Karatebear

please email a copy to me, jdubb4420 at yahoo dot com Thanks

I wanted to use what was readily available for the suppressor so I needed a 3/4-28 to what was "readily available" adapter, I went with 5/8-24, something common for to have variety of accessories should they be desired, yet large enough to still accommodate .45 Well worth the price considering, and then the price break on 5+, I already see you guys planning a group buy ;P http://shop.grizzlygunworks.com/Thread-Adapter-Female-To-Male-Any-Threads-THREADADAPTER.htm

it's 3/4x28 - 5/8x24

Finally got around to finishing this project WW2 Savage 28a1 Bridgeport "U" L drum DR sight scope mount base EOTech EXPS 3-2 Thanks to GGW for the thread adapter SDTac form 1 titanium DIY suppressor Still thinking of maybe doing some sort of quad rail, or maybe screwing a rail strip onto an old forend, definitely needs a vertical forward grip when using the drum

Recently, as of April 2015 Mossberg no longer sells this conversion to civilians, was hoping a fellow board member with a ffl would be willing to put an order in and I'd be happy to pay an extra $60 for this "convenience" Will be doing the NON-NFA 14" build as seen http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88 Mossberg Customer Support, 1-800-363-3555, order one each of the following: 13488 Tube Nut 500A/835 $8.5311239P M590/835 Mag Cap Parkerized $14.0012410P Magtube M514 Parkerized $14.0012392P Magazine Spring Retainer 590/835 Parkerized $3.5012194 Spring, Magazine 835 $3.5012359 Forearm, M514 $20.0016033P Bbl Asm 514Bead Hvy/w Parkerized $100.0012362P Action Slide Asm 500/514 Parkerized $22.00Prices listed above were current as of March 1, 2015. With shipping, the total was $196.56. Recently, I heard that Mossberg now has a part number for the whole front end assembly:92514. Thanks!

On my WW2 Savage I put Doug's scope mount site so I could run an eotech since I will be taking the comp/front sight off to run a suppressor, just waiting for a 3/4-28 to 5/8-24 thread adapter I ordered. I had to use my dremel and trim the side of his mount as it was too wide for the eotech mount, nothing a little tinkering couldn't fix. Shooting the drum without a vertical front grip is a pain in the butt!!! I was thinking of mounting a rail to the bottom of a spare horizontal grip I have. +1 I like the polished/jeweled look.

http://ammoseek.com/ammo/45acp/-handgun-230grains-

ohio ordnance sarco tommygunner omega weapons keep shooting gutterratt ima I personally like forums or on gunbroker, but all of the above are reputable vendors. Thie following is what a complete parts kit should contain for parts at minimum with the only difference being the rear sight adjustable or "L" http://www.ima-usa.com/original-u-s-wwii-thompson-m1928a1-smg-complete-parts-set.html http://www.ima-usa.com/original-u-s-wwii-thompson-m1928a1-smg-complete-parts-set-super-select-condition.html IMA is priced at the high end of the market in my opinion, but you do get what you pay for. Complete parts kits can be found and for bargain prices with patience and due diligence in searching

I just find it unfortunate that there are very few like myself that feel like something, anything can still be done. This defeated attitude, and concession of rights to the thoughts, ideas of another, only fuels the growing of oppression. I for one believe we the people still can, but for those who think we can't, well can't never could...

Like I mentioned, I personally have used the above case law to take a stand for an implied right, "the right to freely travel." Gun ownership is an expressed right. The following are further examples of why a Thompson SMG would be expressly protected, because it has been and has features that are ""ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."" A lawyers oath to the BAR, unless his patriotism and belief in the US Constitution convicts him otherwise,or his greed and a clients ability to pay such vast sums, prohibits him from fully taking this position. Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment). Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

Also, this is key, PROPERLY APPROACHED. I'd suggest through a third party, make sure there is client confidentiality as well, I'd reluct to use the word attorney as it would suggest one is incompetent to ascertain their own rights, by default subjecting to jurisdiction. but this is a totally other topic. BAR lawyers have an oath to the British Accredited Registry, just as all public servants have an oath/affirmation to the Constitution. It sort of overrides their ability to represent you in the proper capacity. then again, another topic

In the event of an unfavorable ruling, one would have to file suit against all parties involved with the ruling and sue. Look up "Charlie Sprinkle" of course this was over traffic violations but he sued everyone up the chain of command to the Governor of California, which was then Ronald Reagan and was demanding to be paid in lawful money i.e gold/silver. In the end the state dropped their charges to get him to drop the suit.

I think properly approached they would be able to retain them. A seasoned lawyer should be able to get the ATF to grant a stamp. I have heard of instances of individuals getting stamps on unregistered pre 86 mg's long after into the late 90's. Read my complete thoughts and please feel free to verify the case law accompanying below. Had I the backing, I would certainly file a case arguing that the NFA, GCA are both unconstitutional with the following cases in support. If a stamp, albeit unlawful (Title of Nobility, Article 1 sec 10 US Constitution), is not granted, one would file a suit against the ATF and their superiors, possibly including all the way to the US President for violating their rights under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes -US v Miller https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 under this case, a thompson would most certainly be argued as protected under the second amendment -Miranda v Arizona https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them." -Miller v. United States, 230 F. 2d 486 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4704247576517858470&q=miller+v.+us,+230+f+486&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1 “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.” -Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053&q=Murdock+v.+Penn.,+319+US+105+(1943)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1 a person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." -Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9919916227330617957&q=-+Norton+v.+Shelby+County,+118+US+425&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1 “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” -Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137 “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged.” -Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/394/618 “If a law has no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional. -Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol 26 U.S. 328 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9851142207306798312&q=Elliott+v.+Lessee+of+Piersol+26+U.S.+328&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1 “Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.” -- The ATF, police, municipal courts do not have jurisdiction unless consented by the individual, Only Justice, Superior and higher courts that have a letter from the DOJ granted by an act of congress per Article 3 of the US constitution do “however this may be in other cases, we are not disposed to give the constitution a construction which will allow ministerial officers to be invested with power to punish individuals by fine and imprisonment. Such power involves the personal liberty of the citizen, and is in its nature a judicial power of the highest degree. It cannot be exercised except after due process of law.” - BURNS v. SUPERIOR COURT 140 Cal. 1. “the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a judicial capacity; and his discretionary power is the same as that of the chief of police” “Therefore, if the provisions of the ordinance authorizing the chief of police… be void because it is a delegation of legislative powers to an administrative officer and vests an arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion in the chief of police, the provisions of the ordinance authorizing the exercise of the same discretion by the judge of the municipal court… is also void " - Thompson v. Smith 154 SE “A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." - ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284. “When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” - Melo v. United States, 505 F. 2d 1026 “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." - Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389 “An agency may not finally decide the limits of its statutory power. That is a judicial function.” - SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD v. NIEROTKO. 327 U.S. 358 -- This is not legal advice, but I personally have used the above information to get traffic violations dismissed, appearing specially, never seeing a judge for no license plate, and failure to provide license upon request, the fact is it was never asked for, I was quite content with the results but had I wanted I could of sued for violation of oath/affirmation and violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 I understand traffic and firearms are different categories, but the law is the law and statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules are not! It is clear and has been ruled as much in many instances by the highest court in the US that the Constitution is the LAW (Article 6 US Constitution) and unconstitutional legislation is null and void, and I quote “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” - Norton v Shelby County rant over and God Bless America!

Thanks

sent pp gift

I have a forend stamped "M" can anyone divulge the maker? thanks.

I think I tried to make an offer on it with you back in Nov. $500 is a fair price to move quick, I'll jump in at third in the unlikely event of the other two buyers opt out. I paid around the same for a like new one, same mfg. from another board member last month.

I have a spare, will get you pics in the morning

It's worth what someone is willing to pay. Possibly slightly more than it's current bid of which the reserve is still not met. If it's in the condition it's described as, I think it would be a great first

1.5mil / 30 = 50k each. whats 6k in transfer fees if you got 1.5 mil to spend... considering they are probably, most likely, all colt ("Bought during the 1920's") that doesn't seem too bad. It is a bit steep and honestly one would hope for a bulk discount. I suppose I could try and possibly understand the bulk upcharge here.

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department hopes to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars by auctioning off most of the 30 Thompson submachine guns in the department's possession. Bought during the 1920's, when the "Tommy gun," was a favorite weapon of both gangsters and the lawmen who chased them, the guns have been gathering dust for decades, and the department wants to issue officers new pistols, so it's hard to dispute the fiscal reasoning behind this move. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: St. Louis police took them out of service perhaps 60 years ago, but 29 are still stored in a basement bunker at the Police Academy downtown, with a 30th in the crime lab. Chief Sam Dotson and some collectors think it may be the biggest police-owned stock of Thompsons in the United States. And it is about to go on sale. With the police budget ever-stretched, Dotson said the department is planning to auction off what could approach $1 million worth of the guns in the next six months, and put the proceeds toward new sidearms for the whole force. One could perhaps question the stated need for new pistols: to replace the current 9mm Berettas with sidearms chambered for the .40 S&W cartridge, thus "matching criminals' greater firepower," but that's an argument for another time. The surprising part is that the St. Louis Police Department is willing to sell firearms to private citizens at all, especially fully-automatic guns, chambered in the powerful (by pistol caliber standards) .45 ACP cartridge. SLMPD Chief Sam Dotson, after all, has shown little enthusiasm for an armed private citizenry. Shortly after his appointment as Chief, The Riverfront Times noted that "gun control" was one of his top priorities, and quoted him as saying that, "As a society, we have to be serious about gun control." This column has noted that Chief Dotson once casually dismissed the Second Amendment's Constitutional protection of the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms as merely a "belief" (emphasis added): "I understand the Second Amendment, and I understand everyone's right, or their belief that they have a right to bear arms," he says. Perusing his blog, his anti-gun stance is difficult to miss. He believes in "gun free" zones: My approach has always been and always will be that guns have no place in our workplace or in our schools and we as a society have to be better about keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. He has been a featured speaker at the Demanding Moms' rallies. He angrily denounced the U.S. Senate in April, 2013, for failing to pass the Manchin-Toomey "universal background check" bill. He bizarrely claimed that by vetoing Missouri's "Second Amendment Preservation Act," Governor Jay Nixon was protecting the Second Amendment, because, "For my part, I have always believed that the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens requires a robust effort on the part of law enforcement to keep guns out of the wrong hands," with the government, of course, deciding which hands are the "wrong" ones. And then there's his call for an outright ban of "extreme, military-grade armaments": And because there is no reasonable use or need for such things, people should not be allowed to own extreme, military-grade armaments. And yet, as the Post-Dispatch article mentions, he is willing to sell to the public dozens of guns that Time Magazine described in 1939 as "the deadliest weapon, pound for pound, ever devised by man." The Thompson submachine gun is an actual "weapon of war," serving with distinction in both theaters of the Second World War and in countless other wars, in the armies of many other nations. Kinda sounds like something he would normally call an "extreme, military-grade armament," doesn't it? So how does he reconcile that apparent cognitive dissonance? Perhaps the Post-Dispatch knows: The department wants to make sure the guns don’t take any more souls. “We want to be selective and make sure these aren’t going into the wrong hands,” [sLMPD Sgt. Christopher] Tucker said. High prices and federal restrictions should help see to that. Ah, yes--with prices of fully-automatic firearms vastly and artificially inflated by the Hughes Amendment's prohibition of private ownership of post-1986 machine guns, only the wealthy will be buying the department's Tommy guns. So don't worry--with the feds' gun equivalent of the poll taxes of post-Civil War infamy, we can rest assured that the riffraff will be kept out of the Tommy gun club.

I PM'd reconbob, I might have to call. I have a Thompson, it's just missing a barrel so I need the barrel to put on my tsmg

Well the base of my bench vise just broke, not the barrel vise, so I'm done for today... cheap home depot tools... at least I can return it for store credit...

Using "Barrel Vise" the second item on TOOLS page and on the top left of pg. 16 of the article I haven't gone to pick up the rosin yet, but just tried shimming it and putting a rubber glove as a shim for grip, it is still slipping within the vise but it seemed like it took more force to turn this time, I will try the powdered rosin tomorrow after I have a chance to go get some, that is if I'm not successful tonight with shimming. Any and all advice is appreciated, thanks.

heated it with a propane torch to no avail, will try again tomorrow adding some rosin, and just to confirm it is right handed threaded? Thanks