User Panel
Quoted: The process is the punishment. They don't have to actually prove any of the charges to utterly ruin someone. The only way I see to fight this is with organized legal defense like antifa uses. Lawyers and bail funds set up waiting to defend whoever gets pulled into the system. View Quote ^^^This^^^ They don't have to win the case. They just have to cause pain and suffering to their accused targets. Message sent. |
|
I look at what happened to Mussolini and think about how it would be CoC to wish such a thing on 90% of the federal govt.
|
|
Holy crap the ATF is going to come over to my house and ask me for all my rubber bands.
Skip to 1:15 rubber band Full auto |
|
I read through the court documents.
They're charging one of these guys because he was structuring bank withdrawals at $9k, six times in a row on six nearly-consecutive days like a fucking moron, to try and avoid the mandatory reporting paperwork to the government. Remember Al Capone--They only ended up getting him because of tax evasion charges. Do whatever pro-liberty stuff you want, but for fuck's sake don't think you're going to outsmart the IRS. |
|
Quoted: Yeah nah, fuck the entire ATF, from the mailroom guys all the way up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Let's not call the whole ATF out of control. Feel free to criticize specific agents. Yeah nah, fuck the entire ATF, from the mailroom guys all the way up. Attached File |
|
Quoted: Nope it was the Hughes act of 86 that said no new manufacture machine guns for public use. You can manufacture a suppressor with the correct paper work as a regular citizen. If you are an FFL+SOT you can manufacture a new machine gun with the correct paperwork, but you can't sell to a civilian without the FFL+SOT. Hold on.. before the "Yes you can manufacture them!" You as a civilian CAN manufacture them all you like, but it is illegal. View Quote US V Rock Island Armory |
|
Quoted: MY PHONE IS NOW A MACHINE GUN!!!!! View Quote Please stop pointing your phone at me. Please. Stop! Officer, officer, this man has a machine gun! I am in fear for my life! That is what this country has come to. Damn, all these unconstitutional laws against possession need to go. Every gun owner in America needs to make a machine gun and stop paying taxes. Let them try to stop us all. |
|
Quoted: I read through the court documents. They're charging one of these guys because he was structuring bank withdrawals at $9k, six times in a row on six nearly-consecutive days like a fucking moron, to try and avoid the mandatory reporting paperwork to the government. Remember Al Capone--They only ended up getting him because of tax evasion charges. Do whatever pro-liberty stuff you want, but for fuck's sake don't think you're going to outsmart the IRS. View Quote Well, not like that. |
|
Quoted: Got them for structuring transactions by repeatedly withdrawing $ 9000 6 times within two weeks. Why are people still stupid enough to do that. Personally I'd be afraid to make a legitimate transaction just under 10k, I'd probably purposely try to make it over 10 just to get reported. View Quote One won't get you in trouble. 7 in a row will get you in trouble. |
|
|
Quoted: Ok, there are numerous videos where he is talking about how to make illegal machine guns, untraceable guns, and his auto key cards. All while he is holding an SOT license. If you haven't read the charging documents, they have been following this guy for awhile. The fact he held an SOT is likely the catalyst to this shit. I don't agree with the "cards are machine guns" but if you hold an FFL+SOT you don't do shit like this. View Quote Why? How was talking about anything illegal? How was drawing something illegal? How is selling a drawing of something the equivalent of selling machineguns? Charging him with conspiracy because he gave money to someone? Because he withdrew $9,000 from a bank account? This isn't aft's first raid this week. |
|
Quoted: Does Mr.GunsandGear manufacture or pay someone else to manufacture, then sell and pimp his own product, on his youtube channel, while explaining how to make the M16 lower a functional NFA item all while owning a business that has an FFL+SOT to his name? View Quote Is conveyance of knowledge a crime, or are actual actions crimes? |
|
Be careful, OP; posting a picture online of the auto key card could get you a charge of "co-conspirator".
|
|
Quoted: For what it's worth, he didn't manufacture them. Someone else did who he partnered with. I can make videos on how to commit all kinds of crimes, doesn't make ME a criminal. For example, if I do a video on how to pick locks, and I sell a lockpicking kit, the feds can't charge me with burglary. I didn't commit a crime, even if I gave very clear instructions and even supplied the tools to do so. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didn't realize you lose your first amendment rights when you become an FFL/SOT. You must not have been living in the same US I have for the past few years. In all seriousness, when you pay the government for a SOT license, you don't get to manufacture and sell items called "auto key cards", with video instructions on how to convert the item you just sold into an illegal NFA item. For what it's worth, he didn't manufacture them. Someone else did who he partnered with. I can make videos on how to commit all kinds of crimes, doesn't make ME a criminal. For example, if I do a video on how to pick locks, and I sell a lockpicking kit, the feds can't charge me with burglary. I didn't commit a crime, even if I gave very clear instructions and even supplied the tools to do so. I guess Dova80 hasn't heard about Paladin Press |
|
|
Quoted: You can't make the machine gun from that drawing as a reference. You would need to provide a detailed drawing with measurements needed (or to scale) to machine the parts that are considered illegal arms for citizens to own under the NFA. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/498555/il_1588xN_2881252312_ns72_jpg-2256735.JPG "Because im not afraid of some fat losers in khakies" You can't make the machine gun from that drawing as a reference. You would need to provide a detailed drawing with measurements needed (or to scale) to machine the parts that are considered illegal arms for citizens to own under the NFA. Attached File |
|
View Quote So does that case decision mean we can, by law, manufacture machine guns again and the FJB browncoats can't do squat about it? @HenryKnoxFineBooks |
|
So what if he did withdraw $9000 at a time, however many times he wanted to. Even 12 times a day if he wants.
That doesn't mean he wasn't reporting income to the IRS. That too is a reach. 2021 filing year hasn't even fully began yet. Every bank you have sends you a form to file with your taxes. |
|
Here is the deal (from the indictment):
There are two defendants. ERVIN and HOOVER ERVIN lived in Florida and manufactured the cards, owned the domain, and sold the cards. HOOVER (who was an FFL and SOT), used his Youtube Channel to create videos and Promote the sale of the cards. ERVIN compensated (paid) HOOVER for advertising the cards on his youtube channel. In the video, he described how to cut out the lighting link from the card and install it into an AR-15, to create a machine gun. (HOOVER posted a whole bunch of videos where he advertised the key cards, not just one) HOOVER received thousands of dollars, on numerous occasions from ERVIN ERVIN made a bunch of withdrawals for 9K... which is just them tacking on another charge for him. So here's the deal.. Feds are saying they acted in a conspiracy to create machine guns, because ERVIN made and sold the card, and HOOVER posted videos on how to turn the cards into a machine gun. They both conspired to profit from this. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like to me that if ERVIN has acted alone... OR if HOOVER wasn't getting paid for the videos... they wouldn't have much of a case... it's the fact that HOOVER was involved and benefited from it is what is letting them tie this altogether. I think they are screwed. |
|
|
the ATF is the biggest bunch of bitch assholes in the country. Anti-America, Anti-Freedom, and just general law breakers.
Tied with the fuckwits at the FBI. |
|
|
|
From the case above: In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED. That sure seems to say in plain English that the 1986 Hughes Amendment made the NFA unconstitutional as applied to machine guns. Has another case since then overturned this finding? If not, why aren't Palmetto and others making $800 M-4's? |
|
Quoted: From the case above: That sure seems to say in plain English that the 1986 Hughes Amendment made the NFA unconstitutional as applied to machine guns. Has another case since then overturned this finding? If not, why aren't Palmetto and others making $800 M-4's? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: From the case above: In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED. That sure seems to say in plain English that the 1986 Hughes Amendment made the NFA unconstitutional as applied to machine guns. Has another case since then overturned this finding? If not, why aren't Palmetto and others making $800 M-4's? There's a reason the feds didn't appealed the case to a higher court. |
|
Quoted: So does that case decision mean we can, by law, manufacture machine guns again and the FJB browncoats can't do squat about it? @HenryKnoxFineBooks View Quote The ATF did not appeal it, but at best only applies in that circuit and if courts follw the law and established precedent. The 5th did not accept that line of reasoning because there was no individual right to own a firearm, which would have been interesting if the appeal had been heard post Heller. The dissent agrees with US v Rock Island and is the best dissent ever. US v Ardoin Yet the BATF continues to arrest and convict citizens like Ardoin under the NFA for not registering and paying taxes on their machine guns--even though it is legally impossible for them to do so. Because I do not believe that a statute which was enacted to tax a legal activity can legitimately be mutated into a statute that criminalizes that very same activity, and because I believe that convicting citizens for violating laws with which they cannot possibly comply is fundamentally unfair, I respectfully dissent. I regret that the majority today elects to join what I believe to be the legally inferior side of a pre-existing circuit split on this issue. I fear that in so choosing for this circuit, the majority rejects two persuasive precedents (including one that sets forth the relevant history and purpose of the NFA in exhaustive detail) in favor of embracing a third precedent which essentially holds that because Congress could re-enact the tax-based NFA as a Commerce Clause-based ban against mere possession of machine guns, we should behave as though Congress did so. Indeed, the NFA's regulation of machine gun-ownership by private citizens was made instantly obsolete by the advent of the FOPA. There is no longer any place for those provisions in the present legislative scheme for regulation of most prospective machine gun-owners. Their vestigial existence on the statute books analogizes perfectly to the human appendix: no useful function whatsoever, but unlimited potential for insidious mischief. The majority's "just say no" response, like that of the Fourth Circuit before it--in effect telling Ardoin that he could have avoided violation of the NFA simply "by not possessing or manufacturing any ... machineguns"--is even more troublesome to me. I keep asking myself "why is it that each time I revisit the majority's response I am reminded of Marie Antoinette's advice to 'let them eat cake'?" Such casual, dismissive responses are just not satisfactory when it comes to engaging in an activity, such as keeping and bearing arms, that arguably implicates the Bill of Rights. I am compelled to reemphasize at this juncture that the gravamen of the NFA violations at issue here is not mere possession of an unregistered machine gun; it is the failure to register and pay taxes on that machine gun. That is why section 922(o ) was enacted. If the NFA could double as a naked prohibition against simple possession of an unregistered machine gun, section 922(o ) would have been wholly unnecessary. Yet today we allow the BATF to ignore the NFA's registration and taxation provisions, thereby transmuting the NFA into a second, and perhaps a more easily enforced, criminal ban on the mere possession of machine guns. According to the Supreme Court, then, citizens do not violate the NFA solely by possessing unregistered machine guns: they must actually fail to register those weapons. And it is apparent--at least to me--that the failure to register and pay the tax on a firearm cannot be a prosecutable criminal act when the government refuses to accept the appropriate registration documents and tax payments even though the applicable registration and tax payment provisions remain "on the books." I find neither authority nor mandate for us to rewrite the NFA to criminalize mere possession of machine guns. Yet without such an act of judicial legislation, I can see no way for us to sanction enforcement of the NFA as it applies to ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Convicting Ardoin of violating statutory provisions with which he cannot comply strikes me as offending fundamental fairness and thus due process. "One simply cannot be criminally liable for failing to do an act which [one] is ... incapable of performing." For this reason, too, I believe that Ardoin's conviction should be set aside. |
|
This is way beyond horseshit. Yes I follow his channel for entertainment and he can be sort of a goober but God damn fuck the AFT
|
|
Quoted: There's a reason the feds didn't appealed the case to a higher court. View Quote Kinda like they let everyone go that they try to prosecute for 80% lowers, since an AR lower is not a firearm and a lower receiver itself doesn't qualify as a firearm per the statutory definition, and they let those cases get dropped so as to avoid a precedent. Which is why they are trying to redefine firearm, rifle, readily, etc. in their unconstitutional new proposals on 80% lowers and AR pistols. What a bunch of underhanded low-life scum... |
|
Quoted: Kinda like they let everyone go that they try to prosecute for 80% lowers, since an AR lower is not a firearm and a lower receiver itself doesn't qualify as a firearm per the statutory definition, and they let those cases get dropped so as to avoid a precedent. Which is why they are trying to redefine firearm, rifle, readily, etc. in their unconstitutional new proposals on 80% lowers and AR pistols. What a bunch of underhanded low-life scum... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: There's a reason the feds didn't appealed the case to a higher court. Kinda like they let everyone go that they try to prosecute for 80% lowers, since an AR lower is not a firearm and a lower receiver itself doesn't qualify as a firearm per the statutory definition, and they let those cases get dropped so as to avoid a precedent. Which is why they are trying to redefine firearm, rifle, readily, etc. in their unconstitutional new proposals on 80% lowers and AR pistols. What a bunch of underhanded low-life scum... But only their leadership and the agents that enforce all of the unconstitutional laws. |
|
Why was he withdrawing so much money every day? I had no idea an SOT made money.
|
|
Quoted: I read through the court documents. They're charging one of these guys because he was structuring bank withdrawals at $9k, six times in a row on six nearly-consecutive days like a fucking moron, to try and avoid the mandatory reporting paperwork to the government. Remember Al Capone--They only ended up getting him because of tax evasion charges. Do whatever pro-liberty stuff you want, but for fuck's sake don't think you're going to outsmart the IRS. View Quote You know the IRS only started accepting 2021 tax forms a few days ago, right? And they aren’t late until after 15 Apr 2022, right? Oh wait, you don’t give a shit. You want to paint him as an idiot criminal because that’s what you do to gun owners. Right? |
|
Quoted: Were we expecting the ATF to go after criminals that convert Glocks to auto and shoot cops? That would be dangerous, so they go after guys who make YouTube videos. View Quote And the Amish apparently. https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/atf-agents-seize-guns-from-leacock-township-property-amish-farmer-admits-sales/article_736a4096-7e25-11ec-9b81-c73a25950798.html |
|
Quoted: The ATF did not appeal it, but at best only applies in that circuit and if courts follw the law and established presedent. The 5th did not accept that line of reasoning because there was no individual right to own a firearm, which would have been interesting if the appeal had been heard post Heller. The dissent agrees with US v Rock Island and is the best dissent ever. US v Ardoin Yet the BATF continues to arrest and convict citizens like Ardoin under the NFA for not registering and paying taxes on their machine guns--even though it is legally impossible for them to do so. Because I do not believe that a statute which was enacted to tax a legal activity can legitimately be mutated into a statute that criminalizes that very same activity, and because I believe that convicting citizens for violating laws with which they cannot possibly comply is fundamentally unfair, I respectfully dissent. I regret that the majority today elects to join what I believe to be the legally inferior side of a pre-existing circuit split on this issue. I fear that in so choosing for this circuit, the majority rejects two persuasive precedents (including one that sets forth the relevant history and purpose of the NFA in exhaustive detail) in favor of embracing a third precedent which essentially holds that because Congress could re-enact the tax-based NFA as a Commerce Clause-based ban against mere possession of machine guns, we should behave as though Congress did so. Indeed, the NFA's regulation of machine gun-ownership by private citizens was made instantly obsolete by the advent of the FOPA. There is no longer any place for those provisions in the present legislative scheme for regulation of most prospective machine gun-owners. Their vestigial existence on the statute books analogizes perfectly to the human appendix: no useful function whatsoever, but unlimited potential for insidious mischief. The majority's "just say no" response, like that of the Fourth Circuit before it--in effect telling Ardoin that he could have avoided violation of the NFA simply "by not possessing or manufacturing any ... machineguns"--is even more troublesome to me. I keep asking myself "why is it that each time I revisit the majority's response I am reminded of Marie Antoinette's advice to 'let them eat cake'?" Such casual, dismissive responses are just not satisfactory when it comes to engaging in an activity, such as keeping and bearing arms, that arguably implicates the Bill of Rights. I am compelled to reemphasize at this juncture that the gravamen of the NFA violations at issue here is not mere possession of an unregistered machine gun; it is the failure to register and pay taxes on that machine gun. That is why section 922(o ) was enacted. If the NFA could double as a naked prohibition against simple possession of an unregistered machine gun, section 922(o ) would have been wholly unnecessary. Yet today we allow the BATF to ignore the NFA's registration and taxation provisions, thereby transmuting the NFA into a second, and perhaps a more easily enforced, criminal ban on the mere possession of machine guns. According to the Supreme Court, then, citizens do not violate the NFA solely by possessing unregistered machine guns: they must actually fail to register those weapons. And it is apparent--at least to me--that the failure to register and pay the tax on a firearm cannot be a prosecutable criminal act when the government refuses to accept the appropriate registration documents and tax payments even though the applicable registration and tax payment provisions remain "on the books." I find neither authority nor mandate for us to rewrite the NFA to criminalize mere possession of machine guns. Yet without such an act of judicial legislation, I can see no way for us to sanction enforcement of the NFA as it applies to ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Convicting Ardoin of violating statutory provisions with which he cannot comply strikes me as offending fundamental fairness and thus due process. "One simply cannot be criminally liable for failing to do an act which [one] is ... incapable of performing." For this reason, too, I believe that Ardoin's conviction should be set aside. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So does that case decision mean we can, by law, manufacture machine guns again and the FJB browncoats can't do squat about it? @HenryKnoxFineBooks The ATF did not appeal it, but at best only applies in that circuit and if courts follw the law and established presedent. The 5th did not accept that line of reasoning because there was no individual right to own a firearm, which would have been interesting if the appeal had been heard post Heller. The dissent agrees with US v Rock Island and is the best dissent ever. US v Ardoin Yet the BATF continues to arrest and convict citizens like Ardoin under the NFA for not registering and paying taxes on their machine guns--even though it is legally impossible for them to do so. Because I do not believe that a statute which was enacted to tax a legal activity can legitimately be mutated into a statute that criminalizes that very same activity, and because I believe that convicting citizens for violating laws with which they cannot possibly comply is fundamentally unfair, I respectfully dissent. I regret that the majority today elects to join what I believe to be the legally inferior side of a pre-existing circuit split on this issue. I fear that in so choosing for this circuit, the majority rejects two persuasive precedents (including one that sets forth the relevant history and purpose of the NFA in exhaustive detail) in favor of embracing a third precedent which essentially holds that because Congress could re-enact the tax-based NFA as a Commerce Clause-based ban against mere possession of machine guns, we should behave as though Congress did so. Indeed, the NFA's regulation of machine gun-ownership by private citizens was made instantly obsolete by the advent of the FOPA. There is no longer any place for those provisions in the present legislative scheme for regulation of most prospective machine gun-owners. Their vestigial existence on the statute books analogizes perfectly to the human appendix: no useful function whatsoever, but unlimited potential for insidious mischief. The majority's "just say no" response, like that of the Fourth Circuit before it--in effect telling Ardoin that he could have avoided violation of the NFA simply "by not possessing or manufacturing any ... machineguns"--is even more troublesome to me. I keep asking myself "why is it that each time I revisit the majority's response I am reminded of Marie Antoinette's advice to 'let them eat cake'?" Such casual, dismissive responses are just not satisfactory when it comes to engaging in an activity, such as keeping and bearing arms, that arguably implicates the Bill of Rights. I am compelled to reemphasize at this juncture that the gravamen of the NFA violations at issue here is not mere possession of an unregistered machine gun; it is the failure to register and pay taxes on that machine gun. That is why section 922(o ) was enacted. If the NFA could double as a naked prohibition against simple possession of an unregistered machine gun, section 922(o ) would have been wholly unnecessary. Yet today we allow the BATF to ignore the NFA's registration and taxation provisions, thereby transmuting the NFA into a second, and perhaps a more easily enforced, criminal ban on the mere possession of machine guns. According to the Supreme Court, then, citizens do not violate the NFA solely by possessing unregistered machine guns: they must actually fail to register those weapons. And it is apparent--at least to me--that the failure to register and pay the tax on a firearm cannot be a prosecutable criminal act when the government refuses to accept the appropriate registration documents and tax payments even though the applicable registration and tax payment provisions remain "on the books." I find neither authority nor mandate for us to rewrite the NFA to criminalize mere possession of machine guns. Yet without such an act of judicial legislation, I can see no way for us to sanction enforcement of the NFA as it applies to ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Convicting Ardoin of violating statutory provisions with which he cannot comply strikes me as offending fundamental fairness and thus due process. "One simply cannot be criminally liable for failing to do an act which [one] is ... incapable of performing." For this reason, too, I believe that Ardoin's conviction should be set aside. Thanks for the response. This deserves more investigation, and suggests a means to overturn the unconstitutional NFA, at least in part if not entirely. I will reach out to GOA and others to see if there is an interest on their part. Maybe FRT can also use this info. |
|
|
Quoted: I didn't realize you lose your first amendment rights when you become an FFL/SOT. View Quote It's become the edgy thing lately to skirt the NFA line as much as possible, that tactic has backfired for many in the past and will continue to do so in the future. |
|
And yet I still don't hear that distinctive sound of covers being popped off.
H |
|
This is a typical fed move to take away the ability to pay for your own good defense lawyer. Which is why they seized all of fla guys shit from the git go
Auto keycard guy in fla was getting raped by having to use a public defender. Which would have become a slam dunk loss for that feller. So YouTube guy starts raising money for fla guy to have a private lawyer that actually works on his behalf. Thus fed needed to shut down the revenue stream for qualified private lawyer. Presto click YouTube guy to shut down defense fund money stream and publicity in case and force back into use of corrupt public defender If it were in any way remotely possible to charge YouTube guy they would have done it when this shit all first started. Would have been two raids not one. |
|
|
Quoted: But only their leadership and the agents that enforce all of the unconstitutional laws. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's a reason the feds didn't appealed the case to a higher court. Kinda like they let everyone go that they try to prosecute for 80% lowers, since an AR lower is not a firearm and a lower receiver itself doesn't qualify as a firearm per the statutory definition, and they let those cases get dropped so as to avoid a precedent. Which is why they are trying to redefine firearm, rifle, readily, etc. in their unconstitutional new proposals on 80% lowers and AR pistols. What a bunch of underhanded low-life scum... But only their leadership and the agents that enforce all of the unconstitutional laws. Yes, them. The ATF agents who work to uphold our Constitutional rights and UNDERMINE theIr low-life scum associates receive my heartfelt thanks and qualify as patriots. May they ever increase in numbers until they bring down the ATF from within and successfully have the agency abolished. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the response. This deserves more investigation, and suggests a means to overturn the unconstitutional NFA, at least in part if not entirely. I will reach out to GOA and others to see if there is an interest on their part. Maybe FRT can also use this info. View Quote GOA is well aware of these cases. Currently, courts just follow the US Attorney without critically evaluating the case and the law. That is potentially one of the things about Trump appointed judges - a chance to put this legal reasoning into 2A cases like Judge Benitez does. And then gets overturned by the 9th. We win by winning at the appeals court level. Note that when the US appeals to SCOTUS, they tend to take the case, and there is where the odds of a favorable outcome have increased in the last year. |
|
Quoted: Glad you enjoyed the quip! Its been a fun thread. Most might not agree with my opinion, but that's why we all have them and should be free to express them. A little constructive discourse is a great way to spend the afternoon closing time! To keep it on topic, this guy that is charged really is dumb. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: That's amazing. Please don't stop posting in this thread. Glad you enjoyed the quip! Its been a fun thread. Most might not agree with my opinion, but that's why we all have them and should be free to express them. A little constructive discourse is a great way to spend the afternoon closing time! To keep it on topic, this guy that is charged really is dumb. @Dova80 What we really want to know is if you were on the jury in this case, would you vote to convict on any of the charges? |
|
One more violation of God given rights by a tyrannical government agency.
|
|
|
Quoted: Arguably I'm a criminal because I have the photo of the keycard saved on my computer, since drawings of machine guns are illegal now. Absolutely fucking ridiculous. View Quote The ATF is out of control. And you're quite the fucker for posting the key card here. Now the website AR15.com is a lawbreaker as are all of us that have a copy in a cache in our computer! |
|
Quoted: The ATF is out of control. View Quote Quoted: The ATF is out of control. View Quote Quoted: The ATF is out of control View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: I don't support these laws, but I also don't actively disobey them. I am just unwilling to break the law or push up to the line, and thus go to jail, even if it is morally and constitutionally acceptable. View Quote But enquiring minds want to know... how many people would you turn in? |
|
Quoted: Nope it was the Hughes act of 86 that said no new manufacture machine guns for public use. You can manufacture a suppressor with the correct paper work as a regular citizen. If you are an FFL+SOT you can manufacture a new machine gun with the correct paperwork, but you can't sell to a civilian without the FFL+SOT. Hold on.. before the "Yes you can manufacture them!" You as a civilian CAN manufacture them all you like, but it is illegal. View Quote Pretty sure it was an ammendment not an act... since apparently details and accuracy matter to you. |
|
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.