←back to thread

373 points h2odragon | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
borski ◴[] No.41892965[source]
I didn’t say it wasn’t a firearm.
replies(1): >>41904049 #
1. pc86 ◴[] No.41904049[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 #
2. borski ◴[] No.41908197[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.