User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/13/2023 9:41:27 PM EDT
 BREAKING NEWS: ATF Visiting FFLs and Asking About Forced Reset Triggers |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 12:36:46 AM EDT
[#1]
How about "Fuck you, I'm not answering your foolish questions."
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 10:31:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jodan1776: How about "Fuck you, I'm not answering your foolish questions." And suddenly, for no reason at all, ATF pulls your FFL. 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 12:16:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Why would the FFL be compelled to acknowledge/answer this questionnaire since the triggers have no FFL registration requirements? Wouldn’t this be the same as asking the same of lower parts kits or any other parts not firearms?
Sure, the ATF can ask how many dildos you own, but one is under no obligation to answer it. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 4:38:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Why would the FFL be compelled to acknowledge/answer this questionnaire since the triggers have no FFL registration requirements? Wouldn’t this be the same as asking the same of lower parts kits or any other parts not firearms? Sure, the ATF can ask how many dildos you own, but one is under no obligation to answer it. Right? And if you don't answer, what happens to your FFL? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:00:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: And suddenly, for no reason at all, ATF pulls your FFL. Oh, there will be a reason for sure. ATF cannot just revoke an FFL without due process. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:02:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Why would the FFL be compelled to acknowledge/answer this questionnaire since the triggers have no FFL registration requirements? If ATF has determined the FRT to be a machine gun, then THERE ARE registration requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:19:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: If ATF has determined the FRT to be a machine gun, then THERE ARE registration requirements. But the FRT isn't a machine gun |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:29:38 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Global_Cooling: But the FRT isn't a machine gun I'll repeat, If ATF has determined the FRT to be a machine gun, then THERE ARE registration requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:42:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: I'll repeat, If ATF has determined the FRT to be a machine gun, then THERE ARE registration requirements. |
|
|
|
GEO
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:46:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Simple answer: we don't maintain detailed records unless required by law of purchases.
Law says they have to record gun sales. Fine. Everything else is cash and carry with a non itemized receipt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:49:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: Oh, there will be a reason for sure. ATF cannot just revoke an FFL without due process. Yeah, the government has no documented history of not notifying people of court actions. No documented send a FBI swat team to their house and shoot their dog, and son in front of them with out identifying themselves , take return fire, and kill a woman holding a baby, resulting in the baby being dropped and becoming brain damaged... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:53:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DogtownTom]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: ATF cannot legally declare something that is not a machinegun to be a machinegun. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: ATF cannot legally declare something that is not a machinegun to be a machinegun. Do you not remember Donald J. Trump ordering ATF to redefine the definition of machine gun to include bump stocks? I do. FRT does not meet the legal definition of a machinegun, that's why the ATF has been ordered to cease and desist in the fifth circuit. No shit. IF has meaning. Ya'll forget, ATF asked these same questions prior to their bump stock ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:54:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GeorgiaBII: Simple answer: we don't maintain detailed records unless required by law of purchases. Law says they have to record gun sales. Fine. Everything else is cash and carry with a non itemized receipt. This. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 6:55:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: Yeah, the government has no documented history of not notifying people of court actions. No documented send a FBI swat team to their house and shoot their dog, and son in front of them with out identifying themselves , take return fire, and kill a woman holding a baby, resulting in the baby being dropped and becoming brain damaged... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: Oh, there will be a reason for sure. ATF cannot just revoke an FFL without due process. Yeah, the government has no documented history of not notifying people of court actions. No documented send a FBI swat team to their house and shoot their dog, and son in front of them with out identifying themselves , take return fire, and kill a woman holding a baby, resulting in the baby being dropped and becoming brain damaged...  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:05:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: ATF cannot legally declare something that is not a machinegun to be a machinegun. FRT does not meet the legal definition of a machinegun, that's why the ATF has been ordered to cease and desist in the fifth circuit. This. Laws as written cannot be retroactive in the USA. You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it. Article 1, section 9 of the constitution. literally says, "if it was legal, when you did it, you cant pass a law after the fact to make illegal and punish someone" Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Per the law as written AND their opinion letter, AND their retired chief examiner. the FRT is NOT a MG. The LAW says a MG shoots multiple rounds "PER function of the trigger" NOT "whatever we decide the law means" because EVERY firearm(even bolt actions) because if the ATF was allowed to change definitions of words to the extent that they appear to want to , "Multiple" would actually mean "one" and thus a musket could be a MG. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:06:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fsjdw2]
[#16]
Quote History@DogtownTom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:13:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: @DogtownTom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge No shit? Never heard of it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:16:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: This. Laws as written cannot be retroactive in the USA. You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it. So......explain the National Firearms Act of 1934. You owned a machine gun lawfully prior to that date. Chose not to register it. You don't think that law still applies?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:33:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Another reason to pay cash, not any kind of paper trail.
|
|
|
|
TUN
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:40:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fla556guy]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: So......explain the National Firearms Act of 1934. You owned a machine gun lawfully prior to that date. Chose not to register it. You don't think that law still applies? The crime of the NFA isnt simple possession. It's failure to pay the tax, which has a specific punishment. In that light, machine guns aren't illegal per se, they're not possible to obtain a tax stamp for, which serves as a defacto ban. The gun itself isn't illegal because it's a machine gun, it's illegal because getting a tax stamp for one made after 1986 isn't possible (in most cases). The crime of not paying the tax was committed once filing for the stamp and paying $200 was not done. A crime that happened in real time. The best attack on the NFA isn't what you posit. It's the taxation of a right and then refusal to collect said tax, serving as a real restriction of a right, similar to a poll tax/poll test/etc. The government isn't supposed to be able to say "this is the requirement to do this thing that is a right, but we are going to tax it .. but also we refuse to collect the tax. So you can't do it." That concept should have been smacked down by the ussc a long time ago. It's wildly unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 7:59:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DogtownTom]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fla556guy: In your example ownership was legal prior to 1934. The crime of the NFA isnt simple possession. It's failure to pay the tax, which has a specific punishment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fla556guy: In your example ownership was legal prior to 1934. The crime of the NFA isnt simple possession. It's failure to pay the tax, which has a specific punishment. Wrong. Those that lawfully possessed an NFA firearm when the NFA took effect did not have to pay a tax, they merely had to register the firearm. Same with the 1968 amnesty. Same with every Form 5. Same with the Rule 2021R-08F. You claimed "You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it." That a misstatement of what is ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is a law that imposes criminal liability or increases criminal punishment retroactively. As an example, you possessed a machine gun in 1932. In 1934 the NFA required registration. You could not be charged or punished for possessing the firearm in 1932. In that light, machine guns aren't illegal per se, they're not possible to obtain a tax stamp for, which serves as a defacto ban. Again, wrong. Not every transfer of an NFA firearm, including a machine gun, requires payment of a tax. You need to do some reading. The gun itself isn't illegal because it's a machine gun, it's illegal because getting a tax stamp for one made after 1986 isn't possible (in most cases). Wrong. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is a criminal act by itself. (except for prohibited possessors, see Haynes v US) The crime of not paying the tax was committed once filing for the stamp and paying $200 was not done. A crime that happened in real time. Wrong. It's two crimes. 1. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. 2. Failure to pay federal tax (if applicable) |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 8:07:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TAG_Match]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: So......explain the National Firearms Act of 1934. You owned a machine gun lawfully prior to that date. Chose not to register it. You don't think that law still applies? I think we are talking about the equivalent of the Sears & Roebuck branch that sold said machine gun. History has failed to mention the DOJ rounding up of distributors that sold machine guns legally so didn’t preserve the records that they weren’t required to obtain nor keep. It must have been truly awful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 8:19:48 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: I think we are talking about the equivalent of the Sears & Roebuck branch that sold said machine gun. History has failed to mention the rounding up of distributors that sold machine guns legally so didn’t preserve the records that they weren’t required to obtain nor keep. It must have been truly awful. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: So......explain the National Firearms Act of 1934. You owned a machine gun lawfully prior to that date. Chose not to register it. You don't think that law still applies? I think we are talking about the equivalent of the Sears & Roebuck branch that sold said machine gun. History has failed to mention the rounding up of distributors that sold machine guns legally so didn’t preserve the records that they weren’t required to obtain nor keep. It must have been truly awful. ATF did this prior to the bump stock ruling and the arm brace ruling. It's part of their fact finding for either a new regulatory change or defending a current regulation. As mentioned above, if you don't keep records that aren't required by state or federal law you really have no way to answer. I do mostly transfers. I have no way of knowing if a particular entry in my bound book was a firearm with an FRT or an arm brace. Neither was regulated when those entries were made. But if a dealer has inventory software than can produce a list of those who buy "item X" or "item Y".....I would contact an attorney before responding to ATF. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 9:06:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: backbencher]
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: Originally Posted By fsjdw2: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: Oh, there will be a reason for sure. ATF cannot just revoke an FFL without due process. Yeah, the government has no documented history of not notifying people of court actions. No documented send a FBI swat team to their house and shoot their dog, and son in front of them with out identifying themselves , take return fire, and kill a woman holding a baby, resulting in the baby being dropped and becoming brain damaged... /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/200-816.gif Yer old enuf to remember Ruby Ridge, Tom. You NEVER fucking heard of Ruby Ridge? Where the fuck were you in the 90's? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 9:07:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher: Yer old enuf to remember Ruby Ridge, Tom. Sarcasm my man. 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 10:32:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: ATF did this prior to the bump stock ruling and the arm brace ruling. It's part of their fact finding for either a new regulatory change or defending a current regulation. As mentioned above, if you don't keep records that aren't required by state or federal law you really have no way to answer. I do mostly transfers. I have no way of knowing if a particular entry in my bound book was a firearm with an FRT or an arm brace. Neither was regulated when those entries were made. But if a dealer has inventory software than can produce a list of those who buy "item X" or "item Y".....I would contact an attorney before responding to ATF. Thank you for your reply. It sounds like you are going to have to answer the ATF one way or the other, right? Can you just ignore their request for information that you were not required to keep? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2023 11:21:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Thank you for your reply. It sounds like you are going to have to answer the ATF one way or the other, right? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Thank you for your reply. It sounds like you are going to have to answer the ATF one way or the other, right? I can honestly answer that I have no idea if any of the firearms I transferred had an FRT. Can you just ignore their request for information that you were not required to keep? Sure. But your next compliance inspection ought to be fun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 5:10:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: ATF cannot legally declare something that is not a machinegun to be a machinegun. FRT does not meet the legal definition of a machinegun, that's why the ATF has been ordered to cease and desist in the fifth circuit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: I'll repeat, If ATF has determined the FRT to be a machine gun, then THERE ARE registration requirements. neither do bump stocks, how did that work out how about the other fed districts, how is that working out |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 5:14:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Mach]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: This. Laws as written cannot be retroactive in the USA. You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it. Article 1, section 9 of the constitution. literally says, "if it was legal, when you did it, you cant pass a law after the fact to make illegal and punish someone" Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Per the law as written AND their opinion letter, AND their retired chief examiner. the FRT is NOT a MG. The LAW says a MG shoots multiple rounds "PER function of the trigger" NOT "whatever we decide the law means" because EVERY firearm(even bolt actions) because if the ATF was allowed to change definitions of words to the extent that they appear to want to , "Multiple" would actually mean "one" and thus a musket could be a MG. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: ATF cannot legally declare something that is not a machinegun to be a machinegun. FRT does not meet the legal definition of a machinegun, that's why the ATF has been ordered to cease and desist in the fifth circuit. This. Laws as written cannot be retroactive in the USA. You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it. Article 1, section 9 of the constitution. literally says, "if it was legal, when you did it, you cant pass a law after the fact to make illegal and punish someone" Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Per the law as written AND their opinion letter, AND their retired chief examiner. the FRT is NOT a MG. The LAW says a MG shoots multiple rounds "PER function of the trigger" NOT "whatever we decide the law means" because EVERY firearm(even bolt actions) because if the ATF was allowed to change definitions of words to the extent that they appear to want to , "Multiple" would actually mean "one" and thus a musket could be a MG. yet they do, bumpstocks, pistol braces, and MA did it with AR15s they just currently choose not to prosecute anybody exactly, tgey change the interpretation and meaning of words as written and declare it was always illegal |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 7:35:37 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mach: neither do bump stocks, how did that work out how about the other fed districts, how is that working out  Attached File |
|
|
|
TUN
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 7:51:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fla556guy]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: Wrong. Those that lawfully possessed an NFA firearm when the NFA took effect did not have to pay a tax, they merely had to register the firearm. Same with the 1968 amnesty. Same with every Form 5. Same with the Rule 2021R-08F. You claimed "You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it." That a misstatement of what is ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is a law that imposes criminal liability or increases criminal punishment retroactively. As an example, you possessed a machine gun in 1932. In 1934 the NFA required registration. You could not be charged or punished for possessing the firearm in 1932. Again, wrong. Not every transfer of an NFA firearm, including a machine gun, requires payment of a tax. You need to do some reading. Wrong. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is a criminal act by itself. (except for prohibited possessors, see Haynes v US) Wrong. It's two crimes. 1. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. 2. Failure to pay federal tax (if applicable) The point I was trying to make is that the rationale for the legality of the nfa was based on payment of a tax. Weapons prior to a change were allowed to receive an exemption from the money payment and the documentation of that was decided to be added to the registration of tax payment without collecting the tax, was it not? I.e. we're not registering weapons for the sake of registering weapons, we're registering the payment of a tax on those weapons. I still maintain that the collection of a tax and the registration of the items the tax was collected upon was the legal maneuver that was used to end run the 2a, and I therefore maintain my opinion that it is unconstitutional. Doesn't matter what I think, but that's my position. But I'm a 2a absolutist when it comes to the theory of what the 2a says. Theory test: if the collection of the tax isn't the regulatory mechanism for prohibiting new transferable machine guns from being allowed to be sold, why was the mechanism used to justify the closing of the nfa "refusal to collect the tax?" |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 8:16:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SGT-Fish]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: ATF cannot legally declare something that is not a machinegun to be a machinegun. FRT does not meet the legal definition of a machinegun, that's why the ATF has been ordered to cease and desist in the fifth circuit. Do they have the authority to do so? No, they don't. Do they have the power to? They sure do, and really like to show it by shooting dogs and putting good people in prison. Just look at matt hoover |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 8:35:24 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: This. Laws as written cannot be retroactive in the USA. You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it. Article 1, section 9 of the constitution. literally says, "if it was legal, when you did it, you cant pass a law after the fact to make illegal and punish someone" Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Per the law as written AND their opinion letter, AND their retired chief examiner. the FRT is NOT a MG. The LAW says a MG shoots multiple rounds "PER function of the trigger" NOT "whatever we decide the law means" because EVERY firearm(even bolt actions) because if the ATF was allowed to change definitions of words to the extent that they appear to want to , "Multiple" would actually mean "one" and thus a musket could be a MG. I agree. But that was ignored on the brace and bump stocks if I recall. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 10:52:05 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: I can honestly answer that I have no idea if any of the firearms I transferred had an FRT. Sure. But your next compliance inspection ought to be fun. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DogtownTom: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Thank you for your reply. It sounds like you are going to have to answer the ATF one way or the other, right? I can honestly answer that I have no idea if any of the firearms I transferred had an FRT. Can you just ignore their request for information that you were not required to keep? Sure. But your next compliance inspection ought to be fun. Thank you for your reply. Very informative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 12:49:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GeorgiaBII: Simple answer: we don't maintain detailed records unless required by law of purchases. Exactly, and it is true too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 12:51:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RenegadeX]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fsjdw2: This. Laws as written cannot be retroactive in the USA. You cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it. Article 1, section 9 of the constitution. literally says, "if it was legal, when you did it, you cant pass a law after the fact to make illegal and punish someone" Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). Per the law as written AND their opinion letter, AND their retired chief examiner. the FRT is NOT a MG. The LAW says a MG shoots multiple rounds "PER function of the trigger" NOT "whatever we decide the law means" because EVERY firearm(even bolt actions) because if the ATF was allowed to change definitions of words to the extent that they appear to want to , "Multiple" would actually mean "one" and thus a musket could be a MG. Look who does not have the slightest clue what Ex-Post Facto means. Nobody is going to be prosecuted for possessing a MG that was legal yesterday. They will be prosecuted for possessing it today when it is illegal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2023 12:56:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RenegadeX]
[#37]
FWIW, most of what is being argued here is going to SCOTUS. Next June will likely have a lot of disappointment for gun owners.
Britto v ATF Cargil v Garland CanderStock v Garland US v Rahimi |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 11:11:43 AM EDT
[#38]
The 5th Court of Appeals reasserted the stay on FRTs yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2023 11:14:57 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RenegadeX: FWIW, most of what is being argued here is going to SCOTUS. Next June will likely have a lot of disappointment for gun owners. Britto v ATF Cargil v Garland CanderStock v Garland US v Rahimi |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2023 10:30:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Kuglespritz]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RenegadeX: The 5th Court of Appeals reasserted the stay on FRTs yesterday. I wasn't aware the Firth Circuit had a hearing on FRTs, I thought it was still at the District Court with Judge O'Connor. Can you provide a link to the Fifth Circuit stay? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2023 10:47:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RenegadeX: The 5th Court of Appeals reasserted the stay on FRTs yesterday. Awesome. How about districts 1,2,3,4,6,7,8, and 9? Not to be an ass about it, but ATF has quite well demonstrated the willingness to redefine and reinterpret. And outside of about 3 states, get a pass to do so without question. Is an FRT an automatic trigger? Well your honor, the human finger is involved in every discharge, so no. Or: Well your honor, it's a mechanical system that requires the human operator to consciously move his trigger finger to disengage, ergo automaticaly discharging with the finger now part of the trigger mechanical mechanism as a bounce device for sustained automatic fire, so yes. And now it's up to the judges mood (and political leanings) 5th circuit will say blow me. Circuits 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 & 9 (including USSC), is less so certain. Personally, if went this route, I would not have bought an FRT in any way other than FtF cash, nor document having one. Though, it will be intersting - if the arm brace topic causes SBR law to be overruled (which it actually technically should, if USSC stays true to Thomas' Bruen instructions - I give it possible odds, but not likely odds; i dont understand why O'Connel didn’t go that route - but he's not done yet either); but on the non-zero off-chance that happens, then there is a chance for this to cascade into overruling Class 3 as well.... |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
