User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 1:10:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Criminal cases are seen with distaste, he plead guilty to both the mortgage fraud and the wrongfully acquired hunting licenses while a convicted felon. If he had filed suit before the hunting licenses incident, he would have been far better situated. Dumbasses aren't great test cases. Kharn He held a hunting license, he just improperly held a resident instead of a non-resident license in the mistaken belief that his residence in Wyoming qualified him as a "Resident" when in fact it did not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 1:19:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns. This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 1:34:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 1:38:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns. This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 4:28:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shouldn’t we focus on a 2A right that exists outside the home before tackling which felons can own guns? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 4:47:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have a problem with a felony conviction carrying punishments beyond prison including loss of rights. I do have a significant issue with what constitutes a felony conviction in today's America. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Well, look at how many people here support banning felons from owning guns. This reinforces my belief that the court isn't going to touch MGs anytime soon. MGs, like felons, are scary. Sure, some things which are felonies shouldn't be. That could be an easy litmus test: can you legally defend yourself with a firearm if you catch the perpetrator in the act, i.e. a de facto death penalty? Bam, felony. Maybe that easy, but there's probably holes. I gotta go back to work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 4:49:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Im really hoping the supreme court gets off its ass and kicks some of these anti constitutional gun control laws in the nuts finally. ( mag bans, semi auto bans, accepted gun lists, etc ) any honest court making a ruling based on the constitution / facts would have no choice but to rule against them... however with everyone making rulings based on their fucking feelings, thats always iffy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2019 4:56:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It’s all part and parcel in the grand scheme. If we have a fundamental right to own a firearm in the home, but a paper crime that doesn’t harm anyone can strip you of that right forever, do we really have that right to begin with? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of note, Alan guras case, Medina v Barr (felon in possession case) was not granted certiorari today. That is a shame. That guy was convicted of a false statement on a mortgage app, felony. Paid off the loan early and everyone admits no harm was done. Too bad though, because he is a felon and gov says too dangerous to have a firearm. Supreme Court doesn’t want to wade into it. Here is his petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-287/114260/20190830122623701_3-cert_petition.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2019 6:55:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just registered. I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415 I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking. https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2019 8:47:17 PM EDT
[#10]
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles.
Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth can consume historical fact. For decades, based on nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin- gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec- ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti- ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi- cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2019 11:01:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth can consume historical fact. For decades, based on nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin- gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec- ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti- ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi- cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2019 1:16:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Is this a slam at Nolo and Wolfwood? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I started reading through the annotated PDF I referenced in the post before this one when on page 5 of 73 I see they referenced a brief by Historian Patrick Charles. Link to that brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles On page 45 & 46 of 50 of that Charles brief, they make the following comment: Knowing the historiography of the Statute of
Northampton and Knight’s Case is important for two reasons. First, it illustrates the ease by which myth can consume historical fact. For decades, based on nothing more than incomplete English Reports and a highly selective reading of a handful of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century legal commentators, a contin- gent of legal scholars convinced many in the field that their historical claim was valid, despite its lack of substantiation and the evidence contradicting it. Sec- ond, as can be seen by several appellate courts to have examined this history, it illustrates how unsubstanti- ated and poorly-researched history can influence judi- cial outcomes. See Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated for rehearing en banc, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) (reading Knight’s Case and en-suing legal commentary as interpreting the Statute of Northampton to prohibit only the carrying of danger-ous weapons in a threatening manner, and allowing the carrying of “common (not unusual) arms for de-fense (not terror)”); Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (reading Heller as fore-closing an examination of the history of the Statute of Northampton and English law governing the carrying of dangerous weapons); Moore v. Madigan, 708 F.3d 933, 936-37 (7th Cir. 2012) (reading Heller as requiring an limited, narrow interpretation of the scope of the Statute of Northampton in the wake of Knight’s Case). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2019 1:28:03 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DK-Prof, if you are still going to this event tomorrow, you can do a little prep work ahead of time by reading the comments that Duke University has made on the annotated oral arguments in the following PDF document: https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For any of our members near DC, please represent AR15.com at this event and provide us with a full report afterwards. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-second-amendment-at-the-supreme-court-what-to-expect-this-term-tickets-80064279415 I wonder what kind of hors d'oevres, and whether they will have valet parking. https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/12/NYSRPA-Mark-up-Duke-Center-for-Firearms-Law.pdf I haven't read their comments yet, as I just came across this and I have to get ready to head out to a local event, but I will be reading it in its entirety later tonight when I return. Unfortunately, it turns out that I probably won’t make it, since I have some later afternoon/evening meetings in VA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 10:37:27 AM EDT
[#14]
Orders came out. Still no decision on mootness or anything else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 10:40:07 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Orders came out. Still no decision on mootness or anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 10:45:35 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 10:47:58 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 10:55:05 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: there is plenty of time for them to moot it between now and then. or, they could have voted to moot it and have a lot of dissenting opinions which take time to write. so, i don't think i would take this as any indication of how they are going to rule, only that they haven't released the ruling yet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 11:16:34 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After last weeks decision to hear three Trump tax cases, I would think they will try to spread out their rulings in controversial cases, rather than do a decision dump in June 2020. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……... 
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 12:08:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 12:15:18 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of controversial cases this term. June is in an election year. They are going to spread rulings out. They are not going to drop major decisions on abortion, trump taxes and guns on the same day or even same week. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 12:24:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's how the SC rolls and has done so for 50 years. They end their term in June, and drop all their rulings for the term before they leave town for vacation. The most important cases are released on the last days. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 1:46:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That’s not even close to factually accurate. Decisions have been released in December, May and June and sometimes July. They are not dumping every case from the term on the way out he door. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2019 4:03:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Decisions are released as they are ready (two easy ones were released last week), but the most controversial rulings require the most work, thus being held until the last week in June. Extending the term beyond 30 June is an extremely rare occasion, or an emergency ruling related to a capital case. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like they might decide on the merits after all...……...
They always do a decision dump in June. We may get the NY gun case, good or bad, before June as Nolo suggested. Kharn Kharn https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/back-loaded-supreme-court-enters-flood-season |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2019 1:55:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Only posting to keep this thread from going into the archives. Keeping hope alive a little bit longer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2020 10:01:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Realistically, how much time is left for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a different Second Amendment case should they choose to plan on deciding this one moot?
This PBS article states the norm would be mid-January, which is only one week away. ...The justices have not announced which cases will be argued in April the final month of oral arguments...
...The high court usually stops adding cases for argument in the term by mid-January... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2020 1:17:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Realistically, how much time is left for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a different Second Amendment case should they choose to plan on deciding this one moot? This PBS article states the norm would be mid-January, which is only one week away. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-2020-watch-for-these-blockbuster-supreme-court-cases Quote HistoryQuoted:
Realistically, how much time is left for the Supreme Court to decide to hear a different Second Amendment case should they choose to plan on deciding this one moot? This PBS article states the norm would be mid-January, which is only one week away. ...The justices have not announced which cases will be argued in April the final month of oral arguments...
...The high court usually stops adding cases for argument in the term by mid-January... Briefing can take 105 days after cert. is granted if there aren't any extensions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf As suggested by the article it is rather unlikely a NEW 2nd Amdt. case will be heard and decided this term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2020 2:12:12 PM EDT
[#28]
We’ve entered the second half of this years session with no decision on NYSRPA or even on mootness.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2020 2:26:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will make a ruling that is so narrow, it applies nowhere else outside NYC and only applies to this one exact situation. Just as always. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2020 9:54:31 PM EDT
[#30]
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19
Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2020 10:27:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they had considered at last week’s conference, including petitions involving: ... a challenge to a federal rule expanding the definition of machine guns; |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2020 10:48:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they had considered at last week’s conference, including petitions involving: ... a challenge to a federal rule expanding the definition of machine guns; Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2020 11:13:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I hope the tyrants |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2020 12:29:45 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryThe Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week's conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 2:40:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Pretty much zero chance of them hearing any other gun rights case this session. It’s NYSRPA or nothing until fall.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 3:04:26 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2020 4:15:45 PM EDT
[#37]
"...extend Rights beyond the home....."
Ooooh, what a dangerous precedent! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2020 12:01:56 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote below per Duke University blog post: SCOTUS Gun Watch Week of 1/20/20
Due to the MLK holiday, the Court's order list this week came out today. It was another relatively quiet week-----no new cert petitions and no big action on the pending ones. We're still suspecting that NYSRPA could come any day...or not for another five months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2020 7:07:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Did any of you happen to listen to this one-hour ScotusBlog webinar yet?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/2020-supreme-court-preview-presented-by-casetext-and-scotusblog/ On January 28, Casetext and SCOTUSblog conducted the first webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court. Casetext chief operating officer and general counsel Laura Safdie moderated the panel, featuring SCOTUSblog founder and Goldstein & Russell partner Tom Goldstein and Goldstein & Russell partner Sarah Harrington. The webinar covered high-profile cases involving Title VII and LGBT discrimination, the DACA program, the Second Amendment and the future of an abortion law in Louisiana.
The second part of this series will be live on Thursday, February 20, at 12 noon EST. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2020 3:02:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bump stock case was relisted for the next conference, which is different than the 2A cases which all were held after the first conference. But, it's not based on 2A claims, it's based on Chevron deference. Chevron deference amounts to a certain test that determines if a government agency is allowed to make a rule on a matter with civil penalties. Except there is question of if Chevron deference should apply in criminal cases, and thus ATF should not have been allowed to interpret the statute as they did. Previously the Supreme Court has called into question the use of Chevron deference in criminal cases, and this is the first case to reach the court regarding criminal consequences and Chevron together. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/19 Are any other Second Amendment cases mentioned in the 1/13/20 Order of the court? The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they had considered at last week’s conference, including petitions involving: ... a challenge to a federal rule expanding the definition of machine guns; Kharn I only pretend to be a real lawyer and don't know the difference between a constitutional amendment and Chevron, or a bumpstock and a machine gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2020 11:04:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Nothing new, just keeping this thread out of the archives.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2020 11:15:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Just reading the updates
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2020 11:51:54 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 12:13:22 AM EDT
[#44]
I’m hopeful in a 5-4 vote to heel NY law, in a broader scope than anticipated, using Heller as president.
Beyond that it is up to everyone else to hold states accountable to the ruling as I’m sure they will ignore it as they have Heller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 10:35:24 AM EDT
[#45]
Have we got our rights back yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 10:51:11 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? 5 years from now,there wont be an anti gun law left on the books anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 11:24:03 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? The last week of June is the traditional release date for opinions that shape constitutional law. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 1:08:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@sherrick13 The last week of June is the traditional release date for opinions that shape constitutional law. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? The last week of June is the traditional release date for opinions that shape constitutional law. Kharn If they do any ruling that is remotely positive it will be so narrow as to really not do anything. The court just doesnt ever do sweeping gun cases. Even Heller really didnt change much outside of DC and even there guns might as well still be illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 1:12:56 PM EDT
[#49]
How can they expand God given rights?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 1:22:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can they expand God given rights? |
|
|
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.
Attached File