I'll have to give this film a mixed review. It's an exciting plot idea, though it drags a bit in the middle, and it has a sad ending that's definitely not Hollywood.
He does want us to understand that he bent the receiver into shape, since he keeps telling us that. What I don't get is why he destroyed the rfile at the end.
While I didnt watch the video, I had read the article when it came out. I guess I cant fault the author for destroying the rifle when his investigation. If he didnt want to keep the rifle, then its his perogative to do as he wishes with it. It does raise an interesting question. If the author is being paid to build the rifle and report on it, plus I'm presuming that the company paid for the parts and other expenses he might have been required to destroy it because he was manufacturing a firearm professionally. In that case, wouldnt he need an FFL to manufacture like Cody Wilson did with the Liberator pistol? So, destruction of the weapon was necessary both for personal and legal reasons.
I'm definitely a huge fan of the general concept, though.
By the way, Greg, can you figure out what he means when he says that the assembled gun is completely legal (if he doesn't say that in the video, he does in the written article)? It's a detachable magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a pistol grip and barrel shroud. I thought that would make it verboten in California for at least two different reasons.
I'll have to give this film a mixed review. It's an exciting plot idea, though it drags a bit in the middle, and it has a sad ending that's definitely not Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteHe does want us to understand that he bent the receiver into shape, since he keeps telling us that. What I don't get is why he destroyed the rfile at the end.
While I didnt watch the video, I had read the article when it came out. I guess I cant fault the author for destroying the rifle when his investigation. If he didnt want to keep the rifle, then its his perogative to do as he wishes with it.
DeleteIt does raise an interesting question. If the author is being paid to build the rifle and report on it, plus I'm presuming that the company paid for the parts and other expenses he might have been required to destroy it because he was manufacturing a firearm professionally. In that case, wouldnt he need an FFL to manufacture like Cody Wilson did with the Liberator pistol?
So, destruction of the weapon was necessary both for personal and legal reasons.
I'm definitely a huge fan of the general concept, though.
DeleteBy the way, Greg, can you figure out what he means when he says that the assembled gun is completely legal (if he doesn't say that in the video, he does in the written article)? It's a detachable magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a pistol grip and barrel shroud. I thought that would make it verboten in California for at least two different reasons.
Sounds like another David Gregory type incident. I'm guessing this schmuck won't face charges--hey, Mikeb, you could post an article with that title.
Delete