9mm Glock Micro Roni

Status
Not open for further replies.

wiseone

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
7
Location
Carrollton, Texas
Question: So, is the CAA Micro Roni an SBR if it has the folding stock but not an SBR with the wrist brace? Or is the muscled guy in California talking through his hat and it is an NFA gun no matter what the butt end looks like? And if it is an NFA gun how did I get one mailed directly to me from Israel in three weeks with no paperwork of any kind? Should I quietly lock it in a guncase and cover it with a table napkin?
 
MIC-RONI-STAB17-03_04__26326.1538009118.jpg

No offense, but I just don't see the point.
I'd rather get a Sub2000 for the same price and still have a functional Glock.
 
None taken, I've got a couple of Sub 2000's and love them. Just enamored of the Micro Roni and may never even fire a round through it which I know sounds like heresy but lots of us have probably got things we don't shoot... I've got an engraved Colt .41 (Gunfighter Model) and a box of ammo for it but I don't want to risk shooting a 100 plus year old gun. A plain vanilla Colt Artillery Model in the case next to it gets shot every couple of months or so.
So, my next question is, given the fact that the government is presently broken and everybody's been sent home, and I do decide I want to test shoot the Roni legally, what do I do without alerting an entire federal agency that I have in my possession an untaxed and unregistered illegal gun? Or is it o.k. unless or until I fire a round through it? (I doubt that answer will be yes but just threw it in for chuckles).
 
Like said above, it only becomes an SBR if there is a stock attached. Depending on when the "muscled guy in California" (whoever that is...) said that it was a SBR, he could have been correct. The ATF has gone back and forth several times, and CA may have its own interpretation so he could have been referring to it being a SBR under state law. Without any more context on who said it or when, it's impossible to really know.

Also, even when you put a stock on the pistol, the GUN becomes the SBR, so there wouldn't be paperwork on the stock itself.

And if it is an NFA gun how did I get one mailed directly to me from Israel in three weeks with no paperwork of any kind?

You'd be surprised what gets through the mail. It used to be possible to piece together a machine gun by buying a MG receiver from a European country and mailing it to yourself in the US, and getting the rest of the (non-regulated) parts over here. Just because something shows up on your doorstep doesn't mean it's legal.

(Note the ATF knows about this and they've done a good job of wrapping it up, so don't go trying to do this.)



So, my next question is, given the fact that the government is presently broken and everybody's been sent home, and I do decide I want to test shoot the Roni legally, what do I do without alerting an entire federal agency that I have in my possession an untaxed and unregistered illegal gun? Or is it o.k. unless or until I fire a round through it? (I doubt that answer will be yes but just threw it in for chuckles).

So I assume that means you have a Roni with a stock and a compatible pistol... congrats! You just admitted to a felony on a public forum! :D

If the only configuration of the parts is an illegal weapon, just possessing it is illegal. But if you keep them separate and don't go telling the word you have an illegal SBR, it's very unlikely that you'll be arrested.

And just an FYI, the whole government isn't shut down. State and local police are the most likely to be the arresting officers, and they are still out working and making arrests.
 
Yeah, Im aware of that wrinkle in the law so mine is dis assembled with the stock locked in a safe ... The muscled California guy is the one who regularly doubles his prices on Glock parts, then advertises he's cutting his price 20 percent this week so hurry and order. Lenny McGill.
 
If I were handicapped, with only one hand, this Macaroni thing would be great. Maybe it's the Americans with Disabilities Act product mandated by Federal Law for the disabled shooter!
 
Just a stupid question.... So the Roni is an SBR but the SIG MPX isn't???

Well, which manufacturer Sig or CAA has the most "discounted" contracts with the U.S. Justice Department and most lobbyists in Washington, D.C. "helping fund" election campaigns.

It is a stupid question. And it has nothing to do with Washington contracts.

These (Micro-Roni and MPX) are both pistols:
17-19-19X-22-23-31-32-45.jpg
IMG_9285.jpg

Because neither has a stock. They have "arm braces".

These are both SBR's (Micro-Roni and MPX):
2__87273.1537997238.jpg

Sig-MPX-SBR2-2-1.jpg

Because they both have stocks and barrels less than 16".

That's it. It's simple. There's no super secret handshake going on.

CA Laws regarding SBR's are different than Federal Laws. The question of whether arm braces are legal in CA seems to be somewhat up in the air.
 
You can play as dumb as you feel you need to but major political contributors and contractors receive favorable treatment in the legislatures and the courts every day. And sometimes, products produced by those favored "vendors" even receive different treatment "gasp", in enforcement actions. Of course we all know that in California no law ever was influenced by any secret handshake deal....
 
It is a stupid question. And it has nothing to do with Washington contracts.

These (Micro-Roni and MPX) are both pistols:
View attachment 842274
View attachment 842275

Because neither has a stock. They have "arm braces".

These are both SBR's (Micro-Roni and MPX):
2__87273.1537997238.jpg

View attachment 842276

Because they both have stocks and barrels less than 16".

That's it. It's simple. There's no super secret handshake going on.

CA Laws regarding SBR's are different than Federal Laws. The question of whether arm braces are legal in CA seems to be somewhat up in the air.


That's hat I thought. Splitting hairs and all. Thankyou for the reply.

Andrew
 
You can play as dumb as you feel you need to but major political contributors and contractors receive favorable treatment in the legislatures and the courts every day. And sometimes, products produced by those favored "vendors" even receive different treatment "gasp", in enforcement actions. Of course we all know that in California no law ever was influenced by any secret handshake deal....
Sure, but that has nothing to do with whether a firearm is a pistol with an arm brace or an SBR under federal law.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying that there is no difference????

He's saying back-room deals aren't what keep "pistols" with "arm braces" from being SBR's

You can play as dumb as you feel you need to but major political contributors and contractors receive favorable treatment in the legislatures and the courts every day. And sometimes, products produced by those favored "vendors" even receive different treatment "gasp", in enforcement actions. Of course we all know that in California no law ever was influenced by any secret handshake deal....

If SIG had the kind of clout you say they do, we would be able to buy an MPX carbine that has a 10" barrel with a 6" "muzzle brake" permanently attached.

MPX-C-Detail-Hero.jpg

But they don't have that kind of clout: the ATF decided the muzzle brake is a silencer part, and the courts upheld that decision.
 
Last edited:
Well, which manufacturer Sig or CAA has the most "discounted" contracts with the U.S. Justice Department and most lobbyists in Washington, D.C. "helping fund" election campaigns.
There isn't a question mark at the end of your sentence, so I suppose you'll provide us with details on each companies election contributions. It would be public record.
Oh wait....You mean Sig that got slapped by ATF when they unveiled a "muzzle brake" that was identical to the innards of their new silencer a few years ago?


You can play as dumb as you feel you need to but major political contributors and contractors receive favorable treatment in the legislatures and the courts every day. And sometimes, products produced by those favored "vendors" even receive different treatment "gasp", in enforcement actions. Of course we all know that in California no law ever was influenced by any secret handshake deal....
He's not playing dumb, in fact his post is spot on.
Your post on the other hand, is chock full of supposition and few facts.
 
No offense, but I just don't see the point.
I'd rather get a Sub2000 for the same price and still have a functional Glock.

Actually, for some, the point is rather silly (imho).

Imagine a situation where an LEO wants more than a Glock, BUT the LEO is not part of "patrol" so the government grant for "patrol rifles" prohibits our subject from being issued an agency AR-15. Otherwise the Feds would be all upset since the Federal Grant money was to buy rifles for "patrol officers".

Then imagine the same agency gave permission for our subject to buy his own AR, BUT as luck would have it, more than half of the AR-15 configurations "approved for personal purchase and use" by the agency are not legal for the LEO to buy over-the-counter in the state.:confused: There is no LEO exemption either. The remaining AR configurations start with a price tags of more than $1200.00. One is more like $2000.00. That's before sights or optics, and magazines. That's way more than the LEO can afford.
:what:

The subject CAN however, carry both his issued and personal-off-duty Glock while at work, and he already owns both. So, because he wants something to reach out at least 75-100 yards, he gets the Micro-Roni with the arm brace. That way..., he's using a pistol which he legally qualified with at the range...even if it wasn't inside the Micro-Roni when he qualified. ;) He is complying with agency rules.

"Why not get the Endo Tactical Adapter, as it's cheaper and even with some brand of Red Dot also added to the Glock, it would still be cheaper ." Excellent idea, BUT the micro-roni has a plastic piece that covers the trigger of the Glock once in place, acting as a quasi-safety, while the Endo does not. Further the Glock in the Micro-Roni can be carried by a sling, , and agency requirements prohibit the LEO from carrying the pistol (when not actually in the LEO's hand) without the trigger on the Glock covered.

So that's why somebody might be interested in the micro-roni. I told y'all the situation was rather silly!

LD
 
There isn't a question mark at the end of your sentence, so I suppose you'll provide us with details on each companies election contributions. It would be public record.
Oh wait....You mean Sig that got slapped by ATF when they unveiled a "muzzle brake" that was identical to the innards of their new silencer a few years ago?



He's not playing dumb, in fact his post is spot on.
Your post on the other hand, is chock full of supposition and few facts.
Screen Shot 2019-07-18 at 13.40.24.png
Homework is not hard if you are really interested: Opensecrets.org
 
View attachment 850857
Homework is not hard if you are really interested: Opensecrets.org
You call that homework?:rofl:
If you'll reread my post you'll see I KNOW such information is public record.
In your previous post you wrote:
"Well, which manufacturer Sig or CAA has the most "discounted" contracts with the U.S. Justice Department and most lobbyists in Washington, D.C. "helping fund" election campaigns."
1. It doesn't show contracts of any kind, discounted or not.
2. It also doesn't show how many lobbyists Sig Sauer has.

Further, your previous post claimed:
"You can play as dumb as you feel you need to but major political contributors and contractors receive favorable treatment in the legislatures and the courts every day. And sometimes, products produced by those favored "vendors" even receive different treatment "gasp", in enforcement actions. Of course we all know that in California no law ever was influenced by any secret handshake deal...."
3. It fails to show where Sig received favorable treatment in any ATF enforcement action.
4. It fails to show where any legislature or court ruled in favor of Sig in any enforcement action.

In short, it took you two months of homework to post a bar chart that doesn't provide any substantive argument.
 
You are the one criticizing, up to you to do your own homework otherwise you're just whining.... and still whining.... just say you disagree no need to try to parade your imagined superiority. I believe that is why they call these "discussion boards".
 
You are the one criticizing, up to you to do your own homework otherwise you're just whining.... and still whining.... just say you disagree no need to try to parade your imagined superiority. I believe that is why they call these "discussion boards".

Your claim is that SIG gets favorable regulatory treatment when compared to other companies.

Ok then. Prove it. Show us a case where sig was able to get something approved as something it wasn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top