Comments by "Anders Juel Jensen" (@andersjjensen) on "I Tried to Use the GR-1 Anvil at the BUG Match..." video.

@BackwardsPancake Strictly speaking they only need to make the "fire control computer" the regulated part. They don't track metal tubes and whatnot from which you could fashion a firearm with only hand tools, skill and patience.
5
@marcusborderlands6177 Just the same as every piece of pipe from the hardware store can be turned into a barrel. The point of regulation is not to prohibit ghetto items. Because the ghetto is gonna ghetto regardless of regulation. The point of regulation is to define a legally registrable item and place safety/inspection/embargo/export laws on it.
4
@marcusborderlands6177 No, I chose the component which is easiest to define legally without accidentally imposing far reaching restrictions on other areas of commerce. That an overclocked tamagotchi can be fashioned into one is another matter entirely.... Again, legislation is not about inhibiting unauthorized production. It's about telling manufacturers: This is the thing that must have a serial number that you must report to us and that people must put their name to, so we know who has it.... That would totally suck for capacitors. Like which one should be serialized? All of them? And if one fries, do you need to go through hoops to get your new replacement serialized and then registered?
1
@BackwardsPancake As I said to many others: Regulation does not exist to prohibit makeshift production. You can easily fashion a firearm out of stuff from your local hardware store with a bit of cutting, grinding and filling. It's about defining which thing in the gun constitutes "the gun", and thus needs to have a serial number from the manufacturer. When the rest of the gun is made from common items and a bit of moulded/printed plastic parts it would make sense, from a legislative point of view, to do it on the thing which is unique to the gun. That would also open the door for legislation about not tampering with said device.
1
@praevasc4299 As I've explained about a billion times by now: the regulated part of a gun is not the hardest part to manufacture. The regulated part of a gun is the part that is the least likely to need repair/replacement. It doesn't matter if you can ghetto it with relative ease. Regulation does not exist to "make it hard to cheat". It exists to make it illegal to cheat... plain and simple.
1
@praevasc4299 This particular design would have to be redesigned to continue production post regulation. This has happened before. It's generally done by setting a grace period to allow manufacturers to catch up. But by the time this kicks off enough to raise eyebrows you can be absolutely sure that a more cost effective solution than an entire Arduino will have been found. A dedicated fixed function fire control chip with a one-time-programmable serial number would be an absolutely tiny piece of silicon real estate. Any serious manufacturer would not ship something which is (fully) reprogrammable anyway, and it wouldn't be long anyway before "power classes" of some sort would see regulation too, so reprogrammability would be banned. Think "destructive device" and "short barrel rifle" type laws.
1