Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TC Palm)   Man arrested for being three inches shorter than allowed   (tcpalm.com) divider line 167
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

31054 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2009 at 2:53 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-27 03:16:25 PM  
erewhon: ...other setting...

Frappe?
 
2009-10-27 03:16:38 PM  
Somaticasual: Another fine example of ridiculous laws.

I can understand the reasoning behind shorter shotgun barrels, as it affects the spread. But what exactly is the harm in allowing shorter barrels on an M4?

My god.. A smaller turning radius when strafing?! Those felons!


Now explain what legitimate civillian situations you'd need to "strafe" in.
 
2009-10-27 03:16:55 PM  
JesseL: meat0918: But isn't a longer barrel length an indicator of accuracy?

Common misconception. Longer barrels give a longer sight radius to guns equipped with iron sights, and they'll commonly produce higher velocities for a less curved trajectory; so while longer barrels may allow for greater practical accuracy under some circumstances, their inherent accuracy isn't any better.

In fact, for a given diameter shorter barrels are often slightly more inherently accurate due to being stiffer than a longer barrel.


So shorter is also stiffer.
 
2009-10-27 03:19:20 PM  
Magorn: Somaticasual: Another fine example of ridiculous laws.

I can understand the reasoning behind shorter shotgun barrels, as it affects the spread. But what exactly is the harm in allowing shorter barrels on an M4?

My god.. A smaller turning radius when strafing?! Those felons!

Now explain what legitimate civillian situations you'd need to "strafe" in.


Yeah, not sure why people talk about "strafing." That's for folks who do nothing but play COD. For actual use of a real gun, the shorter barrel aids in maneuverability around the home. A decent number of folks keep the things for home defense (a .223 round is less likely to blow through several walls than a handgun round- the rifle round will fragment first), and longer barrels are harder to move around corners. But I've never heard of that referred to as "strafing."
 
2009-10-27 03:19:40 PM  
Magorn: Now explain what legitimate civillian situations you'd need to "strafe" in.

Going out to a desert range to strafe just for the fun of it.
 
2009-10-27 03:19:53 PM  
Olmy's Jart: yakmans_dad: Spoonfed'sBuddy: but more manuverable

It's more of a process than a maneuver.


I have invented a maneuver!


I never saw that bit. I guess I'd better look it up now.
 
2009-10-27 03:20:33 PM  
This?

www.impactguns.com
 
2009-10-27 03:20:36 PM  
So what is it about short barrels that is "bad"? I hear about short barrels being illegal, but it doesn't make any sense to me. There is still a small projectile traveling at high velocities, and the decision to fire that projectile is still in the hands of the person holding the gun. Why does removing 3" from a barrel make that situation worse?

/serious question
//knows nothing about guns
 
2009-10-27 03:21:43 PM  
Molavian:
Congratulations! You've discovered a good way to lose your anal virginity.


It's got a lot of sentimental value for reasons I can't/won't go into on Fark.

Hell, if they want to get really pissy about it, it's technically stolen on top of the other thing. Which will make two hot firearms I own, if the guys really liberated my old Barrett instead of buying me one just like it.
 
2009-10-27 03:22:20 PM  
MilitaryTigger: This?

Handgun. There is no stock on the end of it.
 
2009-10-27 03:22:49 PM  
You see, more arbitrary gun laws allow more prosecution of innocuous violations, which allows more money to administer more arbitrary gun laws allowing more prosecutuons of innocous violations, which allows more...

Dude is probably just a hobbyist.
 
2009-10-27 03:22:59 PM  
MilitaryTigger: This?

I believe that is still considered to be a pistol, since it has no stock on it. I'm not aware of laws giving a minimum length for pistol barrels.
 
2009-10-27 03:23:50 PM  
Gordian Cipher: So what is it about short barrels that is "bad"? I hear about short barrels being illegal, but it doesn't make any sense to me. There is still a small projectile traveling at high velocities, and the decision to fire that projectile is still in the hands of the person holding the gun. Why does removing 3" from a barrel make that situation worse?

/serious question
//knows nothing about guns


Easier to conceal

/AND THEY LOOK SCARY!!!
 
2009-10-27 03:24:13 PM  
Gordian Cipher: So what is it about short barrels that is "bad"? I hear about short barrels being illegal, but it doesn't make any sense to me. There is still a small projectile traveling at high velocities, and the decision to fire that projectile is still in the hands of the person holding the gun. Why does removing 3" from a barrel make that situation worse?

/serious question
//knows nothing about guns


It dates back to the 1934 National Firearms Act. It covers things like fully automatic capability and assorted lengths (barrel and overall lengths) of guns. The thinking was that short barreled shotguns and rifles are more easily concealed, and therefore more likely to be used for mayhem in the streets (thanks to the gang wars of Prohibition). The lengths are fairly arbitrary- 16 inches for a rifle barrel, 18 inches for a shotgun barrel, but that's the law. It's arbitrary, capricious, and penalties are WAY out of line for essentially failure to pay a tax (it's treated not as failure to pay a tax, but like you're actively planning mayhem), but it's the law and God help you if you're caught breaking it.
 
2009-10-27 03:25:11 PM  
gorgor: FUUUUUUUUUUU
http://tinyurl.com/yftwo9m
(copy and paste, NSFW)


Now, I should have known better, but I just could not resist on little clickety.
 
2009-10-27 03:25:31 PM  
akula: Magorn: Somaticasual: Another fine example of ridiculous laws.

I can understand the reasoning behind shorter shotgun barrels, as it affects the spread. But what exactly is the harm in allowing shorter barrels on an M4?

My god.. A smaller turning radius when strafing?! Those felons!

Now explain what legitimate civillian situations you'd need to "strafe" in.

Yeah, not sure why people talk about "strafing." That's for folks who do nothing but play COD. For actual use of a real gun, the shorter barrel aids in maneuverability around the home. A decent number of folks keep the things for home defense (a .223 round is less likely to blow through several walls than a handgun round- the rifle round will fragment first), and longer barrels are harder to move around corners. But I've never heard of that referred to as "strafing."


Isn't the CQB term Slicing the Pie, or some crap like that.
 
2009-10-27 03:26:29 PM  
Gordian Cipher: So what is it about short barrels that is "bad"? I hear about short barrels being illegal, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, there's a few reasons. One, you can conceal a short barreled weapon a lot more easily than a long rifle. Two, you can swing a shorty around in a small area where you couldn't with a long rifle, for instance, in a vehicle. Three, these become issues because a rifle round has a lot more penetrating power typically than a sidearm round.

A .223 will penetrate most Kevlar jackets, unless you're using ballistic plates, where a 9mm won't. So, it's considered unsociable to have a weapon that chambers a rifle round in a concealable, more maneuverable package.
 
2009-10-27 03:27:14 PM  
meat0918: But isn't a longer barrel length an indicator of accuracy?

Bet you didn't think you were going to get ninety-seven theses from this question did you.
 
2009-10-27 03:27:18 PM  
akula: 6 inches for a rifle barrel, 18 inches for a shotgun barrel, but that's the law. It's arbitrary, capricious, and penalties are WAY out of line for essentially failure to pay a tax

I think that Randy Weaver would agree with you there.
 
2009-10-27 03:29:28 PM  
StarshipPooper: Isn't the CQB term Slicing the Pie, or some crap like that.

Yeah, "slicing the pie" is the phrase. Essentially, rather than turn a corner in one big chunk, you divide it up into "slices" and work your way around it so you have less area to scan for threats.

erewhon: A .223 will penetrate most Kevlar jackets, unless you're using ballistic plates, where a 9mm won't. So, it's considered unsociable to have a weapon that chambers a rifle round in a concealable, more maneuverable package.

Unless there's no buttstock and the 4473 shows it as having been sold as a pistol, in which case it's OK for you to have a .223 (or 7.62, or whatever you've got) in a smaller, still cumbersome, but only marginally concealable, package. I don't know of anybody with an AR pistol who thinks of the thing as anything other than a range toy; there might be some who see it as a real defensive weapon, but there's plenty of things every bit as competent and a whole lot less cumbersome.
 
2009-10-27 03:30:26 PM  
JonnyBGoode: The angry inch.

Yeah but this is like 17in. forward 3in. back....Still nothing to be ashamed of...


/Sweet reference btw
 
2009-10-27 03:30:50 PM  
akula: A decent number of folks keep the things for home defense (a .223 round is less likely to blow through several walls than a handgun round- the rifle round will fragment first), and longer barrels are harder to move around corners.

erewhon: A .223 will penetrate most Kevlar jackets, unless you're using ballistic plates, where a 9mm won't. So, it's considered unsociable to have a weapon that chambers a rifle round in a concealable, more maneuverable package.

I'm sorry--what?
 
2009-10-27 03:31:39 PM  
erewhon: Gordian Cipher: So what is it about short barrels that is "bad"? I hear about short barrels being illegal, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, there's a few reasons. One, you can conceal a short barreled weapon a lot more easily than a long rifle. Two, you can swing a shorty around in a small area where you couldn't with a long rifle, for instance, in a vehicle. Three, these become issues because a rifle round has a lot more penetrating power typically than a sidearm round.

A .223 will penetrate most Kevlar jackets, unless you're using ballistic plates, where a 9mm won't. So, it's considered unsociable to have a weapon that chambers a rifle round in a concealable, more maneuverable package.


Your argument is not valid because the FN 5-7 is a handgun that shoots the 5.7mm round that was specifically designed to defeat armor. The 5.7mm is essentially a rifle round anyway.

Even if it weren't for that particular handgun, there are .223 AR variants that are considered handguns. See MilitaryTigger's pic for an example.

Fact of the matter is, short-barrel rifle laws are completely without merit.
 
2009-10-27 03:32:19 PM  
Do you like "Goomy Bears"
 
2009-10-27 03:32:28 PM  
akula: Unless there's no buttstock and the 4473 shows it as having been sold as a pistol, in which case it's OK for you to have a .223 (or 7.62, or whatever you've got) in a smaller, still cumbersome, but only marginally concealable, package. I don't know of anybody with an AR pistol who thinks of the thing as anything other than a range toy; there might be some who see it as a real defensive weapon, but there's plenty of things every bit as competent and a whole lot less cumbersome.

True, I guess if you've got a TC Contender chambered for .308 it's ok, but it sure hurts to shoot one.

Which is also why my Thunder 5 isn't classed as a tiny sawed-off shotgun, I suppose.
 
2009-10-27 03:32:56 PM  
erewhon:
A .223 will penetrate most Kevlar jackets, unless you're using ballistic plates, where a 9mm won't. So, it's considered unsociable to have a weapon that chambers a rifle round in a concealable, more maneuverable package.


Nice rationalization, but neither Kevlar nor the .223/5.56 round existed at the time the law was adopted.

The fact is, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was originally drafted to regulate handguns the same as machineguns and explosive weapons. That wouldn't have ever passed so the language regulating handguns was stricken, but the stuff about rifles and shotguns that fit the same niche as handguns was left in. What we're left with is one more puzzling, inconsistent, and easily abused law.
 
2009-10-27 03:33:04 PM  
HeadLever: I think that Randy Weaver would agree with you there.

Many others too. The list of people who've spent years in federal prison for a failure to pay a $200 tax (yet committed no other crime) is pretty long. It sounds like a nasty crime, but if you were planning to start some shiat, there's plenty of other things to nail your ass for (like, maybe, MURDER) when you do get around to misbehaving.

There's folks who've failed to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes, and they're still in Congress or in other government positions.

The 1934 NFA was an incredibly stupid law. It set arbitrary rules with extremely harsh penalties for breaking them, all because there was fighting over yet another inanimate object that was banned (alcohol). I'd have an easier time with the 1968 Gun Control Act (it established the current system of firearms licensees and so on) than with the NFA.
 
2009-10-27 03:33:52 PM  
fizzix_is_fun: meat0918: DrRatchet: gopher321: Why would you bob an AR-15?


'cause the M4 carbine has a 14.5 inch barrel, and for some reason the Bubba's seem to want what the military uses.

/thinks the military should have stuck with .45-70

But isn't a longer barrel length an indicator of accuracy?

Whether you hit the target or not is irrelevant. What's important is that you have a very nice closely packed cluster of bomb impact explosions. This way we can get a very nice picture, and win an award for accuracy.


LOLOVED That book! In the 20+ years it's been since i read it, that line about tight bomb patterns sticks most in my mind.
 
2009-10-27 03:34:08 PM  
Spoonfed'sBuddy: Fact of the matter is, short-barrel rifle laws are completely without merit.

Oh, I'm not saying they have merit, just what the argument was for passing them.
 
2009-10-27 03:35:27 PM  
Short people got no reason to live
 
2009-10-27 03:35:45 PM  
JesseL: What we're left with is one more puzzling, inconsistent, and easily abused law.

What's more entertaining is the level of capriciousness in defining barrel length measurement.
 
2009-10-27 03:36:24 PM  
oneodd1: I'm sorry--what?

Yeah, sounds strange, but they're both correct.

The light caliber speedy rounds like the .223 Remington both penetrate more and less than a heavier and slower round (say, a .45 ACP round). The pointed ogive of the bullet and the high speed will have it punch through a Kevlar vest like it wasn't there. However, when the round encounters significant resistance from either a hard surface or the hydrostatic resistance of the human body, its light weight and high speed means that it will fragment. Not quite the "goes in your toe and out your neck" like some claim, and sometimes they may just punch right through like an icepick, but actual tests show a .223 bullet penetrating fewer layers of drywall than buckshot or a bullet from a handgun.

Weird, but at high speeds, things do weird things.
 
2009-10-27 03:38:03 PM  
Spoonfed'sBuddy: MilitaryTigger: This?

Handgun. There is no stock on the end of it.


Yes...but I also believe that putting a foregrip on it would make it illegal.

A buddy of mine has one, was gonna put one on it but figured out that it made it illegal....pretty worthless, but fun!
 
2009-10-27 03:38:30 PM  
erewhon: JesseL: What we're left with is one more puzzling, inconsistent, and easily abused law.

What's more entertaining is the level of capriciousness in defining barrel length measurement.


It's usually measured from the bolt face to the end of whatever might be permanently installed on the end of the barrel. The accepted manner is to close the bolt and stick a dowel rod down the muzzle. Where the rod protrudes from the muzzle (even if a pinned or welded flash hider, even though it technically isn't "barrel") is marked on the rod and it is measured. If it's less than 16" on a rifle and 18" on a shotgun, you in a whole HEAP of trouble if you don't have the tax stamp and paperwork.
 
2009-10-27 03:38:38 PM  
akula:It dates back to the 1934 National Firearms Act. It covers things like fully automatic capability and assorted lengths (barrel and overall lengths) of guns. The thinking was that short barreled shotguns and rifles are more easily concealed, and therefore more likely to be used for mayhem in the streets (thanks to the gang wars of Prohibition). The lengths are fairly arbitrary- 16 inches for a rifle barrel, 18 inches for a shotgun barrel, but that's the law. It's arbitrary, capricious, and penalties are WAY out of line for essentially failure to pay a tax (it's treated not as failure to pay a tax, but like you're actively planning mayhem), but it's the law and God help you if you're caught breaking it.

That's what I thought: mostly people with intentions of stopping gang violence having to resort to largely arbitrary "I know evil when I see it" definitions in order to codify it in law.

erewhon:Well, there's a few reasons. One, you can conceal a short barreled weapon a lot more easily than a long rifle. Two, you can swing a shorty around in a small area where you couldn't with a long rifle, for instance, in a vehicle. Three, these become issues because a rifle round has a lot more penetrating power typically than a sidearm round.

A .223 will penetrate most Kevlar jackets, unless you're using ballistic plates, where a 9mm won't. So, it's considered unsociable to have a weapon that chambers a rifle round in a concealable, more maneuverable package.


It seems like the logical thing to do then is to restrict the sale of powerful rounds, instead of enforcing largely arbitrary barrel length restrictions.
 
2009-10-27 03:40:42 PM  
erewhon: Which is also why my Thunder 5 isn't classed as a tiny sawed-off shotgun, I suppose.

The Thunder 5 and Taurus Judge are easy to acquire title 1 firearms because they have rifled barrels. If they were smooth bored, they would be NFA "any other weapons".
 
2009-10-27 03:41:52 PM  
-Cool story alert-
My neighbor's dad was a automatic weapons collector, and his son, collected miniature glass medicine bottles from the past.
Going into their house was weird, because of the bazillions of old antique bottles all over the place in displays and on racks, and the thousands of automatic weapons hanging on all the walls. (think of what could go wrong)
This was no fancy, underground armory for a private citizen that I'm used to touring in a locked vault under a house in the burbs. It was a shopworn, old farmhouse in Vermont. I know the guy had a complete Winchester collection, too that the Winchester folks had been trying to purchase for years. Well, when my pal's dad passed on, it was real sad, but the kid had to get rid of the huge liability so he auctioned it all off. He walked away with a few million in his pocket after taxes.
He's still a great guy.
Like his old bottles.
Can skin a muskrat or fix your riding mower and not charge you too much.
His dad was nice and let me demonstrate how to field strip some pieces I was familiar with, but I only went over really to get black powder supplies.
 
2009-10-27 03:44:32 PM  
Gordian Cipher: So what is it about short barrels that is "bad"? I hear about short barrels being illegal, but it doesn't make any sense to me. There is still a small projectile traveling at high velocities, and the decision to fire that projectile is still in the hands of the person holding the gun. Why does removing 3" from a barrel make that situation worse?

/serious question
//knows nothing about guns


I think it's that it's easier to conceal.
 
2009-10-27 03:45:04 PM  
Gordian Cipher: It seems like the logical thing to do then is to restrict the sale of powerful rounds, instead of enforcing largely arbitrary barrel length restrictions.

Except the .223 isn't that powerful a round.

It isn't that the round itself is powerful, it's that body armor is by its very nature rather weak. Anything that will stop a powerful round is too bulky and heavy to be worn all day by somebody not involved in combat.

The .223 is incredibly weak compared to the .30-06 round, and that's the most popular deer hunting round in the US. The .30-06 will punch through a kevlar vest at over 500 yards out, well after the .223 has lost steam. You can't ban everything that will do that.

Most crime in the US is done with rather weak and cheap handguns- things like the .25ACP, which is notorious for being a pathetic self defense round.

For all practical matters, there just isn't a problem with cops running into criminals that have weaponry that will render their body armor useless. According to the FBI's own statistics, long guns of any kind make for an extremely small percentage of crime involving a firearm.
 
2009-10-27 03:45:30 PM  
erewhon: Spoonfed'sBuddy: Fact of the matter is, short-barrel rifle laws are completely without merit.

Oh, I'm not saying they have merit, just what the argument was for passing them.


I think the argument you presented is used by some people to justify it, but I'm not entirely sure what the rational was behind enacting the laws in the first place. I think what annoys me the most about it is just how ugly the FN P 90 civilian model looks w/ the stupid extra long barrel on it.
 
2009-10-27 03:46:12 PM  
Arrested for being three inches too short?

moresoul.files.wordpress.com

/approves
 
2009-10-27 03:46:51 PM  
vudukungfu: -Cool story alert-


thanks bro

/ :-)
// nice inheritance!
 
2009-10-27 03:47:16 PM  
Gordian Cipher: It seems like the logical thing to do then is to restrict the sale of powerful rounds, instead of enforcing largely arbitrary barrel length restrictions.

The problem then, is that almost any rifle round will punch through soft body armor like butter. A round suitable for hunting big game might even be capable of punching through NIJ level IV trauma plates.
 
2009-10-27 03:47:40 PM  
Gordian Cipher: It seems like the logical thing to do then is to restrict the sale of powerful rounds, instead of enforcing largely arbitrary barrel length restrictions.

However, the .223 is sort of on the low end of ass for a rifle round. Most rifle rounds are pretty powerful compared to pistol rounds.

I've got a Barrett M82 and an M95 that sort of define "powerful round". Especially if you're firing AP.
 
2009-10-27 03:50:20 PM  
erewhon: JesseL: What we're left with is one more puzzling, inconsistent, and easily abused law.

What's more entertaining is the level of capriciousness in defining barrel length measurement.


Like how it's OK to have a 14.5" barrel so long as you have a permanently attached flash-hider that'll make it 16" overall?
 
2009-10-27 03:50:21 PM  
erewhon: I've got a Barrett M82 and an M95 that sort of define "powerful round". Especially if you're firing AP.

Not that they haven't tried banning those (and did in California), but criminals don't really want to get tied down to a rifle that's over 4 feet long, weighs one whole hell of a lot, and is completely impractical for any kind of useful crime. Most folks won't give up their money to a mugger a kilometer away, and everybody in the neighborhood will hear you touch the thing off.
 
2009-10-27 03:51:55 PM  
gorgor: FUUUUUUUUUUU
http://tinyurl.com/yftwo9m
(copy and paste, NSFW)


Oh gorgor.
Where would I be without you?
 
2009-10-27 03:53:00 PM  
dbrikhs: Oh gorgor.
Where would I be without you?


Sane and with both your eyes?
 
2009-10-27 03:53:02 PM  
i249.photobucket.com
 
2009-10-27 03:53:22 PM  
akula: Many others too.

Yep, but rarely does it escalate to the point of this debacle. Spending a little time in the pen is one thing, but having your wife killed by a goverment sniper is a little more.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report