Anonymoose
Members
- Oct 19, 2024
- 966
- 1,600
I did consider putting an MPiKM pistol grip on it.
View attachment 31451
Well you're hardly gonna make it worse.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I did consider putting an MPiKM pistol grip on it.
View attachment 31451
I did consider putting an MPiKM pistol grip on it.
View attachment 31451
These are not the most relevant legislation. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 sets the limits and defines what full auto is. In these situations, if the gun can easily be made to shoot in full auto, which usually means anything that does not involve disassembly, it is classified as being capable of full auto.
That is the tricky part; based on how it was explained to me, what you are describing would not count as disassembly. Disassembly would probably be a process that would render the gun inoperable until it was reassembled.This is genuine curiosity and not playing devil's advocate. Where is the line drawn at "disassembly"?
On my P90 with its Perun mosfet, I have to remove the butt plate to access the button to get into programming mode and change back to full auto.
I guess that grey area is why there's a requirement for a physical semi lock as there are degrees of disassembly at play.
Strangely, I was mulling over the same thing in an overly long and extremely boring meeting this afternoon.On a separate, but related tangent; I have wondered over the past few years with the increase in HPA, would these not technically fall foul of the law?
They can easily be made to shoot well over the limit in full auto, without any involved work or disassembly.
Where do we think the law would stand with regards to them, should a case ever arise?
This is genuine curiosity and not playing devil's advocate. Where is the line drawn at "disassembly"?
This. The moment the law specifically says you can't do A, B or C you know someone will do X, Y or Z for the same effect (just look at the way F1 teams find loopholes in racing rules). Deliberately keeping the wording vague allows more things to be covered without having to go through the process of updating legislationA lot of the issues around the definitions stem from the impossibility of defining every possible situation.
Exactly! Case law then provides precedents.This. The moment the law specifically says you can't do A, B or C you know someone will do X, Y or Z for the same effect (just look at the way F1 teams find loopholes in racing rules). Deliberately keeping the wording vague allows more things to be covered without having to go through the process of updating legislation