Permanently attached suppressors ?

[breacher]

And there we have it folks "win the debate".

That explains the loss of composure. It would also explain a late night drunken call with threats of bodily harm too. As Sim said, ones reputation can become common knowledge.

I came to debate - not "win". And when, after pages of opinion and interpretation, we were no nearer a definitive answer, I sought advice from the Home Office.

They replied with their interpretation and the debate was pretty much over.

Then AR15 arrived...............




I seem to recall a polite debate where AR15 claimed a group size with his AR15 using plinking ammo that was smaller than that achieved with olympic target rifles and match ammo. Well, it WAS polite until AR15 started throwing insults...........

[AR15]

The other thing that happens when dealing with people like Breacher who have another agneda is that everything gets turned around and used against you.

The only heated phone conversation (that did not involve threats of bodily harm in any way) I have had with anybody was Mark Bradley, after days of abuse from him on the internet. He actually offered to post an open apology that I never held him to and we were on good terms the last time I spoke to him.
As non of that was any of your business I suggest you keep out of it.

[breacher]

The other thing that happens when dealing with people like Breacher who have another agneda is that everything gets turned around and used against you.

The only heated phone conversation (that did not involve threats of bodily harm in any way) I have had with anybody was Mark Bradley, after days of abuse from him on the internet. He actually offered to post an open apology that I never held him to and we were on good terms the last time I spoke to him.
As non of that was any of your business I suggest you keep out of it.

We will have to agree to differ on who was called, what was threatened and who apologised.

As I said, we had 10 pages of polite debate and in the absence of a definitive answer, the Home Office was contacted and they replied.

That seemed to satisy everybody until AR15 came along.

[AR15]

Look Brian I'm pleased that you have got what you wanted, I don't care that you made something like a Sub Raven and non of this is any sort of threat to me.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, however, when that opinion differs from the Police and the CPS regarding firearms you are going to get in trouble.
I have repeatedly tried to explain to you the information I have received from them Home Office and the Police in regard to being a Sec5 dealer, but you have dismissed that and continued to establish your own interpretation of the guidelines

The sort of behavior is extremely frustrating to deal with. The reason you are doing this is because its 'me' giving you the information and you have a biased agenda with regard to anything I say and do. You wont accept the advice and would rather argue regardless of how ridiculous the situation is.

I don't have anymore time to spend on this, I wish you the best of luck with your shooting and suggest you do a little more research on your own to understand Section 5 weapons & components.

[breacher]

You were not asked for advice. Why is your opinion as a section 5 dealer better than the other sec 5 dealers who carry out this conversion ? I bet they are wrong too ?

You entered the discussion after we had all agreed that the question I originally posed was open to interpretation and that even different sec 5 dealers had contradictory views on it. So it was impossible to get an answer.

So, to get as near as definitive as is possible, I contacted the author of the HO document you rely on so much in your assertions.

And that pretty much was it until you arrived and claimed you knew better than the HO person who had replied to me.

At THAT point you could have politely agreed to differ. But ( as evidenced later ) you see debates as something to be won or lost. And you implied I was moronic / an idiot, purely because my interpretation differed from yours.

You then asserted that a receiver being less than 24" long was section 5 but because so many people had them, nothing would be done about it. And now you tell me my knowledge is lacking ?

And by the way, feel free to admit that disagreeing with you ( on this subject or others ) does not give you the right to call that person an idiot or moron and apologise accordingly.

As to the OP - I sought advice from HO and will be guided by it until such time any of said advice is updated by case law.

This ( for me ) has become an academic debate. You have a way of doing it and remaining sec 1 by using an unchambered barrel. But in the course of my research, another way of doing it without going sub 12" became apparent. So, its moot and purely acedemic until I ever need to replace my suppressor.

And if as you say you find the thread frustrating - dont get involved !!!!!

Or work on not letting frustration bringing out the insults perhaps ?

[AR15]

Still angry Brian?

I don't know what the exact wording of the questions you asked the Home Office was in order to get their reply.

Section 5 components exist and can be manufactured under license, they do not have to be extracted from an existing weapon, Section 5a and 5aba components cannot be converted to Section1.

I have repeatedly given you that information, its common knowledge but you don't want to accept it because it doesn't fit with what you want the reality to be.
You don't seem able to grasp the way the law works in relation to the guidance, case law and other factors etc....
You don't seem able to grasp wording within the definition in a normal way, like use of the expression 'firearm' you then went on to invent some further classifications that simply don't exist.
I can only conclude two things, you are either behaving like this because its me giving you the information and you wont accept anything I say due to your biased attitude, or you are a bit thick.
I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, I don't mean too, I'm just going off the evidence I have available.

Given that you have openly admitted to regularly assembling your AR to under 24'' on this thread its not exactly surprising you don't understand the guidance either.

You don't have to ask for advice for it to be offer either.


.
Anyway I'm in Texas right now, its sunny and Im off to the range.

[breacher]

Anger ?

No - its you who has admitted frustration. No frustration here. No anger. No insults. Not even asserting that I am right or have "won" the debate. The opposite actually in that I accepted my interpretation was not definitive and sought advice from HO.

And I have not admitted assembling a sub 24" AR. So, when finally apologising for calling me an idiot and a moron, perhaps you can apologise for alleging that I have admitted doing somethig illegal ? And it continues - now maybe I am "thick". Are you REALLY that unable to agree to differ with me ?

I said that anybody replacing their buffer tube COULD do so. I did not say I had.

Ok then - when your interpretation ( as a sec5 dealer ) differs from 3 other Sec 5 dealers, how do we know who has the correct definition ?

In fact IS there a correct answer beford the matter is tested at court ? Do you know of a single case where the matter of whether a component is subject to the overall length requirement of 24" ?

What part of acedemic do you not understand ? I do not need to use this method as I found another method so its NOT a matter of wanting it to be legal.

Are you really so arrogant that you know better than the HO author of the guidence who replied to me ? Are you really so arrogant that you believe you know better than the 3 sec 5 dealers who carry out this conversion ?

Is it a case of "everybody else is wrong and I am right" with you ?

[breacher]

The question I asked the HO -

Is it legal to remove a 12" AR .22 barrel, shorten to under 12" and permanently attach a suppressor to bring it back to over 12" before reassembling the rifle ?

[MistAgain]

I asked the question earlier about long barrel S & W revolvers in the hope that someone here may have a definitive answer as it seems to be the same sort of situation as shortening barrels .

The dealers who are selling the S & W LBR's say they are 100% legit ,

BUT , Mike at BASC says they are illegal , my FLD says they are illegal , a certain very large distributer says they are illegal , and the S & W importer , who you would expect to be the ones selling them have no involvement .

I dont feel like spending a couple of grand if I am going to get a 4 AM knock at the door one day ,
and I dont consider it a good idea to contact the Home Office in case it prods them into taking some form of action against those who already have them .

So opinions from anyone with knowledge of this would be welcome .

[AR15]

And I have not admitted assembling a sub 24" AR. So, when finally apologising for calling me an idiot and a moron, perhaps you can apologies for alleging that I have admitted doing something illegal ? And it continues - now maybe I am "thick". Are you REALLY that unable to agree to differ with me ?

You stated:
How many of us have removed the stock from a carbine which leaves it under 24" until its replaced after modification or cleaning ? And yes - it functions ( can fire ) with stock off.

I take that as a rhetoric question and you then go on to confirm that the thing functions in your last statement. If you didnt mean to say that then that is something different.

I said that anybody replacing their buffer tube COULD do so. I did not say I had.

Yes.

Ok then - when your interpretation ( as a sec5 dealer ) differs from 3 other Sec 5 dealers, how do we know who has the correct definition ?

In fact IS there a correct answer beford the matter is tested at court ? Do you know of a single case where the matter of whether a component is subject to the overall length requirement of 24" ?

No because the component is restricted to less than 30cm or 12'' approx, not 24''. Its a Sec5aba restriction on barrels. You seem to have invented some new 24'' requirement for a component. As I explained to you the new guidance superceeds the old and on face value could be argued to contradict. BUT there is a precedent set on receivers regardless.

What part of acedemic do you not understand ? I do not need to use this method as I found another method so its NOT a matter of wanting it to be legal.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Are you really so arrogant that you know better than the HO author of the guidance who replied to me ? Are you really so arrogant that you believe you know better than the 3 sec 5 dealers who carry out this conversion ?

The only reason the work was undertaken would be due to the fact you had a letter. The fact you have the letter does not guarantee that whoever drafted it was correct in doing so.

Is it a case of "everybody else is wrong and I am right" with you ?

No not at all.