Oh Shoot

canned response from Haslam's staff I suppose everybody gets: ---------------------   March 25, 2014     Dear Mac:   Thank you for writing to me and sharing your thoughts and concerns.  Listening to and learning from Tennesseans is very important to me, and I appreciate hearing from you.  After careful review of your letter, I have forwarded it to my legislative staff for consideration.  Your suggestions will be helpful as we develop our legislative and policy agenda.   Again, thank you for taking the time to write.  I look forward to working with you and all Tennesseans to make our great state an even better place to live, work, and raise a family.     Warmest regards, Bill Haslam                  BH:mg

  No, not same with pistol or SBR lowers.  If indeed that 14 year old ruling has not been superseded, it must apply only to machine guns. For sure you can have multiple short barreled uppers if you have SBR or pistol legal lower and regular AR rifles too.   If Dolomite_supafly doesn't see this, PM him to reply here, I think he probably knows the finer points re MG stuff, it may well be correct, yet could still fit under the SCOTUS test if all you owned was a MG, more than one short barreled upper, and a standard AR rifle.   But of course just having a virgin lower, or a lower first built as a pistol, or a SBR lower would surely seem to sidestep #4 in that letter if indeed it is still in force , as any of those three would have to suffice under other rulings for possession of additional short barreled uppers along with normal rifles, even if you do have a machine gun in the total mix.   Sometimes, ATF rulings are "correct" but "incomplete" and don't cover all possible variables related to the question. But admittedly certain full auto components and all suppressors are in a rarefied category as they are to my knowledge the only things that, unregistered,  are illegal to possess in and of themselves, no other parts of guns to actually use them required to be in violation.   - OS

  Give them some time for c'sakes. You can't move a long standing large manufacturing facility with a snap of your fingers, they are a publicly traded company.   Besides, a lot of their guns are made in Prescott already, so it's not like everything is in CT. Hopefully they'll get out of there when they can without devaluing the company by a production slump.   - OS

  Done.   And thank YOU for your efforts in the matter..   best,   - OS

  Maybe Joe enacted the rules after that tussle who knows.   Only thing looked like Daryl was gonna do was cover the body, but then decided the hell with him and dropped the blanket.   - OS

  "They" was the old man only. The company has come a long way since then.   Still, it's pretty ironic if a gun company stays forever in a state where some of it's products can't even be sold.   Matter of fact, if an individual can't now build an assault weapon there, or have new hicap mags, what's the loophole for a business to do the same?   - OS

  Thanks.   Yep, both my previous rep, Armstrong, and current one, Gloria Johnson, voted against it.   Armstrong has voted against every self defense thing since he's been in there, would take away all guns in a heartbeat if he could. My new commie looks to be of same ilk.   - OS

The reason such terms as "close proximity" and "attachable" and etc haven't been more precisely defined if because practically nobody has been prosecuted for what folks like to call "constructive possession" in 22 years except in the most obvious and egregious scenarios.   What you hear as per Johnny's first post is mostly an "internet ATF fear meme" that has been parroted over all the years, and at least since 1992 has had little to no basis in fact.   I'd posit that one's biggest possibility of hassle is simply from an uninformed local LEO who sees an AR pistol, especially one with VFG and/or the SIG brace that goes off half cocked on you for having a SBR or AOW.   But you DO need to be in compliance of the simple test I've iterated herein, don't get me wrong about that, okay? The possible penalty is too great to screw up on something easily understood and complied with, however slight the likelihood.   - OS

  Yup. Nothing you mention in the safe could be used only in an illegal configuration. Note pictures I posted as further explanation.   The "close proximity" thing is gray. How close, how confined? Dunno, nothing definite in case law.   Certainly if locked in a safe, I'd be sure I had legal use for everything in it, even though everything you owned in house would perhaps "count", but no guarantees.  And similarly, if all I owned was an AR pistol, regardless of buffer tube type on it, I wouldn't also have an AR stock anywhere on my property. Or a VFG either, unless the pistol is legally 26" or more in OAL.   And a "pistol" tube is not necessarily a guaranteed defense, if push came to shove, as "attachable" is not defined either -- gaffer tape would do it, eh? Maybe just bracing against tube "attaches" it, if they want to so say to make like miserable.   Certainly out and about, anything you'd have with you say on a range trip would surely be "close enough" I'd say, whether on person, at table, in car. And even though multiple stocks or VFGs would technically be legal to have with both a rifle and pistol, I wouldn't have an extra in that case, no since poking the bear unnecessarily IMO.   - OS

Johnny, visual aids: Both combinations of "aggregated parts in close proximity" are perfectly legal to be out and about with. In each case, there is a legal configuration what each part may be used in. (in AR pic, the lower began life as a pistol, which is important). Without the long barreled uppers however, you would be guilty under the test of making an NFA firearm, whether you actually used the short barrels and stocks at same time or not. I should have thrown in a VFG in the AR pic too, as it would also be illegal without a long upper in the mix. - OS

Perfectly legal. Everything you have could be used in a legal configuration. Nothing you have there could only be used in an illegal one. You could have 10 stocks, any number of any length uppers, whatever. The only way you could "make" an illegal NFA firearm in that situation would be to actually attach a stock to either lower while having a short barrel installed at same time.     A bit of a different question, but yes of course. A firearm that is first configured as a pistol may become a legal length rifle, and go back to pistol. A firearm that begins life as a rifle must stay a rifle.   Again, there is no "Constructive Intent". No intent is necessary, whether you actually assemble an illegal configuration or not.   - OS

Yeah, that's such an obvious twist that comes to mind -- which likely means it's probably some other Bad Thing going on there. Must say that the writers have surprised me more often than not. First obvious question though re Terminus: no perimeter security at all, wtf? - OS

  I'm quite excited, really. Where can we see the recorded vote?  I've apparently been redistricted here since last election, have a different Dem rep and senator that I never even got to vote for or against, need to check up on them.     Wow, didn't know that was part of it. Very very good, as figured LE might use that first time they find a sword cane or something.   - OS

He's totally wrong on the "a full speed .223 round would have exploded the jug".   FMJ rounds just generally burn right though a jug with water in it, sometimes doesn't even rock them, can't even tell for sure you hit them till you see the water leaking.   - OS

  Sorry, but you are quite off the mark on this.   First of all, there is no "constructive intent" charge, it's just a euphemism, and a poor one, as there is absolutely no intent required whatsoever. You have either made an NFA firearm or you have not -- although it's true you don't have to actually have pieced it together to have made one. "Constructive possession" is more accurately descriptive I suppose, but that's not an actual charge either.    The test is simple:   "An NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in close proximity such that they ... serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm or convert a complete weapon into an NFA firearm".   It's not whether you can make something illegal, it's whether you can also make something legal with the same parts. Settled law by SCOTUS in 1992, not merely an ATF opinion. And extra parts are of course fine, if one can be used legally, each can be used legally.   It's even simpler than that sounds, look at a part or component among your "aggregated parts in close proximity" (and I suggest for safety that anywhere on your property is "close enough"): - Is there an illegal config I could use this with? - If no, cool. - if yes, then - is there also a legal config I could use this with? - if yes, cool - if no, don't have it   - OS

  Gotta run out and about for a while (with no smart phone), I'll keep a good thought for it until I can check back here on it.   - OS

  LEOs and soldiers don't have to pay $200 to slap a stock on their SBRs. :)   - OS

  ?? Rick definitely strangled the guy and took his rifle.   - OS

  Accepted, and a writing tip -- one intending to be facetious should avoid "quite honestly" as the lead-in.   - OS

  Well, if they had written it in there, would have been overturned by the people eventually, just as Senators chosen by state legislatures was.   Why? Because long history of the process shows that people hate politicians, except their own, and they want their own guy to stay on.   - OS

  Legal, but  be careful of having a stock along with it. Make sure you have a legal use for any stock in your possession, at home, or of course especially out and about, regardless of what type of buffer tube you have on it.   Btw, standard "pistol" buffer systems are same as carbine ones, pretty much same length and use carbine spring and buffer.       Totally some kind of "feel good" move on part of the owner. No legal relevance in any state.   - OS

  Me too, but I was too Christian to say it. ;)   - OS

  Wow, I thought "Us" really delivered. About as good as any episode ever. Beau coup action from a bunch of different quarters.   I really liked how normal dispatching of the isolated walkers has become ho-hum routine as they travel around contrasted to the still real dangers of being trapped by a group of them.   Etc. Anyway, no complaints tonight.   ------ edit: and oh, btw, what was the plant Daryl uprooted from the side of the tracks, didn't understand the word he said?   edit 2: found a recap, he said "claimed", and they said it was a strawberry plant, but looked to me like had one big red fruit size of small tomato. Whatever.   - OS

  AR pistol is about as accurate with just the buffer tube laid alongside cheek, though. Certainly plenty accurate enough for COM up to 100 yards or so. The buffer tube arrangement is actually a plus for stability and accuracy. Holding a shortie out on a sling to steady it absolutely sucks by comparison.   So AK pistol or AR piston models sans receiver extension don't have the same strengths in the stability and accuracy departments. But of course they are more compact and still deliver a hicap rifle cartridge punch at whatever range you can hit something with them.   So to add to and reiterate some of the points of the yea sayers:   - I can hit things quicker and repetitively a lot further away than with a conventional handgun. - The things that are hit with 5.56 get a bit more wallop as from .357 mag at same distance - I get 30 quick chances - Short firearm, easily stashed - Can actually carry around loaded on my person should circumstances require - Can have loaded in vehicle with one in chamber - No $200 tax stamp, and not on the only actual full fledged gun registry in the USA - You have a spare fully functional lower that can be swapped with other uppers - They not only look evil, but evilly evil :)   - OS

  Only part of the residences I mentioned, the others were more along the lines of OPs or even quite more isolated. Only mentioned them all to say that people have traipsed across "my" property (whether rented or owned) in every type living arrangement I've ever had from time to time.   The only time I ever accosted anyone in the boonies for example was if they were obviously hunting, but I never got too bent out of shape about that since our 60 acres weren't well marked with signage, and it never was enough of a problem to make the effort to do it.   Indeed, the only serious interaction I ever had with an "trespasser", one that came quite close to gunfire actually, was with an adjacent landowner. Long story I've related here before.   A fence solves vast majority of probs from "wanderers" up to "country suburb" size property, but then again a fence instantly changes the "feeling" of a place too.   'Course, with subsequent info after my post, seems Peace and perhaps some of his neighbors may have somewhat more of a security problem in general that may need to be dealt with than just a once in a blue moon stroller.   - OS