Did you purchase an "Auto Key Card"?
- Thread starter Mike38
- Start date
I disagree. The Constitution really doesn't limit me on what I can own, but the NFA rules starting in 1934 do. I like it when these companies keep pushing and finding ways to do things differently. I would personally like to go back to pre-1934 rules and do what I want without having to ask permission.
I'm kind of surprised to hear any news about "lightning links" in this era of binary triggers, etc. I always thought of the lightning links as a rinky-dink way of making the AR fire full-auto. So, some guy got busted by ATF for printing the design on some metal? As I recall, plans for lightning links have been available in print for decades. In fact, I recall when you could buy sten kits and tubes from shotgun news with printed plans glued to the tube showing where to mill the cut-outs to complete a full-auto receiver. I don't recall ATF being too concerned about those things?
I never heard about this "auto-card", re-branded lightning link until I found this thread.
I never heard about this "auto-card", re-branded lightning link until I found this thread.
Geezerbiker
New member
That's like being charged for practicing medicine with out a license for giving away a couple aspirin...
Tony
Tony
Never heard of an "auto key card" and didn't bother reading this thread until I noticed it had generated some discussion. I immediately thought of the Zimmerman-PGP analogy TXAZ made (sharing source code for encrypted communications), but thought it was resolved informally. I checked Wikipedia and it says the the feds never formally charged Zimmerman criminally and dropped the investigation after three years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann
On further thought, there are some important differences in the PGP controversy and that involving sale of "auto key cards." My comments are not directed at the particular situation that started this thread, but at the general notion of selling these cards. Specific facts are always critical and we lack some of those here.
In my view, the true issue is not whether these cards are "machine gun parts" or "art." The true issue is whether there is a conspiracy to violate federal law.
The general conspiracy statute at 18 U.S..C. § 371 states:
Members of this forum are undoubtedly aware that converting a gun into an automatic firearm is a federal criminal offense, meaning a conspiracy to do so is also a criminal offense.
An argument could be made that sellers of the card offer them for sale with the knowledge they can and will be used to convert guns to full auto. The seller and buyer agree to exchange the card for money and the card is shipped to the buyer. Thus, there is an agreement to violate a federal criminal statute (conversion to full auto) and a step taken to complete the act of conversion. That would arguably be a criminal conspiracy.
The difference in the PGP-Zimmerman scenario is that in Zimmerman's case, the underlying act (encrypting communications) may very well be protected speech.
On further thought, there are some important differences in the PGP controversy and that involving sale of "auto key cards." My comments are not directed at the particular situation that started this thread, but at the general notion of selling these cards. Specific facts are always critical and we lack some of those here.
In my view, the true issue is not whether these cards are "machine gun parts" or "art." The true issue is whether there is a conspiracy to violate federal law.
The general conspiracy statute at 18 U.S..C. § 371 states:
Members of this forum are undoubtedly aware that converting a gun into an automatic firearm is a federal criminal offense, meaning a conspiracy to do so is also a criminal offense.
An argument could be made that sellers of the card offer them for sale with the knowledge they can and will be used to convert guns to full auto. The seller and buyer agree to exchange the card for money and the card is shipped to the buyer. Thus, there is an agreement to violate a federal criminal statute (conversion to full auto) and a step taken to complete the act of conversion. That would arguably be a criminal conspiracy.
The difference in the PGP-Zimmerman scenario is that in Zimmerman's case, the underlying act (encrypting communications) may very well be protected speech.
FrankenMauser
New member
There's one important piece of the puzzle missing there: Intent.
The gun laws that are in play here require intent to commit a crime (short of commission of crime), in order to get a conviction. Without intent, there is no crime.
Unless intent to violate the NFA can be proven, there was no crime.
And if there was no crime, then there is no ground for conspiracy charges. It is just an unflushable turhd in the ATF's toilet bowl.
At what point does the possession of knowledge become a crime? At what point does it become an ACT that is a crime??
Once again we see the law operating to define a crime based on what people MIGHT DO, instead of what is actually done.
I don't think that's right.
The week after 9/11 major network news was showing people, on tv, where to put explosives on the Golden Gate Bridge. Did they get arrested and charged with anything? No. Their intent (they said) was to show people where to look to see if bombs had been planted. When it was pointed out that they were showing terrorists where to plant the explosives, they stopped.
Intent matters, but here we have a problem, because once charges are filed, no matter what your intent actually was, it becomes the judgement of a third party (the court) what your intent legally was.
Always remember what Mark Twain said about juries. Their job is to decide which side has the better liar...
Once again we see the law operating to define a crime based on what people MIGHT DO, instead of what is actually done.
I don't think that's right.
The week after 9/11 major network news was showing people, on tv, where to put explosives on the Golden Gate Bridge. Did they get arrested and charged with anything? No. Their intent (they said) was to show people where to look to see if bombs had been planted. When it was pointed out that they were showing terrorists where to plant the explosives, they stopped.
Intent matters, but here we have a problem, because once charges are filed, no matter what your intent actually was, it becomes the judgement of a third party (the court) what your intent legally was.
Always remember what Mark Twain said about juries. Their job is to decide which side has the better liar...
Well, I guess the "Firing Line Legal Team" has just extinguished the ATF's probable cause. Someone should contact ATF and tell them to dismiss any charges, stop the investigation and close the case, let them sell whatever they want.
It's Like Matlock, Perry Mason and Frank Cannon are on here!
Of course, there may be more to this situation than is currently being published, as is often the case.
As far as the OP advising people not to admit online to buying one... a little too late for that. If they bought it online / used a CC... THE ATF ALREADY KNOWS WHO BOUGHT THEM... AND EVERYTHING ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS. This is 2021, not 1975.
It's Like Matlock, Perry Mason and Frank Cannon are on here!
Of course, there may be more to this situation than is currently being published, as is often the case.
As far as the OP advising people not to admit online to buying one... a little too late for that.
If they bought it online / used a CC... THE ATF ALREADY KNOWS WHO BOUGHT THEM... AND EVERYTHING ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS. This is 2021, not 1975.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
Indeed it is 2021, a year in which BOLD ITALIC CAPS is unnecessary and simply makes your post easier to identify as something to skip, rather than reading any of it.
Matlock, Perry Mason, and Frank Cannon don't help. If you want the younger generations to read your posts, you need references to something that was still on the air when they were born.
The younger generations matter now. If you want them to read, understand, and empathize, you shouldn't marginalize them with references to things they find antiquated and "boomer-centric".
I am not trying to be insulting. I am not trying to be dismissive. I am not trying to say that what you grew up with is no longer valid.
But I have been sticking my hands into a lot of new cookie jars over the last 16-18 months. Many of those cookie jars are "fringe" areas and collectors realms that are populated primarily by 14-30 year old gun owners, with a majority minority of 30-40 year-olds.
If you want the current majority population of gun owners to listen, you have to drop the boomer speak. They don't like it. They don't want it. Even if they understand it, they dismiss it and chalk it up to "crotchety old man". You may own more guns than them, but they have more votes than you. Don't be dismissive and marginalizing of the people that you *need* on your side to win the fight.
Make references to the modern world. Don't use all-caps. And don't bold-italicize your all-caps, if you do feel the need to go full-boomer.
The kids won't read it. They just won't.
To them, it is just as bad as a libtard getting in their face and screaming about 87 genders, 42 pronouns, and the latest reason why being a male (regardless of color) means they are sub-human.
If you care about your firearms future, you need to consider more than just the "me" generation.
The post wasn't directed at the younger generation, but at some of the guys on here, all likely older, who try to insinuate that they are Attorneys and smarter than Federal prosecutors, ATF, etc., hence my dated references.
I use the bold print to grab you older guys attention, much like a bold print version of the Readers Digest. Obviously it worked, as you read it.
I use the bold print to grab you older guys attention, much like a bold print version of the Readers Digest. Obviously it worked, as you read it.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I am not aware of anyone on this site, and especially not in this thread, who has "insinuated" that he is an attorney when he is not.shurshot said:
That said, this forum (like all Internet forms) is a place to exchange ideas. There are people (myself among them) who don't accept the notion that "constructive possession" is or should be a crime. The law says that making a pipe bomb is a crime. If I happen to have a 12-inch length of steel pipe left over from a plumbing repair and I also have a couple of pounds of black powder because I have a replica Kentucky rifle -- should that make me a criminal because I possess "bomb making materials"?
What you seem to be saying is that nobody here should be allowed to express an opinion about the constitutionality of any criminal charges unless they are a lawyer. If that is your position, I assume that you won't participate in this discussion area in the future (unless you are a lawyer).
Last edited:
"What you seem to be saying is that nobody here should be allowed to express an opinion about the constitutionality of any criminal charges unless they are a lawyer". (AB)
No. That's not what I said. Opinions are fine, after all, that's the spirit of Socratic dialogue. It's the repetitive, dismissive & authoritative tone that I was addressing. Far too many seem quick to criticize the ATF from the comfort of their recliners and give their "expert" opinion... without having all the facts.
No. That's not what I said.
Opinions are fine, after all, that's the spirit of Socratic dialogue. It's the repetitive, dismissive & authoritative tone that I was addressing. Far too many seem quick to criticize the ATF from the comfort of their recliners and give their "expert" opinion... without having all the facts.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It was a typo, and I have corrected it. Thanks.shurshot said:
FrankenMauser
New member
There is no wisdom in the referenced post.
Nor is Matlock going to be helpful here.
So, I would argue that marginalizing is justifiable.
In general,
The youngest generation (~18-25 y/o), in particular, feel like they live in a world created solely to benefit baby boomers, with no hope for the future until that generation dies. They feel repressed, unrepresented, and ignored. From their perspective: When they try to solve a problem, baby boomers always dog-pile on the subject, ruin any reasonable discussion, and take actions that only protect themselves, rather that trying to help fix things for future generations.
For the most part, I agree with their assessment.
Take the Auto Key Cards (a drawing on metal) and files for 3D printed lightning links for example.
These young kids generally don't intend to use the things. And don't make the things, even when they did intend to do so initially. They see these things as a way to point out just how ridiculous and insane the laws and regulations are in this country, in order to try to set the stage for ATF bureau, FOPA, GCA, and NFA reform when we have supportive representation in power.
The traditional approach (Boomers especially) has always been, "Don't mess with it. Don't change the status-quo. It will just show them what we want, and then they'll target it later."
But the status-quo is erosion of all of our rights. It is a net-negative. --Now, especially, since they aren't holding back. Our enemies want everything, and they have made it know.
Much of the time, the justifications given for taking no action are not even based on fact - it is purely Fuddlore and misunderstanding (or no understanding) of the actual laws and regulations.
The younger kids don't see the massive obstacles ahead as an unclimbable hill that is not worth trying to climb. They see it as a mountain that they must climb.
It is very similar to the resentment of grandfather clauses in AWBs. The people that have them generally put up no fight.
The Haves turn their backs, because "Well, I've got mine." While the Have-nots are left out in the rain, because they were not born early enough or did not make enough money early enough, even though the added influence of the Haves might have changed the outcome.
When the wisdom is to roll over and take it, or to run away because you can at least hold on to what you've got, I'd say it is reasonable to marginalize that "wisdom".
And that's the tip of the iceberg for these kids.
Look at the examples given to them for fighting for our rights in the courts. It is baby boomers and Gen-X chest thumping about how great the NRA is, and how much they've done for gun owners. But they haven't. These kids know it better than any generation before them. The NRA has been one of the greatest enemies to gun freedom. The have compromised. They have settled. They have ignored important cases. They have made backroom deals to "pretend" nothing is going on.
And, most importantly, they have not actually fought an important case in quite some time.
The NRA won't take a case unless they think it has already been won. At best, most of the time, they go for nothing more than amicus briefs; but then claim it as *their* victory.
The greatest progress made for gun rights in the last decade has come from state level gun rights groups, 2AF, and the FPC. But every one of those cases was claimed by the NRA as their own victory - while the board of directors was pouring money into their own accounts, buying luxury condos, furnishing their homes with $75,000 couches, and putting on parties that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Meanwhile, Manuel and Garcia are sitting in prison, because they had one round of 9mm ammo under the floor mat in their car, when they were racially profiled and pulled over in D.C.
I have disliked the NRA for at least a decade, and it has only gotten worse. These kids have always hated it. Boomers' undying devotion to such an ineffective, inept, arrogant*, and corrupt organization has really spoiled the water.
If boomers are not going to fight, then they should be marginalized.
*"Let's sell a product that requires special licensing and bonds, in one of the most over-regulated states in the country, but not get a license or put up the bonds. No one will notice. It'll be super cool."
FrankenMauser
New member
Matlock cannot help here, no matter how many times you shout his name.