Jump to content

922R's Dark Side


Guest cleefurd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest cleefurd

HR 922R.

When you begin reading, it would appear there is hope for those who wish to personalize their post Nov30, 1990 import shotgun, by focusing solely on paragraph (a) and it's relation to paragraph ©.

 

Unfortunately par (a) gains twists when checked by paragraph (b) for "permissions";

 

Q>Is the modifier a manufacturer?

A>Manufacturers credentials might not matter if parts count compliance is met, we think...

 

....except that....

Sub-paragraph (3) would appear to indicate that even so much as a repair of a post Nov 1990 shotgun is forbidden, much less the "or the replacement of any part of such firearm" clause held within it.

 

Recount; Sub-paragraph (3) is a condition of paragraph (b), indicating ALL OTHERS are off limits to repair or parts additions(i.e. post Nov 1990 imported shotguns)

 

We NEED to find out if this AMBIGUOUS poorly written, broadly interpretted law, frought with snares may be well defined, if not stricken from existence.

 

The assumption (dangerous word) that sub-paragraph (3) may be ignored, circumvented, or justifiably squelched through compliance by a non-manufacturing entity in an attempt to conform to importation guidelines after the fact, while having merit, may be interpreted as willful ignorance. So it would seem interpretation to the strictest/most oppressive extreme might serve as arbitrary enforcement "ex post facto" in order to punish those who's perception had been inadvertaintly skewed by the vagueries of HR922 in all it's apparent insidious intent, to erode confidence in our rights, liberties, and prudent search for guidance through oppressive waters.

 

Ex Post Facto

 

adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted (or possibly gleaned in this case) after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done (to the best of our understanding, attempting to comply with laws written in hap-hazard fashion), or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted. (recall as they have proven in the past, they may, and will with all their might, succeed in proving that "misunderstanding" an ambiguosly written law, IS in their opinion, a crime and heinous offense")

 

Might we remove the shadows? How can we seek definitive clarification? Reminding them (legislators) that the law is flawed from the beginning holding that shotguns of any foreign origin, permissable in a non-disparate domestic form should be immune from censorship, lest they bush-whack us with their petty governing.

Edited by cleefurd
Hi-Lite reflections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cleefurd

They will materialize (tele-stocks). My personal conviction is that they (legislators) were vague by design in drafting 922R, choosing words that didn't out-right betray their indifference to our broader freedom. They may as well tell us we can put a hood scoop on a Chevy, but not a Mercedes. If they were crystal clear, and would respond to prudent inquiries we would not have any quandries. Instead the enforcing bodies (ATF) appear to hide behind the legislator's robes, defering questions to D.C., while the legislator warns of ATF's elusive yet REAL empowerment. So I look around, see what legally abounds in domestic form, and without any disdain proceed to emmulate what is KNOWN to be legal from Mossberg, Winchester, Remington, and give our American OWNED Benellis equality. If that "hood scoop on a Mercedes" evokes "penis envy" from lawmakers, why don't they ban similar domestic shotguns? "Because they are working on it" comes to mind, and are proceeding with strategic caution in THAT direction. Once the import ban becomes "passe", they say, "Oops... one more thing while we're at it". What a mess. In the mean time I choose to believe they (legislators) recognized that baby steps were more feasible. THAT proves to me that what REMAINS domestically available serves as a barometer of our TRUE freedom. My Benelli is an American owned shotgun, and it will have an American flair about it. I'll make that flair available to my countrymen who dare to remain free, within the confines of the laws, standing next to the equally well dressed Mossberg afficianado.

Edited by cleefurd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cleefurd
So when am I getting the colapsable stock? :-)

 

 

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

Parts are in-bound to our facility that will enable us to build 20 near clones of the OEM Benelli tele-stock for the M4. The only domestic part on it will be the buttstock. The grip, cheek rest, and recoil pad will be OEM. The buttstock being a titanium clone, made in USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...