually legally buy (and I think make yourself?) a shotgun with a less than 18" barrel and pistol grip, as long as OAL is 26", it is also a "firearm". But of course you couldn't put a buttstock on it.   Same as an AR pistol 26" long with a VFG attached becomes a legal "firearm".   - OS

  Again, ejection angle is a good clue. If it's before 3:00 could probably benefit from heavier buffer. Short barreled ARs do often tend to be overgassed, or perhaps more precisely the dwell time needs to be increased as there's less barrel past the gas port.   I have a 10.5" carbine gas pistol. Now, it worked just fine with standard carbine buffer and spring -- rims not deformed, always fed next round, ejection about 4:00,  all good. But seemed "snappier" than my rifles, which of course could have been completely subjective since was shooting with buffer tube laid alongside cheek. Anyway, just to see I did put a H2 buffer (4.6oz) in it. Moved ejection back maybe a touch, not huge change. Less snappy now? Not sure, still runs perfectly. Been meaning to swap buffers back and forth at range to see if can really tell empirical difference.   - OS

Well strictly to statute wording, a SBR would be okay in vehicle because it's a rifle, but AOW wouldn't, because it's not a rifle or shotgun.     Yes, 26" pistol or longer, VFG is legal. My point was that federally it is then no longer a pistol/handgun, but a "firearm", and the permit only allows carrying a loaded "handgun".   Again, could it actually be an issue? Who knows. Can tell you that I don't carry/transport my AR pistol with QD VFG on it though, just to make sure.   - OS

No fixing needed if it ain't broke and all that...   It's the opposite on M16 bolt carrier -- it is already slowing things down a touch as it's heavier than AR-15 carrier. The bolt  is same in either.   What's your ejection angle? Not written in stone, but if past 3:00 and you can fire all types ammo reliably it's probably tuned plenty well enough. Heavier buffer might or might not still run just as well and feel slightly less "snappy", but it's not a huge change. Won't change "recoil" though, which is negligible with 5.56 AR already.   - OS

  You mean that he met what's her name on the road? I think that's what he said?   - OS

Very classy matched pair, you did well.   - OS

  Swords must be okay there too, not even a knife buster in the group, so must not be considered a "weapon" in Kansas?   - OS

  Here are some 18 inchers, with 8.5" blade.   http://www.bladeplay.com/cat--Stilettos-over-13--77   If I ever get a quality auto, I'm going over 4" blade with it, just to celebrate lifting of both sanctions!   - OS

  Dunno 'bout that,  feds consider an AOW to be neither long gun or handgun, which is why it's called an Any Other Weapon. :)   Technically, if they wanted to split hairs, I don't think I could legally carry my AR pistol with the VFG on it, because federally it's no longer a handgun.   And TN cedes to federal law on these things, as far as any are mentioned in the statutes. But these are things you can't know unless push ever comes to shove or you can get your rep to ask TN AG for an opinion. In which case you still won't know anything but his opinion.   - OS

  I'd say you're right, since that's what Joe said. :)   - OS

Most all shotgun shells are polymer for decades. Hot load is a hot load in any kind of case,  if that's what caused it.   - OS

One reason stated was because out of towners complained, said they'd never go there anymore, loss of shopping revenue. That and the contracted company is some legal trouble over some other stuff too.   - OS

Title looked quite ominous at first glance!    - OS

  Some state law may allow it, dunno. Federal law requires adjudication. It says. Maybe. For now.   We all know that those "words" used in "laws" and especially in that ole stale "Constitution" thing get "redefined" regularly.   - OS

  Entrapment seems almost a non-legal concept anymore after various rulings through the years.   LE can suggest somebody bomb something, even help them build the bomb, then cuff 'em right before they do it, of course cops have been able to pose as hookers or johns and get solid convictions from their unwitting takers, etc.   Not even sure how you can "entrap" someone anymore, seems the law mostly just says if you did it, you did it. I guess pleading ignorance that the act was illegal at all might be about all you can do ... oh wait, that doesn't work. ;)   - OS

  Seems a pretty reasonable point of view to me, so I guess you'll get about 50% + flak for it. :)   Lay of land and relative population density around has a lot to do with things too - what's pert reasonable behavior one place can certainly and likely should cause more alarm in another.   - OS   edit: oops, didn't even get the post written before TMF validated first sentence. ;)

  Already do on certain investment income anyway. Tax success, reward failure, it's the Mericun way.   - OS

  My layman's take is that "they" (hodgepodge of systems and governments and technologies and capabilities) don't actually see and record everything that happens on the face of the planet in enough detail to be useful for most purposes. Unless manually aimed and zoomed on an area of interest don't show the detail folks assume.And yet the data is still far too much for human eyes alone to search if you don't already know exactly where to look.   That's main reason the different countries are not very forthcoming about some of the images they release (or don't) -- much of it is part of a larger spy game about who's watching who with what and when and how closely. And I don't reckon any are watching the regions of the oceans where there aren't even regular sea lanes in any detail.   Anyway, it's not just a big Walmart security tape where you can spot most everything happening in the "store" in both real time and replay.   Beginning to wonder if all this stuff they're "seeing" but not "finding" in the southern Indian Ocean isn't just the normal accumulation of flotsam and jetsam that accumulates there normally, might find much the same in certain sections of all the oceans of the world if folks decided to look this closely at any given time. We'll see.   - OS

  My layman's take is that "they" (hodgepodge of systems and governments and technologies and capabilities) don't actually see and record everything that happens on the face of the planet in enough detail to be useful for most purposes. Unless manually aimed and zoomed on an area of interest don't show the detail folks assume.And yet the data is still far too much for human eyes alone to search if you don't already know exactly where to look.   That's main reason the different countries are not very forthcoming about some of the images they release (or don't) -- much of it is part of a larger spy game about who's watching who with what and when and how closely. And I don't reckon any are watching the regions of the oceans where there aren't even regular sea lanes in any detail.   Anyway, it's not just a big Walmart security tape where you can spot most everything happening in the "store" in both real time and replay.   I wouldn't be surprised if all this stuff they're "seeing" but not "finding" in the southern Indian Ocean isn't just the normal accumulation of flotsam and jetsam that accumulates there normally, might find much the same in most parts of the oceans of the world if folks decided to look this closely at any given time. We'll see.   - OS

  Yeah, I know. Quite dull. More like real life than an action movie.   - OS

  Party politics. More significant they are "Republicans" than lawyers in this case I think.   TN is not like DC, where for the most part nowadays the GOP is the lesser of the two evils. Here the two parties are pretty much on par, and a majority of either seems to behave about the same. I imagine we'd be just about as far along weapon law wise right now if we'd had a Dem super majority for the last 4-6 years in Nashville.   - OS

Yeah, ATF tech boss is gonna have some head scratching to rule on that baby if it indeed is not just vaporware.   - OS

  I think most all evidence now points to sudden serious failure of some sort that caused the pilots to both turn out of normal air lanes and get down to lower altitude in a hurry.   A mystery after that, but if indeed wreckage can prove that the plane went down in Indian Ocean, I think it flew there on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.   Just can't find any real scenario that this was a hijack or terrorist attempt on the part of the pilots at this point.   If they never find even any verifiable wreckage though, will be a much greater mystery than even D.B. Cooper.   - OS

  I'm dubious that all  22 or so states that are allowed to use HCP in lieu of NICS  run yearly background checks either. I also read somewhere that TN is indeed on the ATF approved list of states to do it if they so choose. And no, I can't immediately document either statement.   However I'm also unaware of anything in the Brady Bill that determines any rules for an "annual check" , as the section from Brady that allows this in 27 CFR 478.102 doesn't mention it. Perhaps there is another one somewhere I'm not aware of, dunno:   "(d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if— (1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that— (i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm; (ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and (iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information available to such official includes the NICS; (2) The firearm is subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act and has been approved for transfer under 27 CFR part 479; or (3) On application of the licensee, in accordance with the provisions of § 478.150, the Director has certified that compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section is impracticable. (e) The document referred to in paragraph (d)(1) of this section (or a copy thereof) shall be retained or the required information from the document shall be recorded on the firearms transaction record in accordance with the provisions of § 478.131. "   Always more to know though, not saying any of this is definitive on my part and there may be a "ruling" that is not even in the CFR that determines it further for all I know.   - OS

  If DOS is really saying that, I'd opine Bill Gibbons might be seeking other employment. Loss of revenue to TBI was reason used for the "HCP for NICS" dismissal.   - OS