Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Careful with firearms

Doug Harrison wrote:

> >
> I was a reserve police officer some years ago when I read those regs.
> Being
> concerned about the vague wording, I sought an interpretation from my
> senior
> officers. All replies were basically the same. These laws are
> written in a
> vague manner to allow law enforcement agencies to create probable
> cause for
> an arrest. They were the government's justification for what happened
> at
> Ruby Ridge Idaho about ten years ago.
>
> I am trying to avoid the political aspects of this rather sensitive
> subject,
> but I hope you realize the risks associated with amateur gunsmithing
> these
> days. Several machinists in this community went to prison a while
> back for
> possession of silencer components (meaning aluminum bar stock). The
> fellow
> that was actually building them went free. Go figure.

This is getting to be too much. I have never built a firearm or firearm
component, or
modified one for anyone, or myself. I have never, to my knowledge, even
touched
or SEEN an illegally modified firearm or component. I own no firearms.
But, I have
a basement full of metalworking equipment, and a fair stock of aluminum,
brass and
steel bar stock. This constitutes illegal possesion of firearms? I'm
beginning to
get upset with the direction of this thread, and may actually start
voting differently!

Now, were the guys who got arrested actually doing some machining for
the guy
who was building the silencers, or were they arrested because they
merely possessed
material that was similar to that in the silencers? If the former, then
you are playing
word games by saying they were arrested for possession of the stock,
because
that was not the cause of the arrest (although it could have constituted
probable
cause for a search). The cause for arrest and conviction was what they
DID with
the stock. If these people had no connection with the builder of the
silencers,
did no work for him, and sold him no material, then their conviction was
built on
what I would call fabricated evidence, and thereby should be reversed.
I would like
to know which of these is the case.

Jon