Most active commenters
  • borski(5)
  • pc86(3)

←back to thread

373 points h2odragon | 17 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
rglullis ◴[] No.41889863[source]
I am seriously considering creating a dropship company focused exclusively on buying and selling electronic components that are sold for parts and people can assemble them at home, Ikea-style.

I would start with selling 50" and 65" inch "dumb" TVs. Just the panel, a nice enclosure and a board with an IR receiver, TV tuner and HDMI outputs. BYO top box and Soundbar. I wonder how fast it would take to get 10000 orders.

replies(20): >>41889916 #>>41889934 #>>41889935 #>>41890016 #>>41890050 #>>41890156 #>>41890165 #>>41890259 #>>41890295 #>>41890309 #>>41890336 #>>41890401 #>>41890437 #>>41890651 #>>41890728 #>>41890783 #>>41891264 #>>41893166 #>>41893548 #>>41898157 #
mananaysiempre ◴[] No.41890401[source]
The Framework folks hit an unexpected snag with a similar idea: turns out the US tax on a laptop assembled in Taiwan is much lower than on a box of parts made in Taiwan that you can assemble into a laptop yourself. (Why? Because.) Thus the strange not-really-DIY “DIY edition”.
replies(2): >>41890566 #>>41891274 #
1. bee_rider ◴[] No.41890566[source]
What is a laptop anyway? Can somebody sell 60 2-in-1 convertible laptops where the top bit comes off and also has an HDMI in port? The computer could be a raspberry pi or something…
replies(1): >>41890749 #
2. borski ◴[] No.41890749[source]
Probably. This is a thing with guns, too. In CA, for example, owning an AR15 with certain features is illegal. But separate the upper from the lower, and you no longer have an AR15; now you have parts, none of which are semiautomatic and center-fire on their own. That’s no longer illegal (though if they can prove intent everything changes, of course).

IANAL, but I always found that kind of loophole fascinating.

replies(1): >>41890950 #
3. pc86 ◴[] No.41890950[source]
No, the lower is still legally considered a firearm. It can't fire anything, and it's not a gun in practical purposes, but for purposes of regulation it is still a firearm.

The reason it's probably still legal to have in California is that California bans a lot of largely cosmetic or non-functional items. For example, many states ban threaded barrels which by itself doesn't change any characteristics of the barrel other than the fact that it has a thread on the end of it.

replies(3): >>41891106 #>>41891185 #>>41892965 #
4. everforward ◴[] No.41891106{3}[source]
I believe California has some laws that specifically apply to semiautomatic firearms, which an AR15 lower is not. The lower is incapable of semiautomatic fire (as in the gas blowback/piston system is in the upper).

They sell single-shot .50 BMG uppers, non-semiautomatic AR15 uppers do exist.

I believe the majority of stuff California regulates attaches to the upper anyways, which isn’t a firearm under federal law (unsure if Cali is weird about that). Bump stocks and responsive triggers are the only things I can think of California might regulate that go on the lower, and last I heard the ATF was tracking those down as an NFA violation.

replies(3): >>41891177 #>>41891249 #>>41891346 #
5. zmgsabst ◴[] No.41891177{4}[source]
The bump stock ban was struck down as exceeding statutory authority [*] in June.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

[*] - edited reason after rereading; this wasn’t 2nd amendment, but ATF misinterpretation of the law

replies(1): >>41892534 #
6. somat ◴[] No.41891185{3}[source]
Specifically in the case of ar-15 pattern firearms, having the lower be "the firearm" is hilarious. the lower is a low precision, low pressure part. it is actually one of the easiest parts of the firearm to make. and because the lower is the controlled part, every other part, the ones that are hard to make, are readily available.
replies(1): >>41892529 #
7. pc86 ◴[] No.41891249{4}[source]
The lower is the serialized part, and is regulated in isolation as a firearm in every instance I am aware of (but I am not familiar with California gun laws specifically).

Unless a CA-licensed attorney knowledgeable in California gun laws and ATF regulations specifically told you that a particular CA law applying to "semiautomatic firearms" does not apply to your AR-15 lower in isolation, do not listen to random internet comments about it especially when they begin with "I believe." Regardless of where you fall on the issue politically or ideologically, it's an objective fact that California's government is hostile toward its citizens possessing and bearing firearms, and being fuzzy on what is or is not a felony is a risky proposition.

If you're wrong, best case scenario you will lose all your guns, worst case you will end up in federal prison.

replies(2): >>41891846 #>>41894381 #
8. WillPostForFood ◴[] No.41891346{4}[source]
CA regulates magazines and pistol grips (in combination with other parts) which attach to the lower receiver. Not sure you are fully correct in saying the lower is not a semiautomatic firearm. While the lower by itself is clearly not a complete and functional firearm, and not capable of firing without an upper, the sear/disconnector, which determines semi/full auto is part of the lower.
9. borski ◴[] No.41891846{5}[source]
I am certainly not suggesting anyone rely on me for legal advice, to be clear.

But no, my understanding in CA is unlike the Feds, California does not have the concept of constructive possession as it applies to assault weapons. As such, separated parts cannot constitute a CA AW, unless the lower is already registered as such, or said lower is on the list of named CA AWs.

It is technically not an assault weapon in that configuration; however, depending on the DA, they may still come after you under PC 12280(a), stating that you are attempting to possess an assault weapon. The sticking point for them is showing intent, but they have convicted on possession and research of how to assemble an assault weapon.

They certainly could charge someone, and maybe even win; I’m not suggesting anyone rely on this as a defense, but that is what the law states. Short of any other aggravated reasons to charge you, it’s unlikely a DA would have any interest.

10. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.41892529{4}[source]
It's particularly stupid when you realize a sufficiently motivated person can in fact just fire an upper. I have no idea where the bolt is going to wind up in this, but it will in fact shoot a bullet out the other end of the barrel
11. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.41892534{5}[source]
That's the federal ban. The comment is about California law
replies(1): >>41901242 #
12. borski ◴[] No.41892965{3}[source]
I didn’t say it wasn’t a firearm.
replies(1): >>41904049 #
13. fjdjshsh ◴[] No.41894381{5}[source]
>it's an objective fact that California's government is hostile toward it's citizens possessing and bearing firearms

A state puts restrictions on semi-automatic weapons (one model which has been used to kill hundreds or thousands of people in random shootings) and here it's described as "being hostile to people possessing firearms". For most non-americans (which is my case) this will always sounds so strange

replies(1): >>41898564 #
14. borski ◴[] No.41898564{6}[source]
It's relative. Think of the US as a collection of small countries, comparable to the EU, and it's a little easier to understand.

I know relatively little about European gun laws, but I imagine that the gun laws in Romania and the Czech Republic are quite different, and that the Czech would argue Romania is "hostile toward it's citizens possessing and bearing firearms."

Texas would argue California is. California would argue the UK is.

15. zmgsabst ◴[] No.41901242{6}[source]
> last I heard the ATF was tracking those down as an NFA violation.

I was responding to this portion of the comment, where they referred to the ATF and NFA - a federal agency and law.

I was updating them that was no longer true as of a few months ago.

16. pc86 ◴[] No.41904049{4}[source]
> > In CA, for example, owning an AR15 with certain features is illegal. But separate the upper from the lower, and ... [it's] no longer illegal.

This is not accurate unless I'm misunderstanding your intent--absolutely possible, which is why I am responding over a day later :)

The lower is the firearm, and if it has CA-illegal features on it, it will remain illegal.

If you're referring to things like a threaded barrel, or a vertical foregrip (no idea if these are actually illegal in CA, just examples), or other things that are attached to the upper, when they're separated those things are no longer attached to a firearm because they're attached to the upper, which is no longer a firearm when it's separated.

This isn't a loophole, this is a natural consequence of the fact that if you take a firearm and separate it into two pieces, at most one of those things can legally be a firearm - you can't turn one firearm into two firearms by breaking it in half.

replies(1): >>41908197 #
17. borski ◴[] No.41908197{5}[source]
Thanks for the thoughtful response! Yes, I think a misunderstanding and/or I was unclear.

I never intended to make the claim that separating the upper and lower somehow makes neither a firearm. That was not my intent at all. Of course the lower is still a firearm, still needs to be serialized, legal, etc.

There are also some named firearms in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and those would be illegal no matter what, broken apart or not. Obviously naming specific weapons was idiotic and not going to last a very long time, since keeping the list up to date was impossible, so...

In 1999, the act was amended (P.C. 35015), and named specific features that would make a firearm an assault weapon. The amendment states that a semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and any of the features below, is deemed an assault weapon:

* a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. * a thumbhole stock. * a folding or telescoping stock. * a grenade launcher or flare launcher. * a flash suppressor. * a forward pistol grip.

All of which are pretty clearly target AR and AR-like firearms.

Now, to be specific about what I was trying to say: California does not have the concept of constructive possession, unlike the federal government, as applied to assault weapons. As such, separated parts cannot constitute a CA assault weapon, unless the lower is already registered as such, or said lower is on the list of named CA assault weapons. If it is disassembled, it is considered to be weapon parts, and not the actual weapon itself.

However, depending on the DA, they may still come after you under P.C. 12280(a), stating that you are attempting to possess an assault weapon. The sticking point for them is showing intent, but they have convicted on possession and research of how to assemble an assault weapon in the past.