Update on AR Pistol build

No major updates, but I did manage to carefully remove the AK-74-style brake that made the barrel 16"+.  I cleaned up the weld point and recoated the barrel with flat black 1000 degree F grill paint.  Cut down the front sight base to allow it to fit under a free-float hand guard and mounted the KX3 muzzle device. 

<<I have sold off the Noveske KX3 and have installed an A2 in it's place.  Pics of the build will be updated after I get the rail I traded it for>>

The rails I have on in the picture are just some of the 'Made in the US' repalcements from Leapers and are hand guard replacements.  I hope to get a 12" keymod hand guard from one of the more reputable manufacturers as I now have a green laser that I plan on mounting and it isn't overly light weight.  <<10" S&W branded Troy rails are en route to me.  Yeah, Troy...but I diodn't pay anything for them and they are used.  ;)  >>

I did get a SureFire M900A weapon light in the trade along with the rails shown above.  My build's OAL is over 26" so in theory based upon my Tech Letter it would be legal to mount but some buddies checked in with their ATF contacts and were told it was illegal.  They did not seem to know about the Franklin XO-26 which the Tech Dept called a 'firearm' as opposed to an AOW.  To cut out the possibility to run afoul of the NFA '34 and GCA '68 I am going to sell off the VFG and install the AFG2 that everyone agrees is 100% legal since it has a steeper angle than 90.

The plan almost changed to have this become a rifle.  I think that I'll build a rifle seperate from this one.  I will get a 300BLK barrel at some point for this one.

Also, thanks to ICE Arms for the quick shipping on the replacement gas line.  I'll be doing more business with them soon!

Ice Arms link here

Howler's Den calls out pro-gunnies on the EO's from POTUS

Holwer's Den called out a couple guys on ARFcom in regards to the negative response that the Executive Orders that President Obama laid out earlier this year.

Here's the rebuttal I posted which may or may not be posted to their site, I have no idea if they actually allow more discussion than other anti-gun sites do.  I have been banned from several for being 'a shill for the NRA' or being 'off message'.  These are my opinions of the EOs that I have shared on several other forums and FaceBook pages since they were first published. 

"A rebuttal:

"1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

This makes sense to me and falls well within the purview of the POTUS' abilities; all Executive branch agencies should work together. This is an internal 'play nice' from their boss/our Employee the POTUS.

"2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

How is the Federal government allowing government bodies to violate HIPPA a good thing? Please, explain this to me. If someone was adjudicated and forcibly remanded to state mental healthcare, this is a public record so HIPPA has no bearing. this is what the NICS is interested in. Or is this going to allow fishing expeditions based upon privileged doctor/patient information?

"3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."

This should mean that states that have been conforming (such as Missouri) the whole time that NICS has been around should be rewarded. Somehow I don't see that happening and instead I see this as trying to 'slap around' states who are non-compliant. Considering that the NICS has been in place for a couple of decades, there has been plenty of time for states to send representation to the federal level to get this repealed. "game on" as it were to the non-compliant states.

"4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

#4 is rather troubling considering the continuation of US PATRIOT Act and the failure of indefinite detention to be removed from NDAA 2011 as well as several other actions and threats made by the executive branch over the last 12+ years. 'Domestic terrorist' lists similar to the 'no fly' list that has zero oversight?

#5 is somewhat ok, I'd rather see a federal database that is publicly searchable for recovered stolen/seized firearms. Verification of ownership and access to their Right to Keep and bear Arms is fine, but looking at the 'List' in #4 this could be troubling if determination of ownership of a specific type of weapon puts one in a 'restricted' class.

If #13 includes a recommendation from the DoJ to NOT allow plea deals in cases where any weapon was used to commit a crime, I'd be ok with that as long as Castle Doctrine and no duty to retreat come into effect and DA's are unable to go after defensive gun use when employed by those who are not barred from using their 2nd Amendment right to self defense with a firearm.

The EO's in and of themselves are relatively benign but looking at the direction that we have been going since the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 they can been seen in a negative light. The other issue is that even if the current Administration does nothing to curtail rights, who is to say that future ones won't?

Oh, if you want to publish my personal information, feel free. I am the interim Chairman of the Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri, a member of the Blue Steel Democrats and run the blog at www.armedliberalinmo.blogspot.com so any publicity or additional memberships you want to send my way, please feel free. ;)

My wife is an immigrant from Canada who is working on her Citizenship so I am not doing anything that would impede her progress.

Again, this is the view of someone who identifies as a Liberal, feels that Civil Rights are held by no one if anyone's are disrupted and disagrees that we need as much federal government as we have.

Thanks,
Armed Liberal in MO"

Oh yeah, they did respond.  A very polite "Thanks, but we disagree".  They seemed intrigued that there are Liberals who tend to vote Democrat yet actually *LIKE* firearms.  The shock!  ;)

They also posted some personal info on other blog posts of RKBA activists.  I'm not sure why they did that, it seems that it would potentially put folks in harm's way but I am not sure if that would be the folks whose family and addresses were printed or those who would seek to do them harm...

Note sent to Southern Poverty Law Center

Hi Daniel, I'm not sure if you remember myself or my wife W. but we are concerned about the 'Patriot' report. 

Do we fit your current definition of Domestic Terrorists?  We do not feel that the federal government has any right to say who I can sell my private property to and have been working to increase the enjoyment of folks' Natural Rights to self defense.

I am an advocate for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Much like the rest of our Civil Rights, minority access has historically blocked either by force of law or by the cost of entry.  While I do not fit their demographic, I agree 100% with the Deacons of Defense and the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (the old school one, not the recent hate group) that everyone who has not separated themselves from their rights.

Backing gun restrictions is saying that Bull was right to block MLK's application for a concealed carry license.

Please think carefully about any response you have on this issue.

Thanks,
'Armed Liberal In Missouri'  (I did use my real name)
Former Asatruar, current gun rights advocate.

______

Years ago, my wife and I were actively supporting the SLPC.  Now, they have released a paper on 'domestic terrorism' which defines Second Amendment supporters as teh same as John Birch Society or other Right Wing groups.

They may have just lost my support.  I am awaiting their response and will post it here.

Assault wepons bans are bad ideas.

Many folks have been moved by the events of last week and rightly so.  They were horrific and they were preventable, just not in the ways that Senator Diane Feinstein from California would have you believe.

In 1994, a ban was put in place to restrict the ownership of military-style 'assault weapons' from civilian hands.  This was based upon certain exact models as well as some ergonomic features that some folks saw as 'dangerous' or 'scary'.  They included the Colt AR-15 (named directly in the ban) as well as the following items along with others:  pistol grips, detachable magazines, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, and bayonet lugs.  Also banned were any magazines that could hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition.  This ban had zero effect on any items made before 1994, ex post facto laws are prohibited by Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.  Those items are called 'pre-ban' as several states - including New Jersey and Connecticut -  still have active bans on these items.

This ban expired in 2004, despite President George W Bush stating publicly that he would sign any bill that came to his desk that would extend this ban.  Thankfully, no such bill came his way.

There are several reasons for this.  First, no appreciable increase in the decline of violent crime under the AWB was found by either the CDC or the FBI.  The one thing that did increase under the AWB was the number of crimes committed with magazines that were larger than 30 rounds in capacity.  Also, the Democrats took a severe beating in elections from 1994 through 2008 in no small part to their support of this ban.

Now, I have blogged about Diane Feinstein, the DNC's plank on Firearms and other things that the Dems have done in the past year to try and get the ban back in place so I won't cover those here.

Diane Feinstein has written a bill to reinstate the AWB with no provision for currently legally owned firearms to be allowed, total ban on production of parts for these firearms and a magazine capacity limit that would be accompanied with destruction of any 'high capacity assault clips'  (her words, not reality) held in civilian hands.  I have three words for the Distinguished Senator from California:  ex post facto.  Congress has no right to take anything away from me that is currently legal today to possess without fair compensation.  Looking at the current price of complete AR platform pistols and rifles, this would mean I would be owed $5000+ for my rifles/pistols and $300 for my magazines.

But wait, the battle has just begun!

United States v Miller in 1939 established that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms 100% covers military-grade firearms (Mr Miller's sawed off shotgun sans short barreled shotgun tax stamp was not fitting the court's description as no short barreled shotgun was in use by the military at that time) which means that 'assault weapons' under Diane's plan ARE PROTECTED.  Several jobs done in the US military use the semi-automatic AR-15 as an active part of their jobs, they do not require select-fire M4 rifles to conduct their duties.

This so far prompted the following letter to be sent to my Representative and Senators from Missouri:

Dear Sen. Roy Blunt, Sen. Claire McCaskill, and Rep. William Clay:

I oppose Sen. Feinstein's New Version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because it attempts to stop crime by making some 'features' on modern firearms illegal. This will not work.
During the previous ban, crime rates for violent crimes went unchanged from previous rates of decline as outlined in the FBI's Unified Crime Report from 1986 to 1994 and again from 2004 through 2011.
Also, Senator Feinstein's call for making existing firearms illegal to possess or transfer is in direct conflict with Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution. Ex post facto laws are a waste of time and resources as they are patenly unconstitutional.
The judicial review issued in United States v. Miller (1939) clearly states that Mr Miller's sawed off shotgun was not protected by the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms as it was not a military style firearm. The semi-automatic civilian versions of the M16A2 and M4 MBR fall under this decision as they are semi-automatic versions of current main battle rifles in use by our military today.
Please, work on actually funding the mental healthcare initiatives that were unfunded in the 1980's by the same group that is calling for them today.

Signature seen by Members of Congress:
Mr. Armed and Liberal in MO
My street Address
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63xxx
Missouri’s 1st district

The call for additional healthcare funding for mental health assistance grew out of this article:  http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html.  In it, it reminds us that the Conservatives under Reagan fought back against the 'welfare state' put in place by the New Deal.  This very same group of politicians - some even the same Senators who as Representatives worked to de-fund this system -  are now rightfully calling for these intiatives to be refunded instead of enacting meaningless bans.  I agree with them, spree killers are the issue, not the tools that they use.

Please, craft letters similar to  the one I copied above and send them to your local, state and federal representatives.  We need common sense mental health care, not 'common sense' gun restrictions.  There are already laws against murder, we need fewer plea bargains and no new gun restriction laws.

An email that was sent to the Democratic National Committee

Since the Platform has now been amended to include God and Israel, why not make some more changes?
In an email that we sent to the DNC, the following changed verbiage was suggested:

"Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, much of which is already in place. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in continuing the honest, open national conversation about firearms. We will focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like exploring the use of a BIDS-type system, encouraging responsable gun ownership and proper storage options—so that the number of guns falling into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few can be reduced or eliminated."

Information on BIDS can be found here: http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDS%20v.%20NICS.htm One concern is that the BIDS list would be handled like the TSA's "no fly" list, but that can be avoided by utilizing the current methods of resolving NICS inaccuracies on a Deny result.

As a party, we have come a LONG way from where we were in '94 on this issue. Removing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a wedge decisive issue would remove the teeth from anti-Liberal groups such as the GOA and NRA-ILA. The '94 Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to stem the tide of gun related crime and in fact caused a plateau of crime while it was in place based upon a study of the FBI UCR data from '94 through '04 which then has declined steadily again after the expiration.

I have CC'ed other Gun Owners' Caucuses from OR, AZ and TX to keep them appriased of our suggestions from here in Missouri.

Thank you for placing Firearms in the Civil Rights portion of the Platform where it is a much better fit."





Yours for a Democratic Victory,
Erik Olsen
Interim Chairman

This is the text of a blog post that I put up on the Democrats.org site for the DGOC of MO.  The message was CCed to the other Gun Owners' Caucuses around the country and they were in agreement.  

If GOP pundits and Israeli S-PACs can change things from the outside, perhaps Democrats on the inside can make changes as well.  Diane Fienstein will object, but she is but one voice in the party.  Her lack of willingness to learn about this issue is a splinter in the eye of responsible gun owners everywhere.

What firearms law changes need to be made to make us safer?

Answer:  none.

A lot of my fellow liberals are calling for increasing the restrictions on guns in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado shootings.  I fundamentally disagree.  The actions of a lone nutcase should not be used as an excuse by the power elite to force law abiding gun owners to surrender their guns.

Calls for more 'reasonable' gun laws on Facebook have been met with the following quote from Yours Truly:

Explain to me who's definition of 'reasonable' we are going to use. I prefer George Mason and Thomas Jefferson's, they are two of the greatest Liberal minds we as a country have had.

Why not just scuttle the 4th and 5th Amendments and allow Anti Gun cops to check every house. I mean, they'd go into the safes and remove all of the legally owned guns. We'd be safe then, right?

The 2nd Amendment is an individual right thanks to the 1903 Militia Act. Sorry, I for one have NO issue with this at all.

Many other blogs have written about the perspective of firearms owners on the tragedy so I won't go into that here.  I maintain that Liberals should be the ones leading the fight to ensure that all parts of the Constitution are upheld and if anything is onoerous the proper steps be taken to change them.

Several folks have called for the 2nd Amendment to be re-written.  If they feel that this is something that the majority of the country would agree with, I encourage them to draft the Amendment, call a Convention and get 33 states to ratify the changes.  I also recommend that they not blame the 'Gun Lobby' when this measure fails.