JamesCannon wrote:This thread would be at least 10x better if people didn't post what they "think" they know, or "what they heard" and instead only posted cited factual statements.
To a very large extent, you are right. Also, to a very large extent, you are wrong.
What about suppressors? When someone asks what a good suppressor, wouldn't people want to know what someone heard from first hand experience? So someone can seek an objective opinion and get one. No facts involved, just opinion.
I am 99% sure that you meant very specifically in reference to regulation pertaining to the NFA and what the ATF thinks of that. And I agree. Except when negative facts are involved. Good background: http://www.phil.gu.se/gunnar/Negative%20Facts.pdf
. In case you are not familiar with a negative fact, here is an example: There are no hippos
in Lake Baikal
The fun with that negative fact is that you can not reference it in any way. If you doubt this, please cite a scientific study that shows that indeed there are no hippos in Lake Baikal. The point here is that not everything can be a 'cited factual statement'. Back on topic of this thread, how about an M16 bolt carrier in a semi auto AR? We all "know" that a person can run an M16 bolt carrier in an AR, anyone want to find the citation for that? How about using an M16 hammer in a semi auto AR? They are different, is that still legal? How about putting a 24 inch upper on an AR pistol? Can anyone cite an ATF ruling that that is allowable?
And then what should we do when regulations or the interpretations of those regulations change? I am pretty sure most of us know the rules for importing firearms have changed once or twice in the history of the United States, so what do we do then? At different times we would have more than one cited factual statements, and one of which is wrong.
On topic again, I moved from Arizona to Washington. I asked an ATF Special Agent about the SBR rules. I was told that the registered part is the receiver, and that that receiver is always an SBR. So if I took my SBRs to Washington, no matter the upper, that I would be in possession of an SBR. Even if it was just a stripped lower, it was still an SBR, just like a machine gun. Now there is a link from the ATF that says it is only an SBR when in SBR configuration. What I was told was wrong, but I posted it, so I was wrong.
The point I am getting at is that as far as I know, ZS is not a legal website. No one should come here for legal advise, and not everyone can afford that advise. So people come here to discuss issues with backpacks, stored food, financial advise, reloading questions, and in the case of this thread, All purpose NFA questions. Not every question can be answered with a 'cited factual statement' (Citation needed
But with all discussion forums, the exchange of ideas is valuable. And to inhibit that exchange is not always good. Past and present experiences of people who have been there and done that are valuable, even if they can't be cited. This is an internet forum, and all of the information and opinions that everyone gets here is worth exactly what everyone paid to obtain that information.
agent-smith wrote:If I have any questions regarding Title 2 firearms I rely on my attorney and I'll no longer attempt to provide any answers for others.
I am sorry to hear this. The more viewpoints expressed, where people are free to be wrong, is a valuable thing. Otherwise we are a bunch of blind men trying to discern the nature of an elephant. (Citation needed.