←back to thread

373 points h2odragon | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
everforward ◴[] No.41891106[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 #
1. zmgsabst ◴[] No.41891177{6}[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 #
2. sidewndr46 ◴[] No.41892534[source]
That's the federal ban. The comment is about California law
replies(1): >>41901242 #
3. zmgsabst ◴[] No.41901242[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.