Grey Matters

t’s been some weeks now since the “Black Lives Matter” T-shirts and slickly produced matching signs were first revealed in Ferguson, MO. My immediate thought was: Then why don’t they take better care of them?

Why do the custodians of these black lives resist arrest even when surrounded by police officers? Surely, that’s an dangerous proposition.

If his life mattered, why would a black man attack and attempt to disarm a police officer? Surely, there are foreseeable risks. Did he not care if he lived or died?

But above all, why do black people kill off other black people at the rate of 16 a day, on average, in the USA? Don’t those black lives matter? I ask because I don’t see nation-wide protests every time a black is gunned down by a black in Chicago. Admittedly, that would be a lot of protests. But when was the last time there was a nation-wide protest over a black-on-black killing? There are about 6,000 such each year in the USA.

Could it be that black lives only matter when killed by non-blacks or by cops?

Take a look at the chart below from the “Economist”, September 2014 edition and bear in mind, that most of the homicides committed against black males are by other blacks, usually male (and not cops — of any color).

Apparently, black males have not gotten the word that Black Lives Matter. This would explain why black males treat others’ black lives so casually.

There is a cultural problem (not a “gun” problem) in America’s black inner cities. People are killed over a pair of sneakers, or for showing “disrespect”, for trying to peddle drugs on someone else’s turf, or for simply being in the wrong part of town. Most of the dead are black people killed by other blacks. Except for the occasional innocent caught in a crossfire, most victims are part of a gangsta culture that seemingly has no respect for human lives, black or any other color. Black-on-black murder is so common that most of it never even makes the local evening news, much less national news. As for nation-wide outpouring of anger over the death of a black man, well, that’s reserved for when one such is killed in the line of duty by a police officer.

Absent the roughly 6,000 homicides committed by and against black males, the U.S. murder rate per 100,000 population drops from 4.7 to 2.8. That’s despite being armed to the teeth, and compares favorably to many countries with strict gun prohibitions.

For the most part, Americans are a peaceable lot. But not black males. This will not be solved by “universal background checks”, “large capacity magazine” bans or sensitivity training for police. It’s a cultural problem. Instead of addressing the issue, blacks continue to pretend this is something being done to them instead of by them.

It will come as a shock to no one here that I like guns and have a number of them. It is my intention to build an AR-15 pistol.

Most of you are probably familiar with the AR-15 as a rifle. As a rifle, it must have a barrel of at least 16″ in length and have an overall length (OAL) of at least 26″. If either of those dimensions is not met, then it is a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and regulated under the National Firearms Act and subject to a $200 tax. Such are called a NFA weapon, subject to tax and ATF approval. The other kind of weapon is a GCA weapon, regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Before building a NFA weapon, you must have submitted paperwork to BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (or just ATF to old-timers) and paid the tax, received permission to build it and only then may you proceed to build a rifle with a barrel of less than 16″ or OAL less then 26″. Failure to get proper permission and pay the tax before making a NFA weapon can land you in jail for 10 years.

Yes, 10 years in the pokey over a $200 tax.

There are two ways to build a short barrel rifle (SBR):

1) Buy a regular AR-15 rifle (OAL 26″ or greater, barrel 16″ or greater, a GCA weapon) and apply for permission, noting the GCA rifle’s serial number on the application, pay the tax and wait until ATF approves the build. Approval takes, currently, 5-6 months. Then, and only then, with the approved tax stamp paperwork in hand, you can remove the barrel and attach one with a length of less than 16″ or otherwise shorten the OAL to less than 26″.

or

2) Buy a stripped AR-15 lower receiver (this is the serial-numbered and registered part of an AR-style weapon, and is a GCA “weapon” that must be purchased through a FFL, a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer, noting the lower receiver’s serial number on the application, pay the tax and wait until ATF approves the build. Then, and only then, with the approved tax stamp paperwork in hand, you can assemble a rifle of less than 26″ OAL and/or with a barrel of less than 16″ length, a NFA weapon.

Note that a copy of the tax stamp must be kept with the NFA weapon at all times, to prove you have paid the tax and gotten permission to build it. An NFA weapon cannot be loaned, without your accompaniment to anyone else. When it is used, you must always be present. That’s how dangerous these things are!

So, if I want to build a SBR with a barrel of, say, 7.5″, I have to apply, pay the tax, wait for approval.

But I can build an AR-15 pistol with a barrel of 7.5″ and I can do it today, if I had the parts. Perfectly legal.

“Pistol” is not defined anywhere in legislation. It is defined only in ATF implementing regulations. A pistol is designed to be fired with one hand, a rifle is designed to be shoulder fired, and thus has a stock.

What determines whether a weapon is a rifle or a pistol is how it was “originally” built. If it was originally built as a rifle, it is forever and always a rifle in the eyes of ATF. If it was originally built as a pistol, it is forever and always a pistol in the eyes of ATF. **

So, I have to ensure that when I build my pistol, it will be a “pistol” from the get-go in the eyes of the law. I am currently wrestling with the question: “When is a weapon sufficiently made originally so as to gain its permanent ‘pistol’ or ‘rifle’ designation?” When is it far enough along that the label sticks?

If I start with a stripped lower receiver, and ensure that a stock never comes near it, then attaching an upper receiver with a 7.5″ barrel makes it a “pistol”. Just what I want.

Given that it’s to be a pistol, held and fired with one hand, I want it to be lightweight. I’ve found a polymer lower receiver with a polymer trigger group but it comes, unfortunately, with a stock. No upper or barrel, but with a stock. Does the fact that it comes with a stock make it a “rifle” already, even though it cannot fire?

Or can I buy this lower receiver, remove and discard the stock and build it into the pistol I want? Is it already a “rifle” because of its stock?

When buying a GCA weapon, you fill out an ATF Form 4473. The form has check boxes for “Pistol”, “Rifle” and “Other”, “other” being the designation a receiver would have. If I buy this lower receiver (which has a stock), will it be listed as “rifle” on the form 4473 or as “other”, which is how a stripped lower receiver would be designated? The manufacturer determines which box is checked. It is not up to me. (Edit: Turns out, “other” is how it comes.)

So, until I find out whether I can remove the stock and use the receiver to make a pistol, I cannot proceed. (Edit: Yes, I can.) Has it “originally” been made already, or will I be the maker? Or should I forget about this stocked receiver and buy a different brand, that has no parts installed at all? The later would be safest but I like the stocked receiver’s reviews. (Edit: the weapon is “made” when the barreled upper receiver is fitted to the lower receiver. This means that I can buy the lower receiver with a stock, remove the stock and use the receiver to built a pistol.)

Now, here’s where it gets interesting. Sig Sauer makes a stabilizing brace for AR-15 pistols that looks an awful lot like a stock — the SB-15. Picture a fat, hollow rifle stock. The user’s arm is inserted lengthwise through the stabilizing brace and the pistol grip is grasped. There are Velcro straps to tighten the stock to the shooter’s arm. Much of the job of supporting all that weight forward of the pistol grip is transferred from the hand to the forearm. It was invented by a war vet who wanted to make it easier for disabled vets to hold their AR pistols. Terrific device. And ATF has ruled it legal. The question was asked: what if the user puts the rear of the brace against his shoulder and uses it in a manner other than that for which it was designed? What if they use the brace like a rifle stock?

ATF says the pistol is still a pistol and the designation applies to how the weapon was originally made, not how it is used. Not surprisingly, many people see this as a way around the tax, paperwork and regulation under NFA. I.e., build an AR pistol, equip it with a Sig brace and you are perfectly legal. You effectively have a SBR not subject to the NFA. It is a GGA weapon, not an NFA weapon. Sig braces are flying off the shelves.

Of course, this is government; this is ATF, they can simply change their mind about the brace. If that happens, it’s simple enough to remove and discard the brace. It’s still a pistol. (Edit: As it happens, this is exactly what happened. Shortly after building my pistol with a Sig Brace, I learned that ATF decided that shouldering a pistol with a Sig Brace constituted a “making” of a new weapon, a SBR, an NFA weapon. That is, how you use it matters after all. ATF turned the previous position on its head. No law was changed, only ATF’s collective mind changed. So, apparently, a law can mean one thing, or it can mean exactly the opposite. )

**
I cannot convert a rifle to a pistol by removing the stock and replacing the barrel with a 7.5-inch one. That would be converting a GCA weapon to a NFA weapon without the tax and paperwork. That would constitute making a SBR and, absent the tax stamp, get you ten years in jail.

A pistol can, however, be converted to a rifle (and back again) provided the rifle made is not regulated by NFA. That is, convert a pistol to a rifle having an OAL of at least 26″ with a barrel of 16″ or more, and that’s perfectly fine. There are carbine conversions that accept your pistol frame and which meet the OAL and barrel length requirements. Perfectly legal. And you can remove the Glock frame from the conversion, reverting it to its pistol status. Again, perfectly legal. At all times, the weapon was either a GCA pistol or a GCA rifle, neither of which is subject to the NFA, with attendant tax and approval requirement. The Glock was *originally* made as a pistol and will always be recognized as a pistol.

But… attach just a shoulder stock (Now you’ve “made” a weapon that’s to be fired from the shoulder) to that Glock and you have just made a SBR, a NFA weapon, subject to tax and regulation by the NFA. This can land you in jail if you have not paid the tax, and registered the weapon with ATF. Unlike the carbine conversion, which meets both the OAL and barrel length requirements, attaching only a stock is forbidden without the tax and paperwork.

Once I build my AR-15 pistol, I can convert it to a rifle and back again, provided I do it in the right order. I would:

1. Remove the too-short barrel;
2. Remove the pistol brace (assuming it has one);
3. Attach a stock;
4. Attach a barrel of 16 or more inches.

If I reversed 3 and 4, I’d run afoul of the OAL restriction (between steps) unless the barrel was really long and the OAL was 26″ or more even without the stock.

As with the Glock going onto a carbine conversion, the key is to keep it a GCA weapon at all times, never a NFA weapon.

Of course, if I were doing this rifle / pistol conversion with a registered SBR, no problems. It is already registered and can be shorter than 26″ (or longer) and the barrel can already be shorter then 16″ (or longer). There is no combination that can get me in trouble because it is already registered and the tax paid.

No surprises in Ferguson.

The actions there are one of the ways in which the “Zombie Apocalypse**” may start. People all over the country imagine they know what happened between Brown and the officer better than the Grand Jury does. And looting is the new way to express dissatisfaction. Dr. King would be so proud.

Save the tear gas. I recommend fire hoses for the lot.

If the Race Riot option is selected to kick off the Zombie Apocalypse, the side we are each on is predetermined, was determined for each of us at birth. There will be no neutrals.

I find it telling that the media continually fan the flames by referring to Brown as “an unarmed, black teenager”. What a different picture it would paint if they referred instead to a “six-foot five-inch, 280 pound black man”. Hell, throw in “unarmed” too. Point is, it would give a different mental image than the media’s use of “teenager”, which conjures the image of a doe-eyed innocent. My description is at least as accurate as “teenager”.

It will be interesting to see what the Feds do now.

**
The coming complete societal breakdown

I’ve been meaning to comment on this since before the election.

I watch the NBC Nightly News. (My wife likes Brian Williams.) In the days leading up to the mid-term election, the theme oft repeated was that the people are “fed up with both parties”. Who would end up with control of the Senate was “too close to call”.

Given the closeness of so many races, what with recounts and runoff elections, we may not know who will control the Senate until January.

People were, we were told, increasingly turning to third parties because, as cannot be mentioned often enough, the electorate was “fed up with both parties” and with “gridlock” (which the MSM seems to think means Obama’s inability to inflict more of his pernicious agenda on America).

It was almost as if they were trying to convince us that this is so — that we are fed up with both parties and will be voting for third party candidates (who, with luck will act as spoilers and throw races to Democrats).

Man, did they ever get it wrong!

If “gridlock” is the problem, turning the Senate over to the Republicans does not seem like the answer. Perhaps gridlock was not the problem seen by voters.

Was anyone, aside from the wishful thinking of the MSM, surprised by the mid-term election results?

For my birthday, at the end of this month, I’m getting a Beretta CX4 Storm carbine in 9mm. <http://www.cx4storm.com/>.

This is not a weapon that will, like modern sporting firearms of the AR-15 variety, be mistaken for an “assault rifle”. It’s been described by reviewers as “futuristic” and a “Star Trek rifle”. The owner’s manual gushes: it has “very modern, extremely captivating and ergonomic lines” and a “particularly captivating appearance”.

Appearance aside, what drew me to this weapon is the fact that it can be switched from right-handed to left-handed. I am cross dominant. I am right-handed but left-eyed. I shoot handguns right-handed but shoot long guns left-handed. When shooting a right-handed long gun, I usually get hot brass to the face or to my right arm.

The CX4 Storm allows swapping of extractor and ejector, and moving the ejection port cover, mag release, cocking handle and manual safety to the other side of the weapon.

The ol’ switcheroo probably takes 2 minutes, 3 tops. I’ve yet to receive the rifle and try it but it can be dismantled quite easily without tools. The conversion from right to left or vice-versa is so simple that I am surprised more manufacturers don’t do the same.

Not surprisingly, the CX4 (carbine) Storm uses the same magazines as the PX4 (pistol) Storm. Santa is mulling over whether to bring me the latter.

The local shooting range has a steel deer silhouette at the 250 yard range. Firing my Uzi offhand in semi-automatic, I can hit it maybe 20% of the time. The Uzi, being an open bolt weapon, the first thing that happens when you pull the trigger is that a pound and a half of bolt starts moving and causes the weapon to bobble. With a really firm grip, it will come back close to the original point of aim by the time the bolt finishes its travel and the round goes boom. The Storm fires from a closed bolt and I expect much better results from it.