WE are not painting you as the bad guy, YOU did that your own self. You've openly stated that you would presume guilt. YOU are the bad cop in waiting.

Folks, continuity is the kind cop that we, as lawful gun owners, fear the most. He seems like one of us. We probably go to the range with him, and compare the latest and greatest toys. But make no mistake, YOU would be his first target should a New York type law be passed nation wide.

Based on his writings on what he would do if he saw someone shouldering a sig brace; this is the kind of cop that would come up to you at the gun range and ask "papers please" for that "hi-cap" magazine you are using. To Hell with any presumption of innocence, he's a cop following the law right? What's more, I suspect he would happily make a list of his known associates that had previously shown to be in possession of what may now be contraband. And he'd eagerly go door to door rounding up your property. DISGUSTING!!!

This is really an eye opening lesson on who should really be trusted.

YoungBlood wrote:This statement lacks logic or rational thought. A hammer and suppressor?

continuity wrote:.

Same will go if one is in possession of a firearm suppressor. Even if they swear its a hammer... Is what it is.

He is a YHM owner, so...................

I went with sbr for reasons listed as a couple of opinions in this thread. Until this century sbr were not legal in my state. Yet people sawed off rifles and shotguns while going after law enforcement... Wow, the law prevented a hacksaw by a felon... We even had homemade (illegal) suppressors used. Not batf approved ones either. There are law enforcement in my state that do not know the current sbr, sbs, aow, or silencer laws. I will not expect them to be capable of understanding a sig brace without basic knowledge of other nfa items.

I had a deputy try to arrest me few years ago for having a long gun accessible to me while driving a truck. The state trooper had to explain to him nothing was going on that was remotely illegal. . . The deputy was rank of lieutenant.

Are they all like this on Ohio?

hunter2 wrote:Are they all like this on Ohio?

Define "they".

poikilotrm wrote:

hunter2 wrote:Are they all like this on Ohio?

Define "they".

I think he means are all Ohio police officers worthless pieces of crap.

Jt.kline19 wrote:

poikilotrm wrote:

hunter2 wrote:Are they all like this on Ohio?

Define "they".

I think he means are all Ohio police officers worthless pieces of crap.

Yes. And I should have said in Ohio not on.

It ain't limited to Ohio. We have a national problem. Convict is just one small turd floating in a sea of sh!t.

It's discouraging to see the transfer of focus from a legal issue, move to the personal attack. I suppose it's to be expected from internet lawyers.

Back on the main topic. If it deviates again, I'll likely start some clean up.

I'm really surprised that the ATF allowed this device in the first place. It seems to fly in the face of their constructive intent rulings through the years. Although I see the value in it for maintaining better control of a horrible pistol platform, at least in the case of the AR, I can see it being used in a different manner by the vast majority of owners. They didn't see that right up front?

But then again, I am also convinced that they allow products to make it into general use before dropping the hammer only to screw with gun owners. My mantra is that the ATF is not our friend.

The ATF is just another federal bureaucracy. They don't purposely plan this stuff out with methodical, nefarious intent. However, the bureaucratic structure will rally when it gets caught flat-footed (e.g. presented with a barrage of youtube vids that show a product that is technically legal but skirts the "spirit" of the law/ruling). Result: lots of meetings where someone has to come up with something - anything! - and a back-row fella proposes a "good idea" that balances the scales for a while and doesn't exceed the organization's boundaries de jure - e.g. M855 Green Tip is now AP pistol ammo.

It's a classic play. You guys want this? Fine, you've got it - good and hard. Next time you'll think twice, Plebeians.

So, do both the brace fired from the shoulder and M855 end up on the naughty list permanently? I think that's the most likely result.

smcharchan wrote:So, do both the brace fired from the shoulder and M855 end up on the naughty list permanently? I think that's the most likely result.

I've missed you smcharchan. My position from a grass roots level on the brace, has not been warmy recieved, as I'm sure ure aware.

It's always nice when everyone in a group does the group hug and in toto, flips "the man" off. Lunacy of the rules doesn't escape me, but the lack of understanding relative the legal inconsistancy of those rules does.

Between you and me (and everyone else I suppose) I'm about done with this site.

Yeah. For whatever insane reason, the last round designation I'd chose for a SHF situation, is at risk of becoming contraband.

Thinking things are at that point of an out of control oversite entity.

Kinda new here, so not trying to step on toes, but does Ohio allow LEGAL ownership/possession of NFA items, such as SBRs? I was thinking they DID. If so, how can possession of an NFA item be an immediate reason to determine that PC is present for an arrest? That's my disconnect. Please don't think i'm "cop-bashing", i work in dept of corrections and have many friends who are LEOs, but none of them would (in my opinion and experience) immediately arrest someone in possession of an SBR...true, they may ask for documentation, but if informed that the item was an AR pistol with an approved Sig brace, they would probably call their LT to get confirmation...then again, im in Missouri...
Just seems that if you, even as a cop, own sonething they THOUGHT was being illegally used, you'd be rather irked by an on-duty LEO seizing your weapon and putting cuffs on ya, then telling you to sort it out in court...

I'm still mystified by the complete disconnect between "shall not be infringed" and ANY firearm law.

It seems to me that any "officer" that took an oath to defend the constitution has taken an oath to defend ALL of it, not just the parts that some jerk in DC (lawmaker, judge, whatever) likes.

If you are really going to stand behind your oath, you DO NOT enforce laws that have no legal standing. No federal firearm law should stand up to any level of constitutional scrutiny, much less strict scrutiny.

I've asked nicely to stay on topic and I think that it's time to agree to disagree.

I let things slide quite a bit even to the point of being "outed" as a censor in the signature line of our favorite moron Poke.

Well, today I'm in a cantankerous mood so I've cleaned up and locked the thread.

If that's a problem, then take it up with Robert.