Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@Defender @DaveTN

The case with the PLR-16 you mentioned violating 39-17-1302, I'm not familiar with why that violates the law.    I'm assuming it's related to #4 on the list but don't understand why.    (Didn't google to determine what #5 used to be.)   The normal configuration pictures appear to be a pistol from my understanding unless his had a foregrip or the such,     Any clarification would be appreciated. 

A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs or sells:

  • (1) An explosive or an explosive weapon;
  • (2) A device principally designed, made or adapted for delivering or shooting an explosive weapon;
  • (3) A machine gun;
  • (4) A short-barrel rifle or shotgun;
  • (5) [Deleted by 2017 amendment.]
  • (6) Hoax device;
  • (7) Knuckles; or
  • (8) Any other implement for infliction of serious bodily injury or death that has no common lawful purpose.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Trekbike said:

@Defender @DaveTN

The case with the PLR-16 you mentioned violating 39-17-1302, I'm not familiar with why that violates the law.   

I don’t know that it was ever posted why he decided it was illegal. My guess is that because it is a rifle caliber and uses an AR magazine; it is an SBR. He can make that argument if he likes. Just like he (or any DA) that had evidence of someone using a brace as a stock (not its intended use) on an SBR without NFA documentation, could make the argument that’s illegal. Will it happen? Not likely. But if it did the court, not the BATF, would become the decision maker in that court’s jurisdiction. Would you be jailed if your defense was the approval of the ATF, and you were convicted? Not likely. Would you have large legal bills? Probably.

All of this is just information for someone to digest. Putting your freedom and your family’s finances in the hands of the ATF doesn’t make sense to me. If you think using a brace as a stock on a SBR does not violate Federal law; you have nothing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that he took a rifle and converted it into a pistol?? Or bought a rifle lower and converted it over to a pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flyboy said:

Could it be that he took a rifle and converted it into a pistol?? Or bought a rifle lower and converted it over to a pistol.

No, it was a PLR-16. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By my82cam
      Well, got another one!  Took my dad out shooting, after shooting the mac m10 and the colt M16, he is hooked.  We shot Saturday, and by monday night I had found and purchased him a like new mac m10.  He decided on the M10, because he can just use all of my accessories and uppers that I have accumulated for mine over the years.  I also have a new upper in the works for this thing.  As basic as the macs are, they have become a transferable sear pack. At 1/3 the price of a trany m16, they have really become a hot item.   There is just something about that full auto experience and I love letting people shoot them.
    • By ReeferMac
      Some company in Idaho recently started appearing in my googleads.... I've got to admit, for 60 bucks, I'm tempted to try one. Perhaps it will improve the ahhh, fuel economy? Anyone here ever try one out?
       
      https://www.lafoauto.com/products/type-e-1-2-28-5-8-24-single-core-fuel-filter-6-black-titanium
    • By maroonandwhite
      I recently picked up a 10.5” 5.56 to use as a truck/critter gun and possibly for home duties. I live out in the sticks with no neighbors so it’s nice to have a small rifle ready to go for anything that may come up. Now to the question:
      I currently have an AAC 7.62 SD on  .308 and am considering getting a QD flash hider for the 5.56 for double duty. From what I see I’m not sure the suppressor will have much perceived benefit on reducing the possible hearing damage. I’ll use ear pro outside of any bump in the night situations where I don’t have time to put on the muffs. 
       
      Second part:  I don’t want to mess with an adjustable gas block. I currently have an F marked block installed with a larger gas port similar to the MK18. I like the fixed sight so I’m also wondering if the gas will be intolerable by suppressing an already over gassed rifle. 
       
      My goal is to reduce any permanent hearing damage. If it’s way too much expense, added weight, and overall trouble trying to obtain a minimal result then I’ll hold off. I love the way this thing is balanced without a suppressor. 

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.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines