AR-15 OWNERS – take note of immanent PSP regulations changes

[-JD-]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

It's not, you are free to turn any handgun or receiver into a rifle. [snip]

OK, I thought maybe I dozed off in class.

Surprised to see that in something written byKim Stolfer though.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by -JD-

OK, I thought maybe I dozed off in class.

Surprised to see that in something written byKim Stolfer though.

Kim Stolfer and Harry Schneider are two of the most underrated assets that we have in Pennsylvania, they are knowledgeable, dedicated, and mostly they work behind the scenes to accomplish good things.

There are others, of course, but Kim and Harry come to mind first. I would forgive either of them a lot more mistakes than I've ever seen. Especially when you compare a subtle point like this to the complete canards used by the opposition, basic issues like the difference between semi-autos and machineguns, the "gun show loophole", how "1 gun a month" would solve straw purchases and cure cancer without inconveniencing "real" sportsmen, and the worst lie: That the 2nd Amendment is about duck hunting.

Compared to all that crap, the symmetry of conversions is a tiny point.

[-JD-]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Kim Stolfer and Harry Schneider are two of the most underrated assets that we have in Pennsylvania, they are knowledgeable, dedicated, and mostly they work behind the scenes to accomplish good things.

There are others, of course, but Kim and Harry come to mind first. I would forgive either of them a lot more mistakes than I've ever seen. Especially when you compare a subtle point like this to the complete canards used by the opposition, basic issues like the difference between semi-autos and machineguns, the "gun show loophole", how "1 gun a month" would solve straw purchases and cure cancer without inconveniencing "real" sportsmen, and the worst lie: That the 2nd Amendment is about duck hunting.

Compared to all that crap, the symmetry of conversions is a tiny point.

True enough. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude!

It's that nagging question for us mere mortals: Who shall we follow when our Gods of Firearms Law shall disagree?

Or should that be Gods of Firearms Law and Gods of Firearms Politics?

[Xringshooter]

Well, to continue on with the question posed to the PSP. My State Senator, Jake Corman sent me two letters, one a cover letter saying that he is disturbed by what is happening (he has had more than a few calls, emails and letters about this subject) and a copy of a letter he just sent to Col. Pawlowski, the PSP Commissioner.

In his letter to the commissioner he said "I have been contacted by a constituent who raised a very serious question regarding a supposed practice of certain State Police Officers in requesting SP4-113 reports for sales that do not require such reporting. Below is an excerpt of his concerns" He then pretty much copied my letter to him (Jake) without divulging my name, etc.

His last line reads "I would appreciate your candid and prompt response.

Say what you may about State Senators, and such, but I feel a letter directly from one does hold a bit of weight. He wants an answer, and he wants it quickly. Jake has always been straight with me when I have talked to him and in my experience, if he said he would do something, he did it.

So now I wait to see what happens (not going to hold my breath waiting for the commissioners response ).

So now I have both my local Representative and Senator questioning this matter.

[Jim1911]

So far, here is the only reply I have received on this matter.

In order to look into your inquiry, I will need additional information from you concerning your email you sent to Senator McIlhinney. Are you speaking of the issue that revolves around the AR-15 Thompson Contender?



As mentioned above, I will need additional information in order to look into this matter and craft an appropriate response to you.



Sincerely,



Tammi L. Mancuso

Administrative Assistant

I didn't know Thompson contender made an AR-15

[Guns4Fun]

Originally Posted by Jim1911

So far, here is the only reply I have received on this matter.



I didn't know Thompson contender made an AR-15

Don't worry, they don't know either . And these are the fracking people in charge - geesh - no wonder they sign shit without reading it.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Jim1911

. . .
I didn't know Thompson contender made an AR-15

They are related issues. The sentence would have been perfectly fine with the simple addition of a "/", like so: "...the issue that revolves around the AR-15/ Thompson Contender..." I suppose a more accurate phrasing would be "the issue that revolves around the differential treatment of certain stripped rifle receivers for purposes of FFL transfers across state lines, and to certain buyers aged 18-21, and for completing and submitting an additional form, as applicable to the Colt AR-15 model and substantially identical receivers from other manufacturers, as well as to the Thompson Contender if it's adaptable for use as a rifle or pistol with the parts readily available..."

And yet, I think we know what the author meant the first time, don't we?

Would we be so critical about someone who was concerned about people who drive while distracted, described as "the issue that revolves around phoning/texting while driving".

Don't sneer at people who are not familiar with the jargon of our field of interest, most of us would be lost in a discussion of bills, statutes, majorities, supermajorities, quorums, Robert's Rules of Order, pluralities, etc.

Outside the context of your own little world, lots of words or terms have no fixed meaning. Here's a good example: What does "PC" stand for? Personal computer, probable cause, power consumption, or one of the other 247 definitions?
http://www.acronymfinder.com/PC.html

As a related note, how many of us talk about our "AK-47" when we mean something very different, like a WASR 10 or MAK-90?

[lorrel]

Originally Posted by Emptymag

Have you been paying attention?

This has been "enforced" for some time now. Rifles(AR-15s)are being handled as handguns on paper. Just ask anyone who's purchased an AR-15 in the past several months.

It's bullshit and it will continue until they are forced to stop.

Ordered my AR from Stag Arms back in late Feb, early Mar. Picked up the AR from a local dealer about 3 weeks ago.
Paperwork has it as a rifle, not a handgun

[Activist]

I want to thank Gun Lawyer for drawing my attention to the points where I should have been clearer in my article on the PSP and AR-15’s! For clarification here is how it should read:
There is another dimension to this entire issue and that once a record of sale form is completed the assumption is that it fits the definition under Title 18 §6102 meaning that it is either a handgun or a short barreled rifle or shotgun (a short barreled rifle or shotgun is a NFA weapon). With this being said there is a potential conflict here in that the federal government (Read that BATFE) holds that once a firearm is constructed as a rifle they can not be modified or changed into a handgun. Therefore it will be illegal to alter a rifle into a handgun configuration. My questions are as follows:
1. Does this policy of registering (isn't this already illegal?) a frame or receiver by completing a ROS (record of sale) form, since it is NOT to be completed for a long gun, establish (especially to enquiring officers on the street) that the receiver/firearm in question in the PSP database is, or should be, a handgun? With this in mind, and IF the firearm in question is not, then the resulting confusion could end up with seizure and confiscation and arrest?
2. Is the person purchasing the receiver the end manufacturer for the purposes of the definitions (see the attached 2003 BATFE Letter) used by the BATFE once they make the receiver into a ‘rifle’ and will this be used against the subsequent purchaser who then modifies it into a handgun (since Rifle to Handgun is prohibited)?

The PSP are notorious for ignoring the law and applying their own tortured interpretations such as ‘giving receipts for seized firearms’, ignoring ‘open carry’ rights, arresting individuals for possessed firearms not being ‘in’ their (ROS) database, dictating arbitrary interpretations of LTCF procedures (too many to list), and on and on and on. My concerns are with the blurring of the lines of distinction between how receivers are sold and what the end product is and ‘how’ these concepts will be interpreted in the field by local and state law enforcement officers as well as what claims PSP ‘experts’ will testify to in court based upon the ambiguity they have created. Please see the attached letter from the PSP to Rep. Causer and then his reply (along with 28 other PA House Members) to the fabrications contained within the PSP letter. This is outrageous conduct on the part of the PSP bureaucracy. Mountain Jack (exonerated thankfully!) can attest to the excesses of officers in the field and my files are full of individuals who have had to go to court to defend themselves, many against these kinds of arbitrary interpretations of law.

The technical issues of this discussion are one important aspect BUT the equally important aspect is the pragmatic realities of law enforcement/citizen interaction. The political bias driving these issues result in real life drama and trauma that leaves average citizens, with no criminal intent, at the mercy of prejudiced courts, lawyers with little to no experience in these issues (Gun Lawyer and several others excepted of course), and the horrible choice of defending oneself at the risk of financial devastation.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and in my haste to get this out I once again discovered that writing articles while dead tired and falling asleep at the keyboard is not a good thing. In the end the discussion on this has been outstanding and a healthy give and take leads to better understanding for all. Also to J.D. I would say that I, for one, am certainly no God of Firearms Law although I do try hard to understand and comprehend these issues and am as human as each of you (although some in Philly don’t think so!). I thoroughly appreciate your feedback and your support (when I do what is right) and, especially, the dialogue of this forum which is bringing much needed information and education to many gun owners!! I only wish that I had more time to participate here instead of concentrating on the maddening political issues!

Thank you again
Kim Stolfer
Chairman, FOAC
Legislative Chairman, ACSL
03-10-30-ATFLtr-ConvertingRiflesToPistols.pdf

09-07-06-PSPToCauser-Chgs-AR15s.PDF

09-07-17-Causer&HseMbrs-ReplyTOPSP-AR15s.doc

[-JD-]

Activist,

First, thank you for everything you are doing for all of us!

The "Gods" reference was mostly meant to be humorous, but I think helps to point out the complicated and shifting legal minefield (with overlapping federal and state regulations) that we try to navigate to be law abiding firearms owners. As you so correctly point out, this difficulty is gravely exacerbated by the inconsistent and often capricious interpretation of the laws (and as we see here - deliberate contravention or de facto enactment) by executive agencies, the judiciary and non-empowered local jurisdictions.

As much as I appreciate the service that GunLawyer001 provides with 3-days of (excellent) seminars covering the laws and practical legal aspects of firearm ownership, I wish there was no need (at least for 3-days worth). We have complexity and confusion, instead of clarity and intelligibility, in our laws and their execution. When that complexity trips up someone who (despite denying God-hood) spends vast amounts of time navigating the firearms laws in pursuit of political change, it should not reflect ill of the person (my apologies if my comments appeared otherwise) but of of the regulatory mess that has grown wild.

Thank you!

Dave