That feel when you drink so many lady drinks, your device autocorrects "grenading" to "grenadine."
The ATF sure is getting sketchy with definitions these days.
The craziest one I have ever see is the way they treat the SIG brace. That is totally nutzers. Legal to install, legal to use-as long as you don't shoulder it.
Just nuts!
(Next, they will call my asshole an AOW. I ate some bad breakfast the other day, and I'm pretty sure it blasted out a few 12 oz cans of evil.)
The craziest one I have ever see is the way they treat the SIG brace. That is totally nutzers. Legal to install, legal to use-as long as you don't shoulder it.
Just nuts!
(Next, they will call my asshole an AOW. I ate some bad breakfast the other day, and I'm pretty sure it blasted out a few 12 oz cans of evil.)
Not here, sorry. I was just pointing out that the term is constructive "possession," not "intent."
Irregardless, I could care less about such a reactionary response.
My litmus test for whether the atf will screw something up: ask yourself, did you say "oh shit that's pretty cool!" The first time you saw it? If the answer is yes, the atf will screw it up.
Potato guns aren't considered a fireman UNTIL it is shot at someone. Kind of weird law there actually
10-4. I thought that was your point. As stupid as it may sound, the thought actually crossed my mind to buy one of these gizmos and purposefully NOT register it. If it ever became an issue, the court proceedings would be epic! Simply because calling this thing a shotgun is asinine.
But then again, I don't have the time, capital or desire to spend years in a court battle against a foe with unlimited power and resources, just to prove a point.
But this thing is considered a shotgun before you actually try to use it as such? Yep, sounds about right.
Irregardless is not a word. (Too many girl drinks, perhaps?)
It is the bastard younger brother of "could care less."
You forgot "reactionary" in your reply. The statement was kind of a potpourri of a joke.
