Jump to content

ukerduker

Active Member
  • Posts

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by ukerduker

  1. Handloading for Long Range or Bench Rest We will be learning how to inspect and scrutinize each component of a loaded round of ammunition for consistency & accuracy. We'll Also go over how to carefully & methodically work up the most accurate possible load for a rifle with a given set of components. (It's east to get a rifle to shoot @ 100 yards. We'll go over means & methods to get it shooting it's best at LONG range... Bullet: weight sort bearing sort base to ogive sort meplat correction pointing Moly coating Brass Case: weight sort primer pocket uniforming flash hole deburring annealing resizing neck bumping neck sizing neck bushing dies trimming length reaming neck turning small basing cleaning Powder Charge: selecting the appropriate powder interpreting the reloading manual finding true max charge identifying pressure signs various means of working up an accurate powder charge powder handling scales & equipment Primers which primers to use how to pick the best primer primer cup hardness preloading the anvil priming equipment Assembly sizing case to best length finding best overall length reviewing "jumping" & jamming various quality control tests eliminating bullet run-out Equipment: where to spend big where you can skimp why you wan't a "worn-out" press(!!) various die types and designs various presses various powder measures & scales case prep & inspection tools bullet inspection tools priming tools case trimming tools neck turning tools etc Each student will learn and see how to go through the whole process to handload the most accurate possible ammo for their individual rifle. All good stuff here, but whats the cost of this class? I'm waiting to hear if I will be in town this day.
  2. One thing I will stress about the dies, going cheap ruins your brass. I initially purchased a set of Lee 6.5 Grendel dies and the results were very inconsistent. At time during the resizing, the brass was "crushed". At nearly a buck each, I didn't want to risk losing additional cases. I opted for the Redding competition dies and its been smooth sailing ever since. I'll give you my old Lee dies if you like. You can't go wrong with Sabre! As for your lower, just pick a reasonably priced one. It does not need to be stamped with anything grendel specific. Mine is a Spikes Tactical lower and has CAL MULTI stamped into it. Welcome to the Grendel family!
  3. Let be start by saying you get what you pay for... My project started with a reasonably priced used AA upper. I found this on www.65grendel.com. (You can also find good deals on gunbroker.com.) I then added additional upgrades over time as I could afford them. I looked at the GSR upper, but like you, the price was beyond my budget. AA only offers a gas piston upper in 18", and I wanted a 24" barrel. When considering a piston upper, the price is significantly higher up front. BUT, if you choose a standard configuration and install a piston conversion kit at a later date, you pay approx the same price after purchasing the kit, a new rail, and installing it. When I purchased my Adams Arms kit, I failed to realize that my gas block was too large. This forced me to purchase a new, smaller gas block barrel. It became an expensive mistake. Whatever configuration you choose, make it easy on yourself and buy a complete upper to start. Also keep in mind the rifling twist when looking at purchasing your upper. Mine is a 1-9. You might want to do some research on the bullets and their weights before deciding on a twist. I'm shooting 120 SMKs and 130 Berger VLD with amazing accuracy. The downside to a grendel is the fluctuating availability of ammunition. There can be shortages and extended backorders from time to time, but reloading can eliminate this issue. Additional upgrades- This is where it becomes subjective and your wallet may assume the leadership role. My rule of thumb- purchase items that allow you the most flexibility. My PRS stock is very nice, but it does come at higher a cost. I like the adjustments and the bottom rail for my mono-pod. Other items like a scope, a larger charging handle, bipod, muzzle break, suppressor, Magpul MIAD grip with storage area, etc,....add until your heart's content or your wallet is empty. I am reloading 6.5 grendel. So if you are a reloader and need future assistance in working up your loads. Let me know.
  4. Better late than never! This work stuff is definately interferring with my play time. I attended the long range shooting class on March 19th. A bit of background on me. Having spent 12 years in the Army, I was not that familiar with anything outside of iron sights or my trusty, issued Aimpoint red dot. Last Summer I finished my 6.5 Grendel build and topped it with a Leupold Mark IV. Well, this was a high end scope, but it did me little good when I didn't understand exactly what I was looking through. It has a TRM reticle with 1/4 MOA adjustments, and I could never seemed to "make it work". After many trips to the range, some were great while others had me on the edge of driving over my project rifle and leaving it for dead. What was I missing? March 19th came along and I couldn't pass up this opportunity. The class was small and I had plenty of questions. Tres started with the basics. After several drawings and an explanation of some terminology, the light was coming on! I had heard many of the explained concepts, but I could not see the value or put it to work when shooting. Throughout the day, he built on the previous concepts and made sure everyone understood before moving on. Difficult concepts were broken down and easily explained with his whiteboard art. Partial list of topics covered: terminology, types of scopes, types of bullets, reticles & adjustments, incline/decline firing solutions, reticle target ranging, effect of weather & corrections, data cards, plus a nice list of tips and tricks. I now have a much better understanding of my equipment, simple and advanced shooting techniques thanks to Tres. This class was well worth the money.
  5. NOooooo, I fear change. I shot a few rounds yesterday. Its definately a new feeling using that grip. I was hoping to move the grip forward, but forgot a screwdriver.
  6. Thanks for the input guys. I think this touches on part of the issue. I got caught up in a tacticool (impulse) moment. One of those "hey, I don't have one of those." I normally shoot it with by simply grasping the rail. As I said in my initial post, some mandatory range time should quickly identify whether or not I keep it, or put it on my son's mid-length AR. I also noticed I am unable to operate my flashlight. Maybe Magpul needs can add a pressure-switch option on future models. Do they have a "suggestion box"?
  7. Last night I bought the Magpul Angled Fore-Grig. I like the look but I'm not sure I like the feel. How many of you have this installed on your evil black rifles? Does it take some "getting used to"? Has anyone gone from a vertical style hangrip to the AFG? I guess I will wait and see until I put a few rounds down-range.
  8. Lookin' good! What optic are you looking at installing?
  9. I can throw some help your way. I have a Dillon 550 instead of a Hornady press, but the basic steps remain the same. Out of the list of calibers, I can walk you through the makings of a 5.56/.223 round. Shoot me a PM when your move is complete.
  10. Count me in if you are bringing the class to Nashville.
  11. Sipsey Street Irregulars: This is going to piss off a number of people -- thoroughly and completely. I help Paul Helmke with his next crusade. Try to figure out why. This is not recent, but it's the first I have come across it. Here is a portion of the article at the link above. Does this only refer to all firearms or shotguns (with pistol-grips) with NO stock? I'm confused here. Too much legal jargon. ATF Letter Ruling means that a "pistol grip firearm" is a Destructive Device In a section entitled "Pistol Grips and Shotguns" on pages 2-3 of its November 2009 FFL Newsletter (click here to read it, ATF stated that "A firearm with a pistol grip in lieu of the shoulder stock is not designed to be fired from the shoulder and, therefore, is not a shotgun." This statement arose from ATF's clarification that "Certain commercially produced firearms do not fall within the definition of shotgun under the GCA even though they utilize a shotgun shell for ammunition. For example, firearms that come with a pistol grip in place of the buttstock are not shotguns as defined by the GCA." The procedures for recording transfers of such firearms were published by ATF (click here to read them), and ATF advises they be described as a "pistol grip firearm." Regulations involving pistol-gripped shotguns were included in the first regulations implementing the NFA, published in the INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN, Cumulative Bulletin XIII-2, July-December 1934, pages 433-440 (click here to read them). In particular, S.T. 772 states: "A so-called shotgun with a pistol grip, which fires a shot shell, falls within the class of 'any other weapon' . . . f such a gun is capable of being concealed on the person." S.T. 779 addresses classification of a firearm that is "a single shot, single trigger, and single hammer gun with a pistol grip, and is chambered for shot loads. It is so compact that it may be strapped over the shoulder, either over or under the coat." S.T. 779 further states that "The test described by the [National Firearms] for determining whether a particular weapon comes within the classification of 'any other weapon' . . . is not the length of the barrel, but whether the weapon is capable of being concealed on the person," and that the foregoing gun met the definition of "any other weapon" under the NFA. When the Congress amended the NFA under the National Firearms Act of 1968 (also known as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968), it defined a "destructive device," in part, as "Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes." Source: 26 U.S.C, Section 5845(f). "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of the Treasury; however, the Attorney General began performing all functions of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to firearms after ATF was transferred to the Department of Justice on January 24, 2003. Until the November 2009 article, and a subsequent ATF Letter Ruling, so-called "pistol-grip shotguns" may have occupied a "gray" area under the GCA and the NFA. In 1960, the Congress amended the NFA to establish a 26" overall length requirement for a rifle or shotgun; a 16" barrel length standard for a rifle; and a $5 transfer tax for all "any other weapon" NFA firearms (click here to read it). Before the 1960 Act, both rifles and shotguns were required to have barrel lengths of 18" (there was no overall length requirement), and AOW transfers were $200. ATF adopted the 26" overall length requirement as a criteria for "concealibility" to uniformly implement the AOW standard. Consequently, since 1968, ATF viewed so-called "pistol-grip shotguns" under the 26" overall length requirement and manufacturers apparently presumed that an 18" barrel length was also required. In response to a request for clarification of the law, ATF advised a firearms manfacturer in a letter dated July 20, 2010 (click here to read it): " . . . in an effort to achieve consistent application of the law, ATF utilizes 26 inches as the presumptive standard to determine whether a firearm is 'capable of being concealed on the person' [and] "barrel length is considered only to the extent that it constitutes a portion of the overall-length measurement of a firearm." ATF also stated "because the statute does not expressly indicate any overall length, a firearm measuring greater than 26 inches in length may properly be classified as an . . . AOW . . . if it otherwise satisfies the definiton of an AOW and there is evidence that the firearm in question was actually concealed on a person [italics in original." In a letter dated October 27, 2010, ATF advised the manufacturer that installing a barrel approximately 17" in length in a firearm that was originally manufactured with a pistol grip in place of a shoulder stock, whose overall length is approximately 26-1/4", "is not a 'firearm' as defined by the NFA." (Click here to read it). The letter also states that if the submitted firearm "is concealed on a person, the . . . classification may change." The foregoing discussion, played out in Federal District Court in a criminal case, might well cause millions of what ATF now terms a "pistol grip firearm" to be reclassified as an "Any Other Weapon" if any such firearms are concealed on a person. Such a reclassification could occur, for example, in a criminal case if a defendant is found guilty of concealing a "pistol grip firearm" on his or her person. If one takes ATF's most recent correspondence on the issue at face value, it means that concealing a "pistol grip firearm" (regardless of its barrel length) on a person, could legally render it an "Any Other Weapon" subject to the NFA. There are millions of such "pistol grip firearms" that have been lawfully owned by millions of law-abiding citizens for many years, and they are manufactured by a variety of firearms manufacturers. If these firearms were ruled to be NFA firearms, they would be instantly and involuntarily converted into illegal contraband. Moreover, under current law, there is no legal mechanism to enable their continued legal possession except by (1) registering them as NFA firearms during an amnesty established by the Attorney General, or (2) a change in the NFA law, which must be enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. ATF has created a potential legal conundrum by clarifying that that certain "pistol grip firearms" are not shotguns, because apart from the "Any Other Weapon" issue just discussed, ATF has not acknowledge the fact that these firearms are most probably classifiable as "Destructive Devices." Again, taken at face value, a "pistol grip firearm" with a bore diameter larger than 1/2" in diameter is a "Destructive Device" under the NFA, unless the Attorney General determines that it is "a shotgun . . . generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes." By determining that a "pistol grip firearm" is not a shotgun, it is difficult to understand how current law would not classify such as firearm as a Destructive Device."
  12. I am interested, but its too far for me. I will be first in line when the class comes to Nashville.
  13. I like it. It's so nice to have a clean bolt carrier after shooting all day. Wipe it down, lube it up, and your back in business! I was concerned that the Grendel would be too much for the piston kit, but so far it has worked perfectly. I had to modify/machine my rail to allow room for the carrier actuating rod movement. It took some time and gave me some headaches but it has been worth it. I would recommend this kit to anyone wanting to upgrade to a gas piston upper.
  14. Mine started out as a Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel Overwatch upper receiver. - I installed a new (24") 6.5 Grendel barrel (with a smaller gas block diameter), new Troy rail, and Adams Arms gas piston kit. - The optic is a Leupold Mark IV 4.5x14x50mm LRT with a Larue one piece mount. - The lower started out with a Spikes Tactical (stripped ). I added a DPMS LPK. I'm still trying to make up my mind on what trigger group to upgrade to. - I added the Magpul PRS stock, MIAD grip with the extra firing pin and bolt carrier, and a mono pod. - The can is the Freedom model from www.libertycans.net. This was originally designed to be a 7.62mm can, but they custom made mine in 6.5mm. It took some time and headaches to get this all together, but it has been worth it.
  15. I am very interested in attending, but that is a long drive. I might have to look into carpooling from Nashville.
  16. Nolo- I own both .223 AR's and a Grendel. It's just a simple swap of the upper receiver and a new Grendel magazine, and you are in business. As some have stated, this is a great round to get you to 500yds and beyond. I'm currently shooting within a half-dollar at 300yds consistently. At 200yds, I am almost driving the rounds through the same hole. The only downside to the Grendel round (IMO) is the availability of ammunition. At times it can be scarce or expensive. At times there can be a considerable backorder wait time. This is why I am currently reloading this caliber to avoid the "unavailability issue". If you have any Grendel specific questions, just ask.
  17. Ahhh yes, I remember my conjugal visits with my suppressor. I hope your approval goes faster than mine did: 4 months for form4 approval with a paperwork correction.
  18. Couldn't have been Osama, Fox said so: FOXNews.com - Report: Bin Laden Already Dead - U.S. & World But what about all his cameo appearances since then.....oh, never-mind. Where's my tin foil?
  19. That mono-pod is sweet. You can make fast, smooth adjustments while limiting your rifles overall movement. Here is my 6.5 Grendel AR creation with a mono-pod and Liberty Freedom suppressor. Three shots At 200 yards- At 300 yards after being dialed in-
  20. I have this same grill with the smoker box add-on. This will make a mean brisket or rack of ribs!
  21. From time to time I come across segments that really make you think. It appears this guy has done his homework regarding the The Federal Firearms Act. (Original Intent Treatise - The Federal Firearms Act) The Federal Firearms Act by Dave Champion Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come? One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We've never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist. Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of "public policy", with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so. We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to "flexible" interpretations by "cooperative" judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system. The Federal Firearms Act (as amended) (18 USC, Chapter 44) Try as you might to find the title, "Federal Firearms Act" associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled "Commerce and Trade". Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations. Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252]. Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about. There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title. 18 USC §10: The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country . This is a pretty clear definition - and it will get clearer as this article proceeds! Interestingly, "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce" are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit: 18 USC §921(2) The term '' interstate or foreign commerce '' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State , or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). [emphasis and underlining added] You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more! We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44? The only distinction we find is in the use of the words "...any place in a State...". Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - or does it? Maybe we should ask what "place within a State" might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let's explore! Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled "Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction". What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is "State jurisdiction" and there is "federal jurisdiction", and the two are not the same. Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we'll get lost if we don't understand exactly what is being referred to in §7. Section 7 defines the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States". Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article: 18 USC §7(3): Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal "places" exist within the states of the Union. One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let's go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a). [Editor's Note: We've removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.] 18 USC §13(a): Whoever within... any places ... provided in section 7 of this title...not within the jurisdiction of any State ...is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State...in which such place is situated ... Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the "places" that are referred to in the definition of "interstate or foreign commerce" at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the "places...provided in section 7 of this title", which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State! Now let's do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let's add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" (at §921(2)). Our "clarified" version reads like this: The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia. Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn't it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses "States" is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, "interstate or foreign commerce" means commerce [solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my. Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean! Are you getting the picture? Every "place" being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the "interstate and foreign commerce" being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such "places". For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined "State" as "the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States". In short, it's all territorial. The definition of "interstate or foreign commerce", at 921(2), is only a "red herring" placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union. Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of "interstate commerce" provided at §10? Two little words - "any place" - needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny. If one reads the "Congressional Findings and Declarations" in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the "exclusive legislative control" clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union. Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution. Laws No Longer Printed You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were "omitted" when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word "omit"; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster's II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, "Left out". When a section or portion of a statute is "omitted" it is exactly as Webster has stated - it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect - it simply isn't printed in the United States Code any more! [Editor Note - The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See "What is the United States Code" for more on the Statutes-at-Large.] So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of "presumption from possession". While we've not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory "presumptions" tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of "interstate or foreign commerce". Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney's Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that's a bit difficult when the law isn't printed in the Code any more! The other omitted items are subsections ( and © of former section 902 which prohibits, "receipt with knowledge...that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively." You've got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you! Summary Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they've never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of "public policy" law that will eventually take the industry's life, and with it the American Citizen's access to at least one form of arms. Let's review what we've covered: Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, "Commerce and Trade". In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18. Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they're really up to.] Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners! The foundation of the federal government's authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia. The definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" at §921(2) does not refer to the government's Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government's police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress. The "declarations" or "findings" that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.
  22. What better way to spend Christmas Eve day than shooting? Using my reloaded 6.5 Grendel 120grain JHP Seirra Match Kings, I spent the morning getting the my scope dialed in for non-suppressed and suppressed shots, out to 200 (so far). I'm getting a solid setting for 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300. Today was spent working out to 200. I tried to also use my alternate, 130gr JHP Berger hunting round, but beyond 100yards and my rifle grouped like shotgun. This will be a problem for another day. Temp: 43F Winds: From the rear, less than 5 MPH Partly overcast skies The first suppressed groups @200 were OK- By the end of the day, I had gain the skills to make this a tack-driver. This was the final three suppressed shots I took today @200: In the coming days I hope to move this out to 250 and 300.
  23. THis morning I decided to reload some rounds because the weather wasn't that great. My Dillon press was all setup from my last session of reloading .223. I broke everything down and started to clean everything and put it all back together. I changed out my tool head and installed my 6.5 Grendel setup. All this time my boys were doing what boys do best- fighting. I had to play referee several times. (strike one) After several interuptions, I got everything reinstalled. - I verified the sizing of my case - I checked my powder: 31.5 grains (Stike two) - Checked my seating depth 2.260 (Stike three) I ran my first round through the press and bullet seated with a lot of resistance. When I examined the projectile, it was partially crushed. I'm thinking, "what the hell! I checked everything out". I ran another round through and got the same results. GGGRRRRR, I rechecked all my press settings and they were correct. The resizing die was fine, the powder was throwing correctly, and the COL was right. What was wrong? Well after some time, I could only think of one thing- too much powder. BUT I VERIFIED IT! I went back to my load data. HOLY $$!$. The data called for 29.0. I was compressing my powder to the extent that my bullet shape was crushed. What's an extra 2.5 (compressed) grains going to do??? PROBLEM- I was using the load data for my 120 grain bullets, instead of the 130grain. The only indication was the crushed bullet. PROBLEM- The COL was 2.265, not 2.260 PROBLEM- Too Many distractions PROBLEM- I didn't refer to the load data sheet from the start. I used the "oh, I remember that number" mentality. It has been awhile since I loaded this round. Fortunately I had an obvious indication of a problem. This would have been ugly had I pulled the trigger with these mistakes. I included a pic of these rounds and the data sheet. My camera sucks at closeups, but these rounds are "notched" where the seating die pushed into them. I call this a lesson learned.

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.