NEWS: Are you licensed to reload that ammo?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chriso
    replied
    I'd still like to see the NRA and GOA spearheading this..

    Originally posted by ADfields View Post
    Way ahead of you there, I have been working on everyone I know in other states for a month. I agree it sends a message to the idiots in DC.
    I have been too, and thats great, but it'd sure be nice if our advocates such as NRA and GOA at a national level would jump on it and assist. They have the communications tools.

    Leave a comment:


  • brav01
    replied
    State

    Originally posted by Jack49 View Post
    You are missing the point. A firearm is defined by federal law as the frame or receiver that has the serial number on it. An Alaska manufacturer could for example manufacture 1911 frames and sell them as is. These are legally defined as firearms. This manufacture meets the definition in the proposed state law and it meets the definition of a firearm by federal law. The rest of the parts are as irrelevant as a scope mounted on a rifle. They are not regulated in any way and can be put on by the end user. From a legal perspective a slide, barrel etc is no different than a scope or a new grip. It's an unregulated part. By law the frame is the gun and it has no springs or other parts attached to it. Which is why the Feds will use every tool in their reach to prosecute the first person that tries it and put them in jail. Which is why the proposed law is meaningless.

    Based on your previous posts I think we both see this as an exercise in futility. I was just pointing out that the true context of what this law means is that Alaskans could produce almost any firearm in existence by just machining frames and receivers. Which is why this law will be so hotly opposed by the Feds. If it could ever really happen it would take all the teeth out of Federal Gun laws in AK. And therefore it's not going to be allowed to happen.
    Whether unlicensed(federal) firearm/ammunition production occurs or not it will be a history making event.
    Jack with the State law replaceing the federal gun control laws the production/assembly/repair of a firearm from parts would be subject to STATE law not federal law. SO the state could actually set more restrictive gun laws than the feds currently have (not likely). They could however prohibit the sales/manufacture of Full Auto weapons, Supressors, AOW's, destructive devices or certain caliber weapons being used/manufactured within the state , regardless of federal laws since the state law would supperceed the current federal regs.
    IF a firearm/ammunition "Made in Alaska" were to qualify for that status it would be under the rules set forth by the state not the feds. NEXT consideration does this mean the State of Alaska will have to have it's own ATF?

    Leave a comment:


  • ADfields
    replied
    Way ahead of you there, I have been working on everyone I know in other states for a month. I agree it sends a message to the idiots in DC.

    Leave a comment:


  • chriso
    replied
    But I think the "real point" is...

    Sending a message to DC that cannot be mistaken... Imagine if all 50 states passed such a law... bet we all have relatives living in at least one or two other states out there who could start a similar ball rolling? Maybe we could get the NRA and GOA to join in and influence the other states to send this same message... along with the one sent by New Hampshire when they passed the "States Rights" bill re-affirming that they would not be bound by any international treatys unless ratified by their state legislature. If our individual votes across the nation in a national election dont stack up well enough against the already 40% who mostly live in the major population centers and who are on the government dole... maybe by exercising our "states rights" voices we can still have a say and hold some sway on their decisionmaking. I know its a long shot, but I'd love to see the Supreme Court innudated with States Rights cases starting tomorrow... and from one state after another after another...

    Originally posted by Jack49 View Post
    You are missing the point. A firearm is defined by federal law as the frame or receiver that has the serial number on it. An Alaska manufacturer could for example manufacture 1911 frames and sell them as is. These are legally defined as firearms. This manufacture meets the definition in the proposed state law and it meets the definition of a firearm by federal law. The rest of the parts are as irrelevant as a scope mounted on a rifle. They are not regulated in any way and can be put on by the end user. From a legal perspective a slide, barrel etc is no different than a scope or a new grip. It's an unregulated part. By law the frame is the gun and it has no springs or other parts attached to it. Which is why the Feds will use every tool in their reach to prosecute the first person that tries it and put them in jail. Which is why the proposed law is meaningless.

    Based on your previous posts I think we both see this as an exercise in futility. I was just pointing out that the true context of what this law means is that Alaskans could produce almost any firearm in existence by just machining frames and receivers. Which is why this law will be so hotly opposed by the Feds. If it could ever really happen it would take all the teeth out of Federal Gun laws in AK. And therefore it's not going to be allowed to happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • ADfields
    replied
    Originally posted by Forestar View Post
    OK, if the receiver is the "regulated" part of the firearm that would have to be made in Alaska in order to qualify for exemption, what about the reloading components (HB 186 also exempts ammunition). Reloading components are not currently regulated (serialized, registered, permitted, etc.), so what are the implications? Would cases, primers, powders, bullets have to be Made in Alaska, or could ammunition be manufactured (i.e., assembled) from components originating outside the State, and still be exempt?

    Interesting.

    Forestar
    All this stuff depends on the wording of the state law and then how the state court system interprets that wording over time with case law. To illiterate what I mean I will tell a story of a nightmare the wife and I went through.

    My wife ripped the cartilage out of her knee at work and needed a total replacement so we got an education in wording and case law the hard way. When Frank was Governor he changed the wording of the workers comp law by one little word. It used to read that the work accident had to be “A” major cause of the injury and Frank changed that to “The” major cause of the injury. Sounds simple enough but this in effect tossed out all the case law so no one knows what constitutes “The major cause of the injury.” So the insurance company said should have refused to do the duty that caused the injury and her agreeing to do it was “The major cause of her injury” and refused to pay a dime! Took us 3 years with the help in many hearings of 3 great doctors who came to our aid and a very good attorney to make them settle for less than she was due, but she got her knee fixed after over 3 years. The insurance company wanted to go all the way and set the case law with my wife.

    Leave a comment:


  • ADfields
    replied
    Originally posted by frankd4 View Post
    Congress must ratify the treaty and many in the House and Senate view it as a direct violation of the bill of rights the United States has singed many treaties pending ratification by congress most never see the light of day Obama is a politician as such he signed knowing full well that congress will not, If it did pass then we all have some thinking and hard choices to make; better to fight together then hang alone.
    Yup, very good take on it. Also better to fight together with words now and hope we don't need to fight with arms later. I am in all the way, been very active with the words so if the arms do come out I likely will be in the other side’s crosshairs from the get go!!:eek: You only live once I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forestar
    replied
    HB 186 also includes ammunition

    OK, if the receiver is the "regulated" part of the firearm that would have to be made in Alaska in order to qualify for exemption, what about the reloading components (HB 186 also exempts ammunition). Reloading components are not currently regulated (serialized, registered, permitted, etc.), so what are the implications? Would cases, primers, powders, bullets have to be Made in Alaska, or could ammunition be manufactured (i.e., assembled) from components originating outside the State, and still be exempt?

    Interesting.

    Forestar

    Leave a comment:


  • frankd4
    replied
    Wwbfd

    Congress must ratify the treaty and many in the House and Senate view it as a direct violation of the bill of rights the United States has singed many treaties pending ratification by congress most never see the light of day Obama is a politician as such he signed knowing full well that congress will not, If it did pass then we all have some thinking and hard choices to make; better to fight together then hang alone.

    Leave a comment:


  • ADfields
    replied
    Originally posted by Jack49 View Post
    You are missing the point. A firearm is defined by federal law as the frame or receiver that has the serial number on it. An Alaska manufacturer could for example manufacture 1911 frames and sell them as is. These are legally defined as firearms. This manufacture meets the definition in the proposed state law and it meets the definition of a firearm by federal law. The rest of the parts are as irrelevant as a scope mounted on a rifle. They are not regulated in any way and can be put on by the end user. From a legal perspective a slide, barrel etc is no different than a scope or a new grip. It's an unregulated part. By law the frame is the gun and it has no springs or other parts attached to it. Which is why the Feds will use every tool in their reach to prosecute the first person that tries it and put them in jail. Which is why the proposed law is meaningless.

    Based on your previous posts I think we both see this as an exercise in futility. I was just pointing out that the true context of what this law means is that Alaskans could produce almost any firearm in existence by just machining frames and receivers. Which is why this law will be so hotly opposed by the Feds. If it could ever really happen it would take all the teeth out of Federal Gun laws in AK. And therefore it's not going to be allowed to happen.
    It's the definition of a firearm in the state law that matters not what the Fed's say it is. That’s what brav01 was saying, he read the wording of the State bill and it defines what it covers.

    As for the fed not letting it fly I am not so sure what they will do about it. The only way they are able to get their hooks into what happen in a state is if something crosses from one state to another. That said I don’t think it will trump the firearms acts that ban things like new machineguns from entering circulation. I do think it would make it leagle to build and sell all the guns you want in Alaska, but when someone you sold to takes one to another State you’re sunk if you have no FFL!! We could all build our own and be fine, but under the current law we can build 1 per year anyway. It will be fun to see how this shot across the bow plays out don’t ya think?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jack49
    replied
    Originally posted by brav01 View Post
    The only firearm parts that DO NOT have to be manufactured in Alaska and assembled into a firearm to be "Made in Alaska" legal are; springs pins, bolts and nuts and the original raw materials to machine the parts from. That's the way I read this new law.
    The ONLY question becomes to what extent is the Attorney General willing to deffend the States and Citizens rights that comply to this legislation; AS Required by the legislation. IT may be much harder to deffend if the deffendant is extradited to DC since this would be a Federal Matter and the State Federal court would be considered partial.
    You are missing the point. A firearm is defined by federal law as the frame or receiver that has the serial number on it. An Alaska manufacturer could for example manufacture 1911 frames and sell them as is. These are legally defined as firearms. This manufacture meets the definition in the proposed state law and it meets the definition of a firearm by federal law. The rest of the parts are as irrelevant as a scope mounted on a rifle. They are not regulated in any way and can be put on by the end user. From a legal perspective a slide, barrel etc is no different than a scope or a new grip. It's an unregulated part. By law the frame is the gun and it has no springs or other parts attached to it. Which is why the Feds will use every tool in their reach to prosecute the first person that tries it and put them in jail. Which is why the proposed law is meaningless.

    Based on your previous posts I think we both see this as an exercise in futility. I was just pointing out that the true context of what this law means is that Alaskans could produce almost any firearm in existence by just machining frames and receivers. Which is why this law will be so hotly opposed by the Feds. If it could ever really happen it would take all the teeth out of Federal Gun laws in AK. And therefore it's not going to be allowed to happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • brav01
    replied
    NO

    Originally posted by Jack49 View Post
    So extrapolating from here and assuming this were law the following would be true. Since the receiver or frame is defined by federal law as the firearm all the other parts are not relevant. So someone setting up a machine shop in AK producing only receivers or frames and marking them "Made in Alaska" would be 100% in compliance. Adding parts after the fact not made in Alaska would not violate federal law since they are not firearms by definition. Of course, someone has to be the first to try it and deal with all the charges the feds put on them and spend the next 10 years and millions of dollars defending this position. All the while hoping they don't end up in jail. So at the end of the day it's all meaningless.
    The only firearm parts that DO NOT have to be manufactured in Alaska and assembled into a firearm to be "Made in Alaska" legal are; springs pins, bolts and nuts and the original raw materials to machine the parts from. That's the way I read this new law.
    The ONLY question becomes to what extent is the Attorney General willing to deffend the States and Citizens rights that comply to this legislation; AS Required by the legislation. IT may be much harder to deffend if the deffendant is extradited to DC since this would be a Federal Matter and the State Federal court would be considered partial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jack49
    replied
    Originally posted by tananaBrian View Post
    All I can say is, thank God for Mike Kelly! The Feds are already protesting such legislation saying that it is invalid. But hey, it's Alaskan law. They better have a warrant from a STATE authority before they go past MY No Trespassing signs...


    (Juneau) - The Alaska State House today passed House Bill (HB) 186, or the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, sponsored the bill, which exempts firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition manufactured and retained in Alaska from restrictive federal firearm control laws.


    House Bill 186 frees the State of Alaska from restrictive federal firearm regulation and allows us to take responsible regulation into our own hands.
    ~ Rep. Mike Kelly

    HB 186 passed the House floor by a vote of 32 to 7.


    Brian
    So extrapolating from here and assuming this were law the following would be true. Since the receiver or frame is defined by federal law as the firearm all the other parts are not relevant. So someone setting up a machine shop in AK producing only receivers or frames and marking them "Made in Alaska" would be 100% in compliance. Adding parts after the fact not made in Alaska would not violate federal law since they are not firearms by definition. Of course, someone has to be the first to try it and deal with all the charges the feds put on them and spend the next 10 years and millions of dollars defending this position. All the while hoping they don't end up in jail. So at the end of the day it's all meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forestar
    replied
    What happened to HB 186?

    OK, HB 186 passed the House. What happened in the Senate? Was it passed there too? Hopefully the Guv is onboard with it.

    Forestar

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    I find this site helpful Hewey.

    http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/index.php

    We all need to keep letting our elected officials know of our concerns. I beleive that it does help.

    Doc

    Leave a comment:


  • Hewey 260
    replied
    How do I find out who voted for this bill and against? I want to make sure my representative voted in favor for this bill. Thanks

    Leave a comment:

Footer Ad Module 300 x 300

Collapse

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X