Trolling a government agency.

Jul 22, 2016 4:47 AM

gofuckyourselves

Views

59251

Likes

1745

Dislikes

184

This is a black aces tactical "firearm". Not a shotgun, pistol, sbs, or an aow.

The BATF has their panties in a wad over this. Since this is manufactured as it sits it does not meet that classification for any particular type of gun. This according to the BATF themselves, is simply a firearm and not an nfa item. This gun uses a modified black aces tactical mossberg 500 receiver that takes saiga mags. It is in 12 gauge with a 9" barrel I believe. Since it's never had a stock it is not a shotgun. To be a shotgun it must have had a stock. Therefore it can't be an sbs. Since it's so short it's technically a handgun, but it's not. It has a forward grip that is needed to reciprocate the action, handguns can't have that. Then it's an aow since it's a pistol with a forward grip. It's actually not a forward grip either, as it's off to the side and not vertical. So it's not an aow. Very smart (or dumb) of them to basically troll the BATF. Personally I don't have the balls to troll a government agency, but I guess that's how some people get their kicks.

As long as it doesn't use the same restroom as our children!

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

They'll probably just shrug and call it a destructive device. Or just have the attorney general make it illegal by fiat, like Massachusetts.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Use more acronyms, it'll get your point across better.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

ikr, btw xyz pdq (lol)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I want one!

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Where the hell is the trigger??

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

The arm strap is folded to the side blocking your view of the trigger. It's in the normal place.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No, fuck with Echelon: threaten an elected person in a phone conversation to receive a free trip from men in black

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

can recommend the free room service

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"Black Aces Tactical Firearm" = "Beurow of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms" = "BATF" illuminati confirmed

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

"Beurow." I'm not sure what that is, but it must be a truly terrible creature to have such a disgusting name.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

im just going to say its a shotgun

10 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 2

Duh, I have no idea who the fuck thought it made sense to require that shotguns have stocks

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not so fast. If a .45 Colt revolver can be loaded with .410 shotgun shells, is that s shotgun?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The receiver is a shotgun, that is all that matters. Everything else can be customized to whatever you want but doesn't affect the receiver

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So you could have a locked-breach "shotgun" then put on a 20mm rifled barrel and it's not in trouble for being over .50-inch bore diameter?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Which is great, but most states have a metric ton of laws to prevent its legality. I know it breaks at least 3 and probably 6 here.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Those laws are about modifying a shotgun. This was created this way.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where do you live? There are no laws it breaks anywhere as far as i know.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's a short barreled shotgun in CA. Also possibly an assault weapon based on features (removable magazine, folding stock, pistol grip).

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well CA it likely cant even be sold cause its not on their stupid fucky list. But and probably in NY and Mass it would have issues.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There is no 'list' for rifles or shotguns, only handguns. But it's definitely all sorts of illegal here. If it fires shells, it's an SG.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yea i feel sorry for you. I wont even buy things from CA. I can't wait till they run out of money and have to break up.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Well congratulations, you now have a bad gun. It probably gave some bad lawmakers extra vindication for having their pointless jobs.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

One question. Where can I get one?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Internet. Google dt-12 for sale.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Thank you. Wasn't sure of the name.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is very clearly an assault rifle. It probably fires like 30 clips, too.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

http://imgur.com/B9XrYYh

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

BATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. SBS: Short Barreled Shotgun (<18"). AOW: Any Other Weapon.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Cheers. I thought BATF was to do with Black aces tactical firearms which is where the first confusion started

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This gun makes me smile. You know there is a guy making 100k a year who's job for the last year has been to find a way to make this illegal.

10 years ago | Likes 63 Dislikes 9

And that guy is just thinking "all i have to do is say, its illegal for circumventing existing laws"

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Probably around 150k a year. The pay for a senior executive service in title 5 agencies is standardized though it won't go far in DC

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

probably just make another classification for this firearm rofl call it a "incest shotgun lovechild of a pistol"

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good thing we get to elect who has that income and gets to decide our rights, right? Oh wait...

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Yes you do. Agencies can only interpret existing laws and you can challenge them in court

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Not in real life. Look at Sig's muzzle brake. They ruled it a suppressor despite not being one only because it has the potential.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In reality, bureaucrats are able to enact instantly, a court challenge takes years and millions of dollars. Case in point, MA state.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This and bumpski stocks.

10 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

Don't forget the sig brace!

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Tannerite

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

And All ak and ar 15 pistols.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Anything fun. Even legal nfa items aren't 100% safe. They could take it all away with one pen stroke if they wanted to badly enough.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

It's obviously an AR-15

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

It looks like a baby pigeon.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Idk why but I got a good chuckle out of this comment.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Look up Don't Hug Me I'm Scared. It's not strictly related.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Someone's dog is gonna get shot over this one http://imgur.com/JPkLWHw.jpg

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

trollin the BATF is a time-honored tradition

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

But it has a stock... it's right there.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Nope, that's the Sig arm brace. Basically a velcro secured pincer brace that wraps around the fore arm.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Lol, which are notoriously used to circumvent gun laws that prohibit the use of a traditional stock. I'm progun and all, but that's a stock.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Looks like a real piece of shit, not really suitable for anything but wasting your money trying to make a stupid point.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

there is a folding stock on this, isnt it?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

That's an arm brace, you are not allowed to shoulder it

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

aahokay, thank you. thats that carnik con guy isnt it?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yup, but one troubling thing is that the brace when put on ar is in a functional part, and the shotgun just has a plain tube

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

maybe that makes it a stock

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm sure it's banned in CA...

10 years ago | Likes 102 Dislikes 4

It's definitely banned here.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Of course it is. Detachable mag, black and scary. Obviously a baby and puppy killing machine.

10 years ago | Likes 64 Dislikes 12

High capacity 12 gauge? Whether you think it should be legal or not, that would be a scary gun in close quarters.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

not really, its not semi auto. Its the same as a mag fed bolt action

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Its illegal due to the short length tho

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It´s banned in NY, MA and CA

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Only because they won't pay the CA govt for the right to sell in their state.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

The list of what is NOT banned in CA is shorter right now.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Yes. This would be considered a "short-barreled shotgun," as defined in PC Section 17180.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

AFAICT it would fall under https://www.atf.gov/file/58196/download 2.1.2 Weapon made from a shotgun." or "2.1.5 Any other weapon.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

That's what it should be, but due to how the laws are worded this can't be an aow or an sbs. Never was a shotgun, not a smooth bore pistol.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

"Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck"... legal or not, seems incredibly impractical.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

They're utterly useless but I like the way that you can get around anything by studying how it's worded.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Probably does the job for home defense, but my KSG would outperform this.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've got some registered sbs's and you're right. They don't do anything better than an 18" barrel. They're good for gits and shiggles.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Legally it's not made from a shotgun, since it was never registered as a shotgun in the first place.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

If receiver is a shotgun, it's a shotgun.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It can't be "made from a shotgun" because the receiver was specifically never part of a previous weapon. While patterned after, isn't.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The receiver from a shotgun is different from that of a rifle.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-4 the point being no alteration occurred.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I feel like if it doesn't fit it any category, shouldn't it be in the aow category? Isn't this exactly what that is for?

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Aow is a smooth bore shot pistol, this isn't a pistol. That's how they got around it.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

So the name lies? It's not actually any other weapon? Should be a shotgun then as it is a fun that fires shot...

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Pretty much. There's a bunch of guns that are just "firearms" but not aows.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Weird.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive"

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

how about if it fires shotgun shells then it's a shotgun.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Well yeah but that would require ATF regulations and classifications to make sense.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good god what an abortion. It looks like orcs put it together.

10 years ago | Likes 144 Dislikes 4

Now that you mention it... It's honestly something that you wouldn't think twice about seeing in ork hands.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

MOAR DAKKA!

10 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 0

WAAAGH!

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

WOT. ORKS NOT PUT THAT SHIT TOGETHA. NOT ENOUGH DAKKA TO BE SHINY ORK SHOOTA.

10 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 0

Then shouldn't it be red?

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

It doesn't need to go faster!

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Lies, falsehoods, and prevarications! Everything needs to go faster.

10 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

WAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I agree that it looks like orcs put it together. I disagree that this would make it ugly.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Nah needs more dakka it does.

10 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 1

More dakka for everyone!

10 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

U WOT IZ HAS NO SPIKY BITS OR DA DAKKA

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I kinda want it

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

So ugly, so impractical, so dumb, so...so...shh...shhhhhut up and take my money.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Abortion or abomination?

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yes

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

In any event, it's heresy

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It's a gun, wot shoots shot. Its a shotgun.

10 years ago | Likes 192 Dislikes 6

"fuckin northern monkeys" "i hate those southern fairies"

10 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

10 years ago (deleted Sep 5, 2016 6:44 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Of a sort.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What if it is shooting slugs or disks or salt or powder or rpg's like the AA12? :D

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*that

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

A Taurus Judge isn't a shotgun though

10 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

Is.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

neither is a s&w governer

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're right, it's a paperweight with a serial number.

10 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 2

clearly you haven't seen or fired the rounds made specifically for home protection. It would be my 2nd choice.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

The S&W Governor is no exception. It's just not a practical firearm in any capacity.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I'm a former FFL. I've shot 20mm rifles down to shitty Taurus guns. Judges are awful and inaccurate by nature.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You really don't need a shotgun shell to be that accurate in a hallway or a small room. I've fired it at the range plenty and i'd trust it.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Zing!

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Shots fired.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

not with that paperweight anyways.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Oh, you must be the brains of the operation, then.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Lol

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

...but it doesn't have a stock.

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 13

Shotguns don't need stocks...

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

According to the atf they do.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Barrels over 18", means he pistol grips considered a stock.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Clearly its a shoot gun.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Sorta reminds me of the time the BATF declared a shoestring to be a machine-gun:

10 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 4

.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGWHATAHAHAHAHAHAHA

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

This is a joke right

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

The BATF is a joke.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Nope.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

It wasn't the string itself, it was the weapon that had been modified.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 6

"the auto sear is a machine gun as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)." Not "an assembled rifle is"

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Not according to the letter and precedent. For example the sear for an AR that allows automatic fire is the registered machine gun

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You are right but this is imgur where people are incredibly liberal, which i understand somethings are illegal or otherwise limited somehow,

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

but when it comes to firearms people here get touchy.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

He's not right, it is specifically the part that is registered as the machine gun, not the assembled gun. See my response comments to him.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

This is glorious. BAN ASSAULT STRINGS!

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

That whole side grip thing was shot down in an opinion letter I read recently, so good luck with it

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Black aces is still selling them this way without an sbs/aow stamp. $1179 shipped to your dealer.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's all well and good until the atf comes back for them. Then where's your money? It's an unwise one who walks such a grey line

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I agree there. Look what happened to street sweepers.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

BATF needs to leave us alone. right to bear arms shall not be infringed. simple.

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 5

2 the second amendment says that a "Well regulated militia" has the right to bear arms.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Scalia, writing for the majority, in Heller, indicated that its an individual "right" of "the people". Militias dont have individual rights.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I mean. The constitution doesnt actually give us that right. Nor does the bill if rights. Not that guns arent nice to have.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I may be a simple gun owner and only own a cheap only good for taking-to-a- range mosin, but I think the same way

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Write the whole sentence, then explain how it's not fantastically ambiguous.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

"necessary to the security of a free state" and "shall not be infringed" are the unambiguous parts. (1)

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

There's literally no explanation of the relationship intended between everything before the word "State," and everything after. It's 1

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

an objectively ambiguous sentence. Hence, the centuries of argument. 2

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"well regulated militia" is irrelevant, because letting the gov't decide what's "well regulated" defeats the purpose. Does that help?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So, we can ignore parts of the law because we disagree with them? Isnt that exactly why we hate Hillary?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not because we disagree with them. Letting the Fed gov't decide if that portion is relevant or what it means lets the Fed gov't (1)

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0