User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 10:04:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty soon braces and bump stocks will be legal in Tejas. Always were, just like everywhere else in this country but I understand what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 10:11:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have Reagan’s NFA. Either Reagan’s NFA means something or it doesn’t. I reckon it means something to y’all’s political representatives because Trump had two years where he could have made the NFA go away. The ATF basically telling manufacturers that a lower is either a SBR lower or a Rifle lower is not the ATF overstepping their authority; it is the ATF properly enforcing Regan’s NFA ( regardless of how we feel about the NFA ). If the 5th says that the ATF is overstepping their authority then the fifth is really saying authority was overstepped in the eighty’s when Reagan signed the NFA. This would be a good thing ! But, The NFA has done nothing wrong with this brace thing and I am not retarded because the NFA does currently exist. Apologize now. This made my head hurt. Have you recently suffered a stroke or a severe head injury? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 10:12:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The contingency was only that you were eligible for tax exemption. Your registration is as permanent as any. There is no good reason to think ATF will pull the SBR registrations in any scenario. They'd have to announce another new policy to do it. They like registrations, they're not in the business of un-registering guns. If this gets tossed as unconstitutional there is a good chance SBR registration goes away altogether. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which is what I’ll have to do if this rule gets tossed by the courts. The contingency was only that you were eligible for tax exemption. Your registration is as permanent as any. There is no good reason to think ATF will pull the SBR registrations in any scenario. They'd have to announce another new policy to do it. They like registrations, they're not in the business of un-registering guns. If this gets tossed as unconstitutional there is a good chance SBR registration goes away altogether. They have given you a forbearance on the tax. That’s it. That’s all. No Amnesty. In 1968 you could have been a three time felon that stole a rack of M-16s from the national guard Armory down the street and you could’ve registered them with no repercussions. NONE. Because of the amnesty that the ATF wrote back then. Do you think that all of those ATF attorneys and the .gov after years of looking at this forgot to write that into this one? Please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 10:18:07 PM EDT
[#4]
in for $30
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 10:40:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Just joined FPC for $30 and gonna donate next paycheck!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 10:44:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: in for $30 Thank you! I just read the An Appeal To Heaven story a while ago. Every American should read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:06:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Joined FPC!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:09:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because of the amnesty that the ATF wrote back then. Do you think that all of those ATF attorneys and the .gov after years of looking at this forgot to write that into this one? Please.  Attached FileATF didn't write the 1968 amnesty, it's statutory law included in the gun control act of 1968 that was passed by Congress. Also in the law is statutory authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to offer an unlimited number of amnesties in the future. So far there have been none. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:11:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have Reagan’s NFA. Either Reagan’s NFA means something or it doesn’t. I reckon it means something to y’all’s political representatives because Trump had two years where he could have made the NFA go away. The ATF basically telling manufacturers that a lower is either a SBR lower or a Rifle lower is not the ATF overstepping their authority; it is the ATF properly enforcing Regan’s NFA ( regardless of how we feel about the NFA ). If the 5th says that the ATF is overstepping their authority then the fifth is really saying authority was overstepped in the eighty’s when Reagan signed the NFA. This would be a good thing ! But, The NFA has done nothing wrong with this brace thing and I am not retarded because the NFA does currently exist. Apologize now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Either the NFA is the NFA or it’s not. Strike down the perfectly reasonable ATF judgement on this ( based on existing NFA guidance ) and the NFA is 100% modified to no longer include length ( at least ! ). Not sure if sarcasm or retarded We have Reagan’s NFA. Either Reagan’s NFA means something or it doesn’t. I reckon it means something to y’all’s political representatives because Trump had two years where he could have made the NFA go away. The ATF basically telling manufacturers that a lower is either a SBR lower or a Rifle lower is not the ATF overstepping their authority; it is the ATF properly enforcing Regan’s NFA ( regardless of how we feel about the NFA ). If the 5th says that the ATF is overstepping their authority then the fifth is really saying authority was overstepped in the eighty’s when Reagan signed the NFA. This would be a good thing ! But, The NFA has done nothing wrong with this brace thing and I am not retarded because the NFA does currently exist. Apologize now. You bring a sort of "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" spirit to your arguments, that I just can't help but like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:13:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FPC getting things done I threw the another $50 this month, and will be doing so for the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:29:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/temp-95.gif ATF didn't write the 1968 amnesty, it's statutory law included in the gun control act of 1968 that was passed by Congress. Also in the law is statutory authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to offer an unlimited number of amnesties in the future. So far there have been none. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Because of the amnesty that the ATF wrote back then. Do you think that all of those ATF attorneys and the .gov after years of looking at this forgot to write that into this one? Please. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/temp-95.gif ATF didn't write the 1968 amnesty, it's statutory law included in the gun control act of 1968 that was passed by Congress. Also in the law is statutory authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to offer an unlimited number of amnesties in the future. So far there have been none. Thank you for reinforcing my point and being precise. I appreciate it! Words have meaning and the government owns all the words, to a point. Is “fuck you” still an option? When it’s not, people will start dying. Just a heads up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:30:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Donated to them as well. Keep it up gents
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2023 11:32:57 PM EDT
[#13]
In for $30.
Do it |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:18:42 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have Reagan’s NFA. Either Reagan’s NFA means something or it doesn’t. I reckon it means something to y’all’s political representatives because Trump had two years where he could have made the NFA go away. The ATF basically telling manufacturers that a lower is either a SBR lower or a Rifle lower is not the ATF overstepping their authority; it is the ATF properly enforcing Regan’s NFA ( regardless of how we feel about the NFA ). If the 5th says that the ATF is overstepping their authority then the fifth is really saying authority was overstepped in the eighty’s when Reagan signed the NFA. This would be a good thing ! But, The NFA has done nothing wrong with this brace thing and I am not retarded because the NFA does currently exist. Apologize now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Either the NFA is the NFA or it’s not. Strike down the perfectly reasonable ATF judgement on this ( based on existing NFA guidance ) and the NFA is 100% modified to no longer include length ( at least ! ). Not sure if sarcasm or retarded We have Reagan’s NFA. Either Reagan’s NFA means something or it doesn’t. I reckon it means something to y’all’s political representatives because Trump had two years where he could have made the NFA go away. The ATF basically telling manufacturers that a lower is either a SBR lower or a Rifle lower is not the ATF overstepping their authority; it is the ATF properly enforcing Regan’s NFA ( regardless of how we feel about the NFA ). If the 5th says that the ATF is overstepping their authority then the fifth is really saying authority was overstepped in the eighty’s when Reagan signed the NFA. This would be a good thing ! But, The NFA has done nothing wrong with this brace thing and I am not retarded because the NFA does currently exist. Apologize now. National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:23:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do I have any notes?  You do now  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:26:29 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you for reinforcing my point and being precise. I appreciate it! Words have meaning and the government owns all the words, to a point. Is “fuck you” still an option? When it’s not, people will start dying. Just a heads up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because of the amnesty that the ATF wrote back then. Do you think that all of those ATF attorneys and the .gov after years of looking at this forgot to write that into this one? Please. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/temp-95.gif ATF didn't write the 1968 amnesty, it's statutory law included in the gun control act of 1968 that was passed by Congress. Also in the law is statutory authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to offer an unlimited number of amnesties in the future. So far there have been none. Thank you for reinforcing my point and being precise. I appreciate it! Words have meaning and the government owns all the words, to a point. Is “fuck you” still an option? When it’s not, people will start dying. Just a heads up. You've held the line since day one and for that I salute you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:39:20 AM EDT
[#17]
$30 sent! Thank you for all the hard work FPC!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 1:47:22 AM EDT
[#18]
WHAT PISTOL BRACE??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 1:52:05 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WHAT PISTOL BRACE??  Oh you…. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 5:52:02 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have Reagan’s NFA. Either Reagan’s NFA means something or it doesn’t. I reckon it means something to y’all’s political representatives because Trump had two years where he could have made the NFA go away. The ATF basically telling manufacturers that a lower is either a SBR lower or a Rifle lower is not the ATF overstepping their authority; it is the ATF properly enforcing Regan’s NFA ( regardless of how we feel about the NFA ). If the 5th says that the ATF is overstepping their authority then the fifth is really saying authority was overstepped in the eighty’s when Reagan signed the NFA. This would be a good thing ! But, The NFA has done nothing wrong with this brace thing and I am not retarded because the NFA does currently exist. Apologize now. This moronic shitshow of word salad is better suited to reddit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 7:56:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure if sarcasm or retarded Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Either the NFA is the NFA or it's not. Strike down the perfectly reasonable ATF judgement on this ( based on existing NFA guidance ) and the NFA is 100% modified to no longer include length ( at least ! ). Not sure if sarcasm or retarded We believe the NFA is an unconstitutional abomination (among others). That aside, the entire brace decision making process at the ATF has been based on it. You don't have to agree with it to understand that. Based on the statutory language of the NFA, Technical Branch initially approved the initial design based on the idea that these weren't designed to be shouldered. Then people shouldered them. Bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat. Courts don't deal - or shouldn't - in emotional responses. This process should cause a review of the statutory basis (the NFA) vis-a-vis the Constitution. In the past that was a crap shoot. Today we assume it will go positively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:04:42 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have Reagan's NFA. Franklin D. Roosevelt was President. Reagan was a sportscaster then. He was elected President in 1980. Congress added the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968. That has nothing to do with braces or SBRs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:07:31 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The NFA was passed in 1934 & amended 1936. Franklin D. Roosevelt was President. Reagan was a sportscaster then. He was elected President in 1980. Congress added the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968. That has nothing to do with braces or SBRs. There you go again with facts instead of "but Raygun, but RAYGUN" rhetoric |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:09:35 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Personally once the ATF technical group said it's not a stock and is fine, and shouldering it doesn't make it a stock and 40M were sold . New legislation by congress to make it NFA should be required not just the same dipshits in ATF that couldn't make a consistent call to begin with. Oh and it's good to reside in the 5th district. It would allow the courts to ignore the Constitutional validity of the statute & rule making. I can see DOJ seizing that argument. It's not what I'd want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:10:37 AM EDT
[#25]
$100 to FPC!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:14:15 AM EDT
[#26]
$100 donated. Keep up the good fight!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:23:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So a curious question for all those that registered for free and converted from a brace to a stock. If this shit gets kicked out entirely I wonder if those will still be legal? You have no actual tax stamp to prove it.  And yet taxes on rights are unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:30:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it is, rationally & without emotional investment, a valid argument. We believe the NFA is an unconstitutional abomination (among others). That aside, the entire brace decision making process at the ATF has been based on it. You don't have to agree with it to understand that. Based on the statutory language of the NFA, Technical Branch initially approved the initial design based on the idea that these weren't designed to be shouldered. Then people shouldered them. Bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat. Courts don't deal - or shouldn't - in emotional responses. This process should cause a review of the statutory basis (the NFA) vis-a-vis the Constitution. In the past that was a crap shoot. Today we assume it will go positively. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Either the NFA is the NFA or it's not. Strike down the perfectly reasonable ATF judgement on this ( based on existing NFA guidance ) and the NFA is 100% modified to no longer include length ( at least ! ). Not sure if sarcasm or retarded We believe the NFA is an unconstitutional abomination (among others). That aside, the entire brace decision making process at the ATF has been based on it. You don't have to agree with it to understand that. Based on the statutory language of the NFA, Technical Branch initially approved the initial design based on the idea that these weren't designed to be shouldered. Then people shouldered them. Bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat. Courts don't deal - or shouldn't - in emotional responses. This process should cause a review of the statutory basis (the NFA) vis-a-vis the Constitution. In the past that was a crap shoot. Today we assume it will go positively. I agree that this could be an opportunity to push back on the NFA as a whole....but calling this rule change a "perfectly reasonable ATF judgement" is pants on head retarded. If for no other reason, because they created the very "problem" they're trying to solve, with dozens of previous technical letters approving braces. There is nothing reasonable about turning millions of people into felons because they own / use a product that the ATF previously said was perfectly legal. As far as shouldering them goes, the ATF has flipped on that a couple times as well. They put out the letter saying that shouldering them converted them to SBR's, then they backtracked on it. My suspicion is, someone figured out that they were opening up a can of worms, where use not functionality or possession dictated legality....it's not hard to imagine how that would open doors that the ATF would not want us peasants to walk through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 8:35:20 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The contingency was only that you were eligible for tax exemption. Your registration is as permanent as any. There is no good reason to think ATF will pull the SBR registrations in any scenario. They'd have to announce another new policy to do it. They like registrations, they're not in the business of un-registering guns. If this gets tossed as unconstitutional there is a good chance SBR registration goes away altogether. I wish, but I don't see it happening as a direct result of this. Reason; SBR's are actually enumerated in the legislation passed by congress and signed by the president. So legally, they are under the authority of the ATF to do what they're doing. Constitutionally, that's another argument, but it's a high bar to get the courts to overturn legislation that's gone through the appropriate process, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court already. Not impossible, but there's still a lot of work to do to get to that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:22:42 AM EDT
[#30]
I might have missed the information, but has the Fifth Circuit answered the question on who is covered by the injunction?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:50:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I might have missed the information, but has the Fifth Circuit answered the question on who is covered by the injunction? Speculation is it will cover everyone who was an FPC member prior to the judgement |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:51:31 AM EDT
[#32]
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:55:19 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The definition of arbitrary and capricious. The entire point of the Founder's system of government was so that laws couldn't change significantly with every politically driven wind that blows. It's supposed to be hard. Congress delegating authority to federal agencies, particularly those that enforce criminal law, is an end run around their constitutional duty and responsibilities on top of taking powers that the constitution does not vest them with outside the US Marshals Service. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Personally once the ATF technical group said it’s not a stock and is fine, and shouldering it doesn’t make it a stock and 40M were sold…. New legislation by congress to make it NFA should be required… not just the same dipshits in ATF that couldn’t make a consistent call to begin with. Oh and it’s good to reside in the 5th district. The definition of arbitrary and capricious. The entire point of the Founder's system of government was so that laws couldn't change significantly with every politically driven wind that blows. It's supposed to be hard. Congress delegating authority to federal agencies, particularly those that enforce criminal law, is an end run around their constitutional duty and responsibilities on top of taking powers that the constitution does not vest them with outside the US Marshals Service. So apply that same logic to the rare breed FRT's. ATF(and MULTIPLE prior ATF tech branch heads) stated "nope this isnt a MG", now ATF is apparently going to people houses and saying "hey you bought a MG illegally, turn it over or we get warrant and you go to jail..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:56:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it is, rationally & without emotional investment, a valid argument. We believe the NFA is an unconstitutional abomination (among others). That aside, the entire brace decision making process at the ATF has been based on it. You don't have to agree with it to understand that. Based on the statutory language of the NFA, Technical Branch initially approved the initial design based on the idea that these weren't designed to be shouldered. Then people shouldered them. Bureaucrats gonna bureaucrat. Courts don't deal - or shouldn't - in emotional responses. This process should cause a review of the statutory basis (the NFA) vis-a-vis the Constitution. In the past that was a crap shoot. Today we assume it will go positively. All of that would be true right up until they said shouldering it doesnt make it a SBR and let it ride for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 10:58:51 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Speculation is it will cover everyone who was an FPC member prior to the judgement Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I might have missed the information, but has the Fifth Circuit answered the question on who is covered by the injunction? Speculation is it will cover everyone who was an FPC member prior to the judgement Seems like a 14A violation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:01:53 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Do I have any notes? You do now https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/509384/20230524_002226-2827135.jpg Haha, I can live with that 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:09:19 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that this could be an opportunity to push back on the NFA as a whole....but calling this rule change a "perfectly reasonable ATF judgement" is pants on head retarded. If for no other reason, because they created the very "problem" they're trying to solve, with dozens of previous technical letters approving braces. There is nothing reasonable about turning millions of people into felons because they own / use a product that the ATF previously said was perfectly legal. As far as shouldering them goes, the ATF has flipped on that a couple times as well. They put out the letter saying that shouldering them converted them to SBR's, then they backtracked on it. My suspicion is, someone figured out that they were opening up a can of worms, where use not functionality or possession dictated legality....it's not hard to imagine how that would open doors that the ATF would not want us peasants to walk through. It is a logical argument with the framework of the NFA and ATF rule making. But that subset of law and rule making doesn't exist in vacuum now. Arguably it did before Heller, McDonald and Bruen as long as the plain meaning of the Second Amendment was ignored by the courts and Chevron deference was assumed - which it was. The NFA was unconstitutional from its passage. It relied on the fig leaf of taxation. Miller was a set up case that was wrongly but purposely decided on the argument that the firearms covered under the NFA had no militia utility and the Second Amendment protected the militia as a collective right not an individual right. That was the dominant legal interpretation until Heller. That stems from a collectivist and statist perspective. Like early British gun control (1920s) - its fine for Lord Plummy and Colonel Blimp to have guns, but we don't want potentially revolutionary peasants to have them. Remember that the 30s was the age of collectivist governments and FDR was pretty much a collectivist dictator (lite) who used the iron hand in the velvet glove to reshape America. And the NFA grew out of a legislative agenda to ban pistols. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:11:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All of that would be true right up until they said shouldering it doesnt make it a SBR and let it ride for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:25:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Do I have any notes? You do now https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/509384/20230524_002226-2827135.jpg Rofl |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:31:41 AM EDT
[#40]
According to this, the injunction applies to only the plaintiffs in the case.
 Federal Court BLOCKS PISTOL BRACE RULE? +ATF Flip Flops Important Details Mock v Garland 5th Circuit |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:33:41 AM EDT
[#41]
https://youtu.be/P1EIjrqvjCo
Hot Link to Video Who does this apply to? Everyone needs to watch the video I linked. I went to law school, i used to practice law. Mark Smith and the Four Boxes Diner is the best 2A law resource I’ve ever found. He really knows his stuff and doesn’t engage in hyperbole and clickbait. He’s as legit as it gets. He gets into who is covered and why the legal question isn’t as clear as we would like. I’ll take his analysis over folks in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:41:32 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He gets into who is covered and why the legal question isn’t as clear as we would like. I’ll take his analysis over folks in this thread. Ridiculous! That's like taking Mr. Higgs' opinion over Cap'nRob's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:42:54 AM EDT
[#43]
update: Oral arguments are set for 29 June.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:45:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems like a 14A violation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I might have missed the information, but has the Fifth Circuit answered the question on who is covered by the injunction? Speculation is it will cover everyone who was an FPC member prior to the judgement Seems like a 14A violation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:46:48 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: update: Oral arguments are set for 29 June. So we won't get any real answers until first week of July probably? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:49:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Speculation is it will cover everyone who was an FPC member prior to the judgement Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I might have missed the information, but has the Fifth Circuit answered the question on who is covered by the injunction? Speculation is it will cover everyone who was an FPC member prior to the judgement |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 11:53:56 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://youtu.be/P1EIjrqvjCo Hot Link to Video Who does this apply to? Everyone needs to watch the video I linked. I went to law school, i used to practice law. Mark Smith and the Four Boxes Diner is the best 2A law resource I’ve ever found. He really knows his stuff and doesn’t engage in hyperbole and clickbait. He’s as legit as it gets. He gets into who is covered and why the legal question isn’t as clear as we would like. I’ll take his analysis over folks in this thread. So basically he provided no new information and managed to take 9 minutes to do so? The outstanding question is whether the relief provided to FPC extends to its members, to which he says he doesn't know. He then says he doesn't know if FPC even has members. Simply going to their website and looking in the top left corner you'll see a button that says "Join." If you click the "join" button in the top left corner and the "donate" button in the top right corner they take you to different landing pages. So it would have taken him less than 60 seconds to answer the question he claims he doesn't know the answer to, and he provides no answers to the question we all have. In my opinion he is about as clickbait as it gets. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:01:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure if sarcasm or retarded Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Either the NFA is the NFA or it’s not. Strike down the perfectly reasonable ATF judgement on this ( based on existing NFA guidance ) and the NFA is 100% modified to no longer include length ( at least ! ). Not sure if sarcasm or retarded It's not sarcasm. Last year, with his old username 01911, Iwas01911 made a big deal about gun control laws are constitutional because the legislature passed them. COC prevents me from outright saying that just based on that i'm pretty sure he has a few extra chromosomes. So I won't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:03:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So basically he provided no new information and managed to take 9 minutes to do so? The outstanding question is whether the relief provided to FPC extends to its members, to which he says he doesn't know. He then says he doesn't know if FPC even has members. Simply going to their website and looking in the top left corner you'll see a button that says "Join." If you click the "join" button in the top left corner and the "donate" button in the top right corner they take you to different landing pages. So it would have taken him less than 60 seconds to answer the question he claims he doesn't know the answer to, and he provides no answers to the question we all have. In my opinion he is about as clickbait as it gets. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/218/Screenshot_2023-05-24_at_11_51_59_AM-2827383.png Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://youtu.be/P1EIjrqvjCo Hot Link to Video Who does this apply to? Everyone needs to watch the video I linked. I went to law school, i used to practice law. Mark Smith and the Four Boxes Diner is the best 2A law resource I’ve ever found. He really knows his stuff and doesn’t engage in hyperbole and clickbait. He’s as legit as it gets. He gets into who is covered and why the legal question isn’t as clear as we would like. I’ll take his analysis over folks in this thread. So basically he provided no new information and managed to take 9 minutes to do so? The outstanding question is whether the relief provided to FPC extends to its members, to which he says he doesn't know. He then says he doesn't know if FPC even has members. Simply going to their website and looking in the top left corner you'll see a button that says "Join." If you click the "join" button in the top left corner and the "donate" button in the top right corner they take you to different landing pages. So it would have taken him less than 60 seconds to answer the question he claims he doesn't know the answer to, and he provides no answers to the question we all have. In my opinion he is about as clickbait as it gets. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/218/Screenshot_2023-05-24_at_11_51_59_AM-2827383.png Yup. The real winners of the ArmBrace topic? : Youtube commentators. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2023 12:09:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So we won't get any real answers until first week of July probably? Absent the current administration coming to their senses and dropping this I think early July is best case scenario as far as a time frame. |
|
|
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.
