Shadow Ops Weaponry

[1time]

so it seems that Mdsp can't tell me if its legal or not to build an assault long rifle or not. Its something they are looking into and don't have an estimate time yet. So this leaves the question, whats constitutes a heavy barrel and where can you get them?

I doubt MSP rules it lawful. If they rule that it is illegal it opens them up for a lawsuit. They are probably banking on someone being charged and leaving the ruling up to case law. That way they are not allowing evil firearms but aren't opening up another lawsuit.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Kudos to Tammy for getting my FFL stuff cleared up pronto. She says she shipped my suppressor today so, hopefully, my FFL will have it by the end of next week (or I'll have it by the end of next week)!

 

[fabsroman]

Kudos to Tammy for getting my FFL stuff cleared up pronto. She says she shipped my suppressor today so, hopefully, my FFL will have it by the end of next week (or I'll have it by the end of next week)!

Good. It looks like things are actually going smoother and faster now that Tammy is there. If they can get manufacturing back up and running, that will be even better. Guessing the previous "manager" was playing some ridiculous games to try and get ownership/control of the business, but I am merely guessing. Probably going to be some attorneys involved in this mess for quite a while.

 

[Pinecone]

I am not building an SBR, I just want to build a non heavy barrel carbine.

I know that.

I am just saying, MSP has NOT made up their mind. They give conflicting answers.

By doing this, you are taking the chance that you become the test case. And if you do, you will be arrested and charged. They will probably confiscate all your firearms. And you will end up with legal bills. And even if you win, you lose.

 

[Pinecone]

I am in the other school of thought. The definition of "firearm" in the statute includes the receiver for the firearm. The word "firearm" is used in the definition of Assault Long Gun and the word "firearm" is again used in the list of enumerated long guns that make up the now banned Assault Long Guns.

Of course, I built all of my pre October 1, 2013 lowers into a complete Assault Long Gun before the stroke of midnight on October 1, 2013.

Now, what happens if somebody had a complete assault long gun built up at 10:00 am on September 30, 2013, got home from the range at 2:00 pm on September 30, 2013, decided to clean down the gun at 4:00 pm on September 30, 2013 thereby taking the upper off the gun, and holy smokes, forgot to have it assembled at the stroke of midnight when September 30, 2013 became October 1, 2013?

Of course, my view of the statute means that all these lower receivers that we are still able to purchase, are illegal because they are the firearm of the now banned Colt AR-15 and its copies, except the Colt AR-15 HBAR Sporter, and its copies, because as we know, Colt no longer makes the HBAR Sporter. Ah, then we can make an AR pistol out of these lowers too.

So, if somebody had their previously assembled AR-15 disassembled at the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2013, would it have to become an HBAR on October 1, 2013?

IMO, if it existed as an ALG before the ban, it would be legal. It does not have to have been in that configuration at the stroke of midnight Sept 30, 2013. As it was one before that point.

But an unbuilt receiver, even if purchased before Oct 1, 2013, is not an ALG, but it IS a firearm. But it is not a pistol or rifle or SBR or ALG or anything else.

What we need, is for MSP to actually come up with a decision. And if it is the wrong one, then a law suit could be filed to try to make them change their mind.

 

[Pinecone]

But the state police needs to start enforcing the laws on the books, instead of legislating there own opinions and that includes the attorney general. I don't see anywhere in the law banning making an assault long gun. Especially making one from a registered pre ban lower. The firearm was registered prior to October 1st, 2013. Building configuration should follow the laws of the registered time period. End of Rant.

A firearm is not an ALG.

Your lower is a firearm. It is yet a pistol, rifle, SBR, ALG, or something else.

 

[Mdeng]

I attempted to purchase 2 lowers from them during the rush. Then as the deadline of Oct 2013 got closer they continued to make promises they couldn't keep. Paul offered a refund through their facebook page and I jumped on it. I was able to purchase 2 billet lowers with matching uppers from Engage Armament with those funds.

I would rather support a local shop anyway.

If your looking for suppressors I highly recommend Engage Armament and A1 Uniform Sales.

 

[Kevmo]

Rusty mind sharing your contact and contact number for tammy? I'm in the same boat as you as far as having a approved form 3

 

[awptickes]

Per the arfcom thread:

Originally Posted By jonwienke:
Here are the names and numbers of 2 of the investors who took over Shadow Ops:
Jim Silvester (540) 664-2934
Tammy Scott (720) 290-3289

If you have product you paid for that was never delivered, or sent Shadow Ops lowers or other parts that were never returned, call them. They are the ones who can best assist you right now.

Kevmo: See above.

 

[Kevmo]

why does that name sounds familiar... jim silvester...

thanks!

 

[chale127]

Posted on their FB just a little while ago...

 

[bobthefisher]

Posted on their FB just a little while ago...

Wow, seems like somone started drinking early. I had a .308 BCG that was never fulfilled almost a year ago. I called mt CC company and got my money back six months ago. Meh!

 

[Kevmo]

Wow, i spoke with Tammy and she said she'll find the order and call me back.. I guess that won't happen now? Sigh

 

[traveller]

Wow, i spoke with Tammy and she said she'll find the order and call me back.. I guess that won't happen now? Sigh

He'll sober up. I wouldn't lose hope at this point.

 

[JoeBobOutfitters.com]

He'll sober up. I wouldn't lose hope at this point.

I hope he has a vice like drinking to explain for that meltdown

 

[fabsroman]

Posted on their FB just a little while ago...

That actually makes complete sense to me. The investors put money into a business that somebody was supposed to run as a minority interest owner. Seems as though the investors never received a return on their money and who ever was running Shadows Ops is a complete mess. I don't really blame the investors for taking this approach if there is no money in it for them, only headache.

Quite a shame though. Have to wonder why management was so completely crappy as to not turn a profit with such a backlog of demand, or management was turning a profit and just not putting it on the books such that the investors would get a portion of what they deserve.

I've been involved in messes like this. The venture capitalist that fronts the money for a business endeavor like this takes all the risk based upon the experience and idea of somebody. Then, the somebody starts doing well with the business and that somebody thinks they should get more of the profit than the investors, because well, that somebody is doing all the work. That somebody loses sight of the risk that the investors took to start up the business and that somebody loses sight of the deal he/she made with the investors.

In the immortal words of The Godfather, "It's just business." Nothing left in it for the investors to come in and pick up the pieces if they cannot make any money off of the pieces.

Just a complete and utter shame.

 

[Mdeng]

There was an earlier post today that mentioned that the two investors that were trying to work things out for customers were being threatened at their hotel. It was written in such a way that I wondered how much he had to drink. How do I do a screen shot? I'll see if I can post it.

 

[traveller]

I've been involved in messes like this. The venture capitalist that fronts the money for a business endeavor like this takes all the risk based upon the experience and idea of somebody. Then, the somebody starts doing well with the business and that somebody thinks they should get more of the profit than the investors, because well, that somebody is doing all the work. That somebody loses sight of the risk that the investors took to start up the business and that somebody loses sight of the deal he/she made with the investors.

Most of the investors who get wrapped up in these kinds of deals are people who dont do venture capital for a living but invest because they believe in either the product or the person behind the startup. The professionals have their agreements written in a way that they have full access to business records and either bring in their own man to keep an eye on things or show up frequently to see whether the reality matches the books. It is the deals where some dentist puts up 500k to start up a business and after 2 years he shows up and wonders where his money went that create the epic blowups. With his seed money, the folks running the show have raised another 2mil in VC, paid themselves handsome salaries for two years and sold the widgets or the IP off the books and into a new entity they own through strawmen and trusts.

 

[fabsroman]

Most of the investors who get wrapped up in these kinds of deals are people who dont do venture capital for a living but invest because they believe in either the product or the person behind the startup. The professionals have their agreements written in a way that they have full access to business records and either bring in their own man to keep an eye on things or show up frequently to see whether the reality matches the books. It is the deals where some dentist puts up 500k to start up a business and after 2 years he shows up and wonders where his money went that create the epic blowups. With his seed money, the folks running the show have raised another 2mil in VC, paid themselves handsome salaries for two years and sold the widgets or the IP off the books and into a new entity they own through strawmen and trusts.

And that would be correct. The true venture capitalist would have had an operating agreement drafted up that was air tight. Of course, an air tight operating agreement is only part of the battle and there would have to be some serious oversight. I am intrigued to know what happened, just not intrigued enough to dig very deep. Kind of reminds me of Curt Shilling losing a ton of money in some video game venture.

Also figured out at dinner that any warranty issue with my Shadow Ops lowers is pretty much a non-issue now. So, hoping I never have an issue. Time to buy a couple CMT .308 lowers from a company that does business the right way and makes a premium product too.

 

[MdPrep]

Don't know if it was mentioned or not, but I would find out where this place is located and check the local courts for filed paperwork for their bankruptcy so that you can talk with the lawyers and see how this whole thing is going to get worked out. Might not see the entire amount would be my best assumption, but at least you'd get something.

The creditors will get the lion's share once things are auctioned off and sold and then everyone else.

At least thats how I've been told this type of thing works.

Best of luck to you all and I'm sorry you're going through this.