If I'm understanding this correctly, this is a real problem that could set a ridiculous precedent for all gun owners if this woman is convicted on this charge.
California woman charged with illegal SBR over stock-less 10/22
Now, from the surrounding information, I'm not saying she's very likely a completely innocent or a perhaps even a very good person. That's not the point though. The point is this..
“The rifle was a Ruger .22 caliber rifle, which had been modified by having the butt stock removed. It was determined that the rifle was an illegal short barreled rifle.”
There's several things wrong with that statement. There is a clear intent by their use of 'modified' to imply that this is something like things people are familiar with as a potentially illegal modification. Something like a sawed-off shotgun or anything regulated along those lines. It's not that though. It's just a removed stock; something probably every 10/22 owner has done at some point. (To change a stock, clean under it, etc and so on)
Beyond that , it's a flaw in NFA to begin with that OAL has anything to do what makes a "short BARREL rifle". I could argue NFA and the ATF and everything wrong with them for hours though.
So, apparently, under these charges, removing the stock from a 10/22 puts you in violation of NFA ? Seems awfully silly to me, but also potentially very dangerous in terms of setting precedents which could be widely abused.
California woman charged with illegal SBR over stock-less 10/22
Now, from the surrounding information, I'm not saying she's very likely a completely innocent or a perhaps even a very good person. That's not the point though. The point is this..
“The rifle was a Ruger .22 caliber rifle, which had been modified by having the butt stock removed. It was determined that the rifle was an illegal short barreled rifle.”
There's several things wrong with that statement. There is a clear intent by their use of 'modified' to imply that this is something like things people are familiar with as a potentially illegal modification. Something like a sawed-off shotgun or anything regulated along those lines. It's not that though. It's just a removed stock; something probably every 10/22 owner has done at some point. (To change a stock, clean under it, etc and so on)
Beyond that , it's a flaw in NFA to begin with that OAL has anything to do what makes a "short BARREL rifle". I could argue NFA and the ATF and everything wrong with them for hours though.
So, apparently, under these charges, removing the stock from a 10/22 puts you in violation of NFA ? Seems awfully silly to me, but also potentially very dangerous in terms of setting precedents which could be widely abused.
unbelievable
