btq96r

Okay...version 1.1 for review.  I deleted the non technical paragraphs and shuffled the wording of some of the others to make a more sequenced argument.      Dear                   My name is _________.  I reside in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and am writing to respectfully request that you consider submitting legislation amending the National Firearms Act to account for developments in firearms manufacture and use.  Specifically, I am seeking your support to re-define what a short-barreled rifle (SBR) is.                   The law, as it currently stands, defines an SBR, a Title II weapon under the National Firearms Act, as “any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position”.  These restrictions, developed when the law was passed in 1934, fail to account for modern firearms design and use.                    There are firearms of current design in use, classified as SBR’s, that while having a barrel under 16”, would meet the requirement of an overall length of 26”- even with a collapsible buttstock in the fully collapsed position.  These firearms have become popular with shooting enthusiasts and are recognized as an appropriate weapon for home defense.  As long the overall length of the weapon remains in excess of the established length of 26”- ensuring that the rifle is still of a significant enough size to prohibit easy concealment by those with criminal intent- why should the length of the barrel, which only directly impacts the ballistics of a round fired, matter in the determination of what comprises a Title II weapon?                   I therefore, humbly ask that you to consider introducing legislation to amend the National Firearms Act and change the definition of a Short Barreled Rifle, removing any weapon with an overall length of 26” or greater from being classified as a Title II weapon under the National Firearms Act.  Nothing in such a change would prohibit states who wish to enact or retain their own laws prohibiting firearms with barrels of less than 16” from doing so.  It would simply be an update to an 80 year old federal law to incorporate modern firearms design and use.                   I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with your or any member of your staff and look forward to your response to my request.  Thank you for your time in considering my request and your service in the United States Congress.                                     Respectfully yours,                       ________________

  Worst case scenario- you don't like it, you put it up for sale on here before you shoot too many rounds through it and take a small hit out of pocket for selling it used. 

sigmtnman has the right of it on the visual aid concept, IMO.  I would rather show off an SBR with, say a 10.3" barrel, side by side with a rifle that has a 16" barrel, both with the buttstocks extended to show how small the difference is rather than use an AR pistol for the same purpose.    I'm also not unconvinced that the ATF won't realize what they did by ruling a shoulder brace on an AR pistol does not make it an SBR.  Rescinding a legal opinion is easy enough if the powers that be tell the legal department to make it happen.  Leaving that as a separate issue seems to be the proper play here.

  I deliberately tried to keep it limited in scope and write it with some level of emotional detachment.  The only way to handle legislation like the NFA and GCA is to take it one section at a time.    I'll definitely consider taking out para. 4 & 5.  I fully believe in what I wrote, but concur that they might not be the best points to compliment my main argument.

  I used six months since that is what the ATF still has on their website's FAQ on  processing times.  It would be harder for them to argue their own customer service goals since it's their official position. 

While I'm sure something like this has been done by other citizens or gun rights groups, it's been too long since I exercised my prerogative to write my Senators and Congressman.  The bottom line is I think the current definition of an SBR is outdated.  I plan to make an argument that so long as the weapon is over 26" under the current law, it shouldn't be considered under Title II/Class 3 regardless of barrel length.  Here is what I have drafted and plan to send to all three of my elected officials in the Congress.  Please let me know your thoughts, more eyes than mine are always good.     Dear                   My name is _________.  I reside in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and am writing you today with a request that you respectfully consider submitting legislation amending the National Firearms Act to account for the developments in firearms manufacture and use.  In particular, I am seeking your support regarding the part about short-barreled rifles (SBR).                    The law, as it currently stands, defines an SBR as a Title II weapon as “any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position”.   I ask why the distinction of a 16” or less barrel matter does if the overall length is in excess of 26”.  There are many SBR’s in use that have a barrel under 16”, but would meet the requirement of an overall length of 26” -even with a collapsible butstock in the fully collapsed position- ensuring that the rifle is still of a significant enough size to prohibit easy concealment by those with criminal intent.                    These restrictions, developed when the law was passed in 1934, fail to account for modern firearms design and use.  A rifle with a barrel with a length between 10”-16”, but over 26” of total length, has become popular with shooting enthusiasts and is recognized as an appropriate weapon for home defense.  So long as the overall length of the weapon remains at the established length of 26”, why should the length of the barrel- which only directly impacts the ballistics of a round fired- matter in the determination of a Title II weapon?                   Another consideration is the rise of SBR’s being used for police and military purposes.  I fully believe that our founding fathers would want the population to have the individual weapons currently used by any government agency available for civilian purchase.                    Changing the definition of an SBR to remove these popular firearms as such would relieve citizens of an often burdensome requirement to register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  Currently the processing time for receiving the “tax stamp” can be in excess of six months.  And that is if a local chief law enforcement officer is required to sign off on the paperwork without a legitimate reason not to present.                   I therefore, humbly ask that you to consider introducing legislation to amend the National Firearms Act and change the definition of a Short Barreled Rifle, removing any weapon with an overall length of 26” as a Title II weapon regardless of barrel length.  Nothing would prohibit states who wish to enact their own laws prohibiting SBR’s from doing so, or continuing to do so once the Federal law regarding them is changed.  It would simply be an update to an 80 year old law that incorporates modern firearms design and use.                   Thank you for your time and consideration of my request, and your representation of the State of Tennessee in the United States Congress.  I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with your or any member of your staff and look forward to your response to my request.                   Respectfully yours,                       ________________

I'm glad the Pena's are okay, it's a textbook story of protecting your family with a gun.  The part about three of them being armed was funny.  The family that shoots together, stays together.     I wouldn't be copperating with the news at all though.  In fact, I'd be pissed if it was my address spelled out for all the world in that article with the news van parked outside my house broadcasting.  No need to bring attention on yourself after the fact.  Who knows who else is reading/watching. 

  You're telling me that TDOS needs $5.75 million a year to process applications and print out HCP's using existing DMV personnel and resources?   I think that's the reason this bill dies with a wink and a nod like many here predict.  Gov. Haslam and the GA don't want to have to make ends meet or raise taxes anywhere else to make up for any lost revenue.  It's not like any voters who usually vote Republican are going to switch to Democratic on a gun rights issue, so the Republican Trifecta get's to let this die out when the GA session closes without any real political consequence.

  It's a rare day indeed when semiautos and I are in agreement, but he has the right of it here.  Once upon a time, that's the way things were.

  Concur.  Shooting takes practice, practice and more practice to the point of muscle memory to be able to put steel on target effectively and safely in a non-range situation.  I think a training requirement isn't too much to ask and would consider it as people (male and female) doing their civic duty.   Another problem right now is the price of ammo is prohibitive for a lot of people who would love to keep in practice with their weapons.  Ammo has to come after paying the bills and making sure the kids are clothed and fed.

  I just recently got my first RX for glasses.  At first I thought it wasn't going to make much of a difference because it was a minor RX in the doctors words, but computer reading driving at night is like HD to SD as you mention.  I can only imagine how much worse it gets from here.

  You can find a decent deal on the gun itself.  Then you want an optic, rail system, ect.. Next comes rounds to take it to the range and before long you are staring at the hole in your bank account.

  There is no shot of this going through Congress. If it was pushed through Executive Order (unlikely, but theoretically possible), the firearms industry, NRA and Second Amendment Foundation would be elbowing each other to be the first to file against it in federal court. 

Not sure how many students we have here.  I'm sure some of you old seasoned folks may have some firearms friendly kids in school.   Students for Concealed Carry is staging their Empty Holster Protest week.  Basically its students who want the right to carry on campus carrying an empty holster in plain view to raise awareness.  I'm keeping some literature on me to pass out for anyone who asks and am going to post some on bulletin boards around campus.  It's not a big protest by any means, but it's something.   Help spread the word if you have a student in the family.    http://concealedcampus.org/empty-holster-protest/ https://www.facebook.com/events/1395652437370628/

The sad part about the guys in uniform is the three Brigade Combat teams back home (the other one is in Afghanistan now) have been back for at least a few months, some much longer.  This isn't just Joe going wild after getting off the plane.

  I don't "allow" anything.  States don't have immigration authority.  Making it a state crime to violate a federal law like Arizona did is a no-go.  All they can do is detain someone they determine isn't a citizen (without the profiling BS) until a federal agent takes custody.  I get that the feds aren't doing a bang up job on this, but you can make the argument that the system is so overloaded that prioritizing is needed.  Focusing on the violent gangs or drug traffickers before going after the guy who just wants to pick lettuce or wash dishes to make money to feed his family is okay with me if the resources are accounted for to show that that's the best you can do at the moment.  The topic of more enforcement being needed is separate since it would require an appropriation for the extra money and/or reallocating funds to pay for it.   I disagree with the voter ID laws- I think they stand up to legal challenge- but any law can be brought before the court for adjudication.   The gay marriage issue boils down to equal protection for me.  One involved in marriage, governments can't decide to deny it to anybody like is happening to gays now in some jurisdictions.    The difference between the Federal Constitution and the TN State Constitution involving guns to me is won by the 2nd Amendment.  Tennessee added something that changes the meaning of the intent of the second amendment.

  That's a damned fine and interesting theroy, Daniel.  If George R.R. Martin ever get's around to finishing the last two books we will find out if it's correct or not.

  Two factors in those, power and political necessity.    Immigration is a federal responsibility.  A state can't assume it since they have no power along a national border.  Just because the federal government isn't up to or simply can't handle the problem doesn't give the states the right to usurp it.  The last thing we need is every state along the border deciding what laws they want to enforce or not on top of a federal government that is over their heads with it.   Voter ID challenges are Democrats protecting their voter base.  The Republicans absolutely are passing voter ID laws to suppress the minority vote.  Having not done it up until the minority vote became a major electoral issue sums it up for me.  Problem for Democrats is the courts are finding a voter ID requirement legal.  They need a better strategy to deal with it like proving how the cost is passed along to the voter as a form of a poll tax or combating it by helping voter registration efforts.   Likewise for gay marriage- on both sides.  DOMA was Republicans getting a bill to President Clinton's desk he couldn't possibly veto and attacking gay marriage laws or refusing to defend them is how Democrats tell their base they are fighting them.  In this issue, I agree with the Democrats and will take them doing the right thing out of political necessity. 

Not wanting someone to rub pistols together (even display models) is perfectly reasonable.  However, given the .22 ammo price thread and Authenticman's actions here, I've got an 0-2 count on EW.  If it was already 0-2 against EW, and this thread came along, I'd call a foul tip and wait for more evidence to equal strike three, but someone coming in and going right to the defense of a business is too much of a coincidence not to consider it on an 0-1 count.    Funny part is that consensus was building to the OP being in the wrong for wanting to rub the pistols together.  Authenticman, you could have hung back before coming to EW's rescue and avoided a good bit of this.

  Honestly, in Colorado I think the federal government is sitting back and watching how things go.  They are taking the wait and see approach.  Who knows how this would have played out under a different administration (D or R). Another reason for not taking federal action is that CO isn't the only state that will see legal pot.  Washington is legal as well and I think other states will get on board soon enough.   I think they could legally be covered if they closed all those shops and applied federal drug laws (not that I agree with those laws) to the store owners.  But since they are wary of overstepping on something that was passed by the state through a ballot measure.  Also, sending in the FBI or DEA for such a minor thing wouldn't win them any PR battles.  Now, if a state legalized what are now NFA weapons, you would see them squash that, riki tik.  But weed isn't something the federal government is willing to battle the states on anymore.   I also wouldn't be surprised if they were holding back just to see how much of a tax revenue this could become. Even if there is no direct federal taxation, Colorado adding money from the 25% tax they apply to weed would lessen their need for federal funding.

The bottom line is that every amendment of the Constitution applies to the states the same way it applies to the federal government.  It wasn't always this way as OS points out, but rulings are leaning toward blanket coverage across all levels of government for the Constitution. Since legislative bodies couldn't care about that finer point, people need the courts to help settle this under the system of checks and balances.  Every law is up for challenge and McDonald was a perfect example of holding a local government to account under the Incorporation Theory.    For things not expressly addressed in the Constitution, state law is supposed to be the order of the day, but the catch all's such as Necessary and Proper and Commerce Clause have been upheld many times.  The Supremacy Clause is also going to come into play to support N&P and Commerce when state and federal laws collide.  This is why Obamacare is legal as a tax for example.

It's an addicting series and the acting is top notch- Spacey especially.  Having this show on Netflix with their method of releasing entire seasons at once save me the fury of having to watch week to week like we have to with other shows (Game of Thrones being a prime example).   Enjoy the show.

  That site was good when I was looking around before moving to Murfreesboro, but I found Zillow to be amazing for looking up properties.

The books are huge ( five books at about 900-1200 pages each), but they are awesome reads. It gives you a great appreciation for how the characters are portrayed in the series. This may actually be the only series where the books it's adapted from are respected, what's changed sort of had to be to make it work for TV. If George R.R. Martin ever gets The Winds of Winter and the final book after that done, I'll be amazed. I'd love to know how far into the manuscript he is. He's loosing time; season 4 of the series is the 2nd half of book #3, but books 4&5 will be heavily chopped down for TV adaptation, I think. There is a lot in them that won't come across as anything but boring on screen. HBO Go (if you subscribe to HBO) has all three seasons available for those that need to catch up. Also, I find this hilarious and true.

  There are workarounds for hardware as well.  I only get a new computer when the old one is on its last leg.  I've made all my laptops run for about 4 years with some mid-life services, and I use my laptop all the time for personal and professional reasons.  Usually that involves a new HDD and a RAM upgrade if I had a 64-bit OS.  In 2012, I jumped from XP to Win7 along with a new HDD and doubled the RAM and was good for another two years.  I also keep a fresh ghost image around for emergencies and make sure to backup my Libary folders to an external drive (I'm not in love with the cloud yet) at least once a week as a general practice.  For me, buying a new computer is a rare event and a last resort.   Concur with the others who think business will wait for Microsoft to give them something better than Win8 while Win7 is still more than adequate for their needs.