I interpret the definition of "Significant Military Equiptment" and "defense articles" to be firearms that are to be used by our military. Not civilians. I do not see how it can be interpreted any other way. But that is just me...
And i have said it before, this regulation does not effect as many as people make it out to. Do i agree with anything that regulates or restricts any business, be it one or many? NO. Do I say that i support the regs? NO.
It simply annoys me when things like this are looked at on just the surface and made out to be the end of the world when people say that "ALL" gunsmiths are effected by this when in actuality, the vast majority are not.
Again... Just the way i interpret what is written.
Brian, as you say, it's just the way you are interpreting it, and so those who interpret it differently annoy you?
Can you imagine that the way you interpret it annoys us, the same way? Whose interpretation is better?
IMHO and I've seen it put into action in Canada, is that the language use in gun legislation is vague on purpose....to allow for the most restrictive interpretation imaginable, without setting off alarm bells while the legislation is being made into law. They are hoping for people like you to calm the fears of the rest of us.
I'd put money down on a bet today that 10 years from now, without action by a Republican congress and president, that this little regulatory hiccough will be affecting most smiths, professional and amateur.
