I found this while browsing the web and even though it is a little old, believe i still has relevance: <CENTER>Ponderings of an Anonymous Law-Abiding, Free Man</CENTER> I am deeply bothered by the felony penalties hinging on trivial features of a rifle. I am currently assembling an StG58, an obsolete and beautiful Austrian rifle that is a member of the FAL family. Austria no longer has use for the things, and is selling them off to U.S. importers. I bought a complete rifle, minus the receiver, which had been sawed off prior to importation as required by the BATF. Its stub was left attached to the barrel. I bought a brand new U.S.-made receiver in compliance with all local, state and federal laws. So far, so good. But it gets complicated once I mate the receiver to the rest of the rifle. There is a minefield of laws and regulations, and my future well-being hinges on their trivialities. I must remove the flash suppressor. And then I must either saw the threaded end off the barrel, or cover it with a "muzzle brake". . . but only if I solder the muzzle brake in place with solder having a melting point of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. If I use solder with a melting point of 1000 degrees F, for example, it's off to jail with me. Or, I could pin the muzzle brake in place. But only if the pin is in a "blind" hole that doesn't reach through to the other side. And only if the pin is strong enough to withstand the shearing torque specified by the BATF, who will try to unscrew the muzzle brake to see if it is attached in a "legal" manner. If it unscrews with 120 foot-pounds of torque, I'm a felon. If it unscrews with 130 foot-pounds, I'm free. (I made up the torque numbers - I haven't been able to find out what the real ones are. They weren't in the "assault weapon" ban that Clinton signed. Nor was anything about muzzle brake attachment methods). Also, the muzzle brake must have a diameter greater than 22 millimeters. Why, you may ask? Because back when Austria used this rifle, they had grenades that would slide over the flash suppressor. A blank cartridge was then fired in the rifle, launching the grenade. So, depending on the diameter of my muzzle brake, I may, or may not, have replaced the original "grenade launcher" with a brand new "grenade launcher." Please don't ask where I might possibly obtain an obsolete Austrian grenade. And please don't ask why I am allowed to put a muzzle brake of "grenade launcher" diameter on any other rifle but the StG58. And I must replace many of the original, authentic and beautifully-made parts on the rifle with U.S.-made equivalents that look and operate just like the old ones. Why? Because if I don't, I will have assembled a "non-sporting" imported rifle and could be thrown in jail. By substituting enough U.S.-made parts, it becomes a "non-sporting" U.S.-made rifle and is perfectly legal. How do I tell if this rifle, or any other, is "non-sporting?" Simple. According to the law, if it is "not particularly suited for sporting purposes." No ambiguities there. The list of issues goes on and on. I am in communication with other collectors and shooters who are in similar fixes. We agonize over the legal details, sharing hearsay and rumors in valiant attempts to remain in compliance with the BATF's shifting and largely undocumented interpretations of the laws. What constitutes a pistol grip that "protrudes prominently" from the gun? What counts as a "thumbhole stock" and what doesn't? What if I put a plain, unthreaded barrel on the rifle, and its (outside) diameter happens to be the same as that of the illegal "grenade launcher"? We don't know. My opinion is that we are fools. The only reason I wade through the morass of obscure legalities is that everyone else does so, too. If we all simply ignored the absurdities, we would be free. They can't jail us all. For that matter, I wish they would try to jail someone. But they never do. Given a feeble excuse of the sort mentioned, the BATF will break into your home and confiscate anything resembling a firearm, firearm accessory, and probably your computer and filing cabinet to boot. But they will press no charges. They know the laws are absurd. They know there is no jury in the country that will send you to jail because one part on your rifle was attached with 1000 F solder instead of 1100 F solder, or because the rifle had one too few U.S.-made parts on it. They'll just ransack your house, seize your property, and ruin your life. You will not get your day in court. We should ignore them, but who will be the first to show up at the rifle range with a "flash suppressor"/"grenade launcher" on his rifle? Not me. I could lose my property and my life could be destroyed. Who, then, will lead the way? No one. What are the odds of )everyone defying the laws, en masse, starting on a pre-arranged date? Zero. And that is the beauty of the system. The screws are tightened gradually, so people are pushed over the edge and into defiance one at a time, and are thus easily vanquished. We see the news items in the paper. "Illegal weapons cache seized." Perhaps he was the guy that had a muzzle brake with the wrong diameter, and lost everything. "Assault Weapon Found in Home." Was he the poor guy who had a bayonet lug on a rifle whose serial number implied that it was probably built the day after Clinton signed the celebrated Feinstein "assault weapon" ban? His neighbor, whose rifle was built the day before, was left unmolested, being a fine law-abiding citizen, you see. It's more than the technicalities of gun regulations. Think of "standoffs." One person hits the limit of tolerance for bull and quits playing the game. He starts living in defiance of the crushing burden of the laws and regulations under which we are all groaning. Now he's a "criminal" and his place is surrounded by the thin blue line for a few days until he's hauled off, shot, or burned. Each person has a different limit, and we hit them at different times, easily taken out by the authorities singly or in tiny groups. There will never be widespread open revolt. Modern bureaucracies have learned how to avoid that. I have never spoken my mind in public on this subject. I don't talk about this on Internet bulletin boards, or in e-mail. I am afraid to. I'm worried about sending this letter to you, even under a pseudonym. I'm not a newspaper editor. If my words attract the attention of the wrong people I could be the next faceless owner of an "illegal arms cache" that ends up as a news item at the bottom page 31 . . .
