User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NM, USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 1:54:03 PM EST
[#1]
I'm in no position to gamble, but a couple of your recent threads have gotten me to investigate what's involved with my new country government, and getting involved.
I'd be more likely to bet on you making progress than against you though! Have to say I follow legal stuff just enough to be very confused about the actual legal specifics. Which is why I usually go for moral over legal. But then I'm not a lawyer, just a professional nerd. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 2:03:03 PM EST
[#2]
What sucks is that, even if your case is solid, courts will refuse to hear it or rule against you because MGs are scary.
I fully support you, even as a MG owner. 
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 4:13:24 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By steviesterno16: I feel like the guy that got the atf to pound sand over a grenade would be the guy to get it done. I’m in. You make this happen and I’ll buy you a machine gun and/or pallet of whiskey Story? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 4:38:08 PM EST
[#4]
I'm not saying it can't happen, but it would take several decades of court battles done in a series of slow-motion incremental victories, millions or billions in lawyers' fees, and probably a few people having to risk going to Federal PMITA prison for the rest of their lives to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 8:59:26 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Spartikis: I’ll send you $100 AFTER you get the registry opened same here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 9:27:30 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vengarr: NO CHANCE OP will have about about as much chance of success with this as others do with IRS when they claim they are exempt from paying income tax due to [whatever repeatedly court-proven frivolous argument] But hey, go for it. Not much to lose (as long as you don't make or acquire anything MG prior to ATF approval) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 9:40:52 PM EST
[#7]
You gonna write a letter?
 You go Ben. I wish you much success. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 10:15:13 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brian1: FPNI again OP will have about about as much chance of success with this as others do with IRS when they claim they are exempt from paying income tax due to [whatever repeatedly court-proven frivolous argument] But hey, go for it. Not much to lose (as long as you don't make or acquire anything MG prior to ATF approval) So if you're that confident, you're willing to put your money where your mouth is? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:07:42 PM EST
[#9]
IIRC, the Attorney General can allow for new MG registrations, or something like that.
I've wondered if we had a really pro-gun AG that instructed the ATF to approve all MG registrations would be our easiest best. I would expect that the ATF would rather let Ben have a new MG than have it go to court and maybe lose. I also imagine a high roller could easily donate to the right person to get a dem AG to give them permission to get new MGs. I'd like to see how this plays out. Good luck Ben. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:17:05 AM EST
[#10]
We need to FOIA saddams glock 18. Dubya has it. If it's in the registry, we're golden
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:30:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: Marquar]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vengarr: We need to FOIA saddams glock 18. Dubya has it. If it's in the registry, we're golden Because "Rules for thee, but not for me" has NEVER been a thing with politicians? And if W does have it, they are not going to release paperwork confirming it. Edit: That is, paperwork confirming that W personally has it as opposed to a museum or other entity that could legally own a post-86 MG. And if they did, I'm sure the paperwork would show that it had been legally rendered inoperable and no longer qualifies as a firearm or MG. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 11:26:13 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DrSutton: Story? @DrSutton IIRC, OP got the ATF to approve a Form 1 grenade. They tried to take it back, and he told them to F-off or something and was able to keep it. Seems like the stones to get something like this done... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 11:28:16 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Postal0311:
IIRC, the Attorney General can allow for new MG registrations, or something like that. I've wondered if we had a really pro-gun AG that instructed the ATF to approve all MG registrations would be our easiest best. I would expect that the ATF would rather let Ben have a new MG than have it go to court and maybe lose. I also imagine a high roller could easily donate to the right person to get a dem AG to give them permission to get new MGs. I'd like to see how this plays out. Good luck Ben. You can read their legal analysis in the bumpstock ruling on page 22 and 23 and why an amnesty and/or registration of bumpstocks was not legally possible. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf Now the federal government does seem to pick and choose what "laws" to enforce so I would presume that like illegal immigration today under the Biden administration a future administration could potentially direct the ATF and DOJ could just "ignore" 922(o), declare a machinegun amnesty, and then decline to prosecute anybody who registered. Basically pull an "immigration DACA" for machineguns. The downside is that its going to open legal challenge by anti-gun groups and/or a future administrations re-interpretation. So an amnesty that potentially contradicts actual legal legislation/statues could potentially be undone by a future administration and/or the courts. Similar to today where illegal immigrants are allowed come across the border, face no risk of prosecution, and are effectively allowed to stay in the County today but a future administration may round them up and prosecute and/or deport them. In any case I highly doubt any future administration that could manage to get elected in a national presidential election would ever decide to use their limited political capital to essentially pander to the single digit percentage of the overall US population who believes that machineguns should be legal for civilians much less the probably less than 1% of the population who would even want to register and own a machinegun in the first place. In terms of legal litigation threat precedent, the Federal government has been successfully defending 922(o) in Court over 30+ years including multiple cases up to SCOTUS, so I am not sure why just the "threat" of another lawsuit (even one post Bruen) would cause them to just outright fold their cards and give somebody approval to build and possess a post 922(o) machinegun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:04:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: KitBuilder]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Marquar: Because "Rules for thee, but not for me" has NEVER been a thing with politicians? And if W does have it, they are not going to release paperwork confirming it. Edit: That is, paperwork confirming that W personally has it as opposed to a museum or other entity that could legally own a post-86 MG. And if they did, I'm sure the paperwork would show that it had been legally rendered inoperable and no longer qualifies as a firearm or MG. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Marquar: Originally Posted By vengarr: We need to FOIA saddams glock 18. Dubya has it. If it's in the registry, we're golden And if W does have it, they are not going to release paperwork confirming it. Edit: That is, paperwork confirming that W personally has it as opposed to a museum or other entity that could legally own a post-86 MG. And if they did, I'm sure the paperwork would show that it had been legally rendered inoperable and no longer qualifies as a firearm or MG. As we learned from this 2017 thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/True-or-false--Has-the-Registry-been-opened-for-NFA-firearms-in-the-last-10-years-/17-480278/  If it's property of EOPOTUS it could be registered (on Form 10) and lawfully possessed by any current member/employee of EOPOTUS including the incumbent President and his entire staff. Or it could've also been transferred on Form 5 to the library, since it's listed as "George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum". (This is assuming the museum is owned/curated by a government entity, which could also include a state or local government.) Because this: "Rules for thee, but not for me" While the US military (and technically the entire US federal government) possessed it, no registration was required by law because they're completely excepted from the NFA. This exception is referred to in US Code as a "relief from disabilities". You and I have disabilities. It'd be amazing if Ben could remove them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:30:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: jbntex]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By steviesterno16: @DrSutton IIRC, OP got the ATF to approve a Form 1 grenade. They tried to take it back, and he told them to F-off or something and was able to keep it. Seems like the stones to get something like this done... Last I saw on this was a gofundme type post in GD to help cover litigation expenses about 18 months ago after the ATF confiscated the fuze for what I believe was the second time. Hopefully you got it back but I don't ever recall seeing a final outcome. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:49:46 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: OP did you get your Form 1 DD fuze back from the BATFE? Last I saw on this was a gofundme type post in GD to help cover litigation expenses about 18 months ago after the ATF confiscated the fuze for what I believe was the second time. Hopefully you got it back but I don't ever recall seeing a final outcome. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Originally Posted By steviesterno16: @DrSutton IIRC, OP got the ATF to approve a Form 1 grenade. They tried to take it back, and he told them to F-off or something and was able to keep it. Seems like the stones to get something like this done... OP did you get your Form 1 DD fuze back from the BATFE? Last I saw on this was a gofundme type post in GD to help cover litigation expenses about 18 months ago after the ATF confiscated the fuze for what I believe was the second time. Hopefully you got it back but I don't ever recall seeing a final outcome. Yeah, we won that. And the fund raising turned out to be rather minimal, but it was welcome after dropping well over six figures into dealing with the ATF out of pocket. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:26:23 PM EST
[#17]
I'll bet that if you win, my pile of M53 kits will all be rebuilt into their natural, open bolt configuration, as god intended.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:14:14 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: Yeah, we won that. And the fund raising turned out to be rather minimal, but it was welcome after dropping well over six figures into dealing with the ATF out of pocket. I have been following the thread on Grog's forum where another guy got a F1 grenade approved recently and was interested if a F1 grenade was even still possible as a civilian without a FEL and magazine anymore and/or what people would do for a fuse. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 3:05:13 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Cool glad to hear you got it back a second time. Did you eventually have to go to court to get it back? I have been following the thread on Grog's forum where another guy got a F1 grenade approved recently and was interested if a F1 grenade was even still possible as a civilian without a FEL and magazine anymore and/or what people would do for a fuse. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Originally Posted By Ben: Yeah, we won that. And the fund raising turned out to be rather minimal, but it was welcome after dropping well over six figures into dealing with the ATF out of pocket. Cool glad to hear you got it back a second time. Did you eventually have to go to court to get it back? I have been following the thread on Grog's forum where another guy got a F1 grenade approved recently and was interested if a F1 grenade was even still possible as a civilian without a FEL and magazine anymore and/or what people would do for a fuse. They settled out of court for fear of a judge smacking them down. Apparently my fuze wasn't reclassified as an explosive til almost a year AFTER they confiscated it on the basis of....it being an explosive. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 4:27:51 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: They settled out of court for fear of a judge smacking them down. Apparently my fuze wasn't reclassified as an explosive til almost a year AFTER they confiscated it on the basis of....it being an explosive. So is it an explosive now, or not? If yes, did you have to agree to magazine storage or something? |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 4:48:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vengarr: We need to FOIA saddams glock 18. Dubya has it. If it's in the registry, we're golden Crazy |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 6:11:49 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: It was registered to EOPOTUS (if it was registered at all) and is in the Bush Presidential Library in TX, not at his house. As we learned from this 2017 thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/True-or-false--Has-the-Registry-been-opened-for-NFA-firearms-in-the-last-10-years-/17-480278/ https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/59/e3/03/the-george-w-bush-presidential.jpg If it's property of EOPOTUS it could be registered (on Form 10) and lawfully possessed by any current member/employee of EOPOTUS including the incumbent President and his entire staff Because this: They probably would release a copy of its NFA registration (maybe redacted) subject to a FOIA request. While the US military (and technically the entire US federal government) possessed it, no registration was required by law because they're completely excepted from the NFA. This exception is referred to in US Code The existence of potential post-86 Form 4 MGs but more explicitly Form 2 MGs which now make up the majority of firing examples at MG shoots could be argued as a 14th Amendment issue, since BATFE does not accommodate non-01,07,08 FFLs with the option of paying the SOT, especially not private unlicensed individuals. That 922(o) prohibits mere posession and Registration by unlicensed private individuals, therefore making them de jure Prohibited Persoms under those circumstances, is at odds with the 5th Amendment per Haynes v US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:04:38 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: Interesting. So is it an explosive now, or not? If yes, did you have to agree to magazine storage or something? ATF has no control over explosives that DOT has determined to be "Articles Pyrotechnic". ATF regularly claims otherwise, but the law doesn't give ATF the leeway to say "Yes, DOT says they are safe enough to be transported on the road butttttt.." When I called them on their bullshit, they delayed and delayed for a year until they worked out with DOT to get the fuze's classification as "Articles Pyrotechnic" revoked. So now, a fuze with .25oz of black powder requires a magazine (but since I already owned it, not an FEL as no unlawful private transfer was taking place). I had to work out contingency storage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 12:28:49 AM EST
[#24]
In the 1770s “NO CHANCE” was the rally cry of all the faggy Tories. True story.
Never-chancers, shed the shame of your Tory ancestry and embrace the spirit of men who weren’t afraid to seize freedom. OP, count me in. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 8:45:39 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: Yeah, we won that. And the fund raising turned out to be rather minimal, but it was welcome after dropping well over six figures into dealing with the ATF out of pocket. Ay caramba! That's a lot of cabbage. |
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 10:05:41 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lexington: Ay caramba! That's a lot of cabbage. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lexington: Originally Posted By Ben: Yeah, we won that. And the fund raising turned out to be rather minimal, but it was welcome after dropping well over six figures into dealing with the ATF out of pocket. Ay caramba! That's a lot of cabbage. "The process is the punishment" rings true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 12:10:37 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: ATF has no control over explosives that DOT has determined to be "Articles Pyrotechnic". ATF regularly claims otherwise, but the law doesn't give ATF the leeway to say "Yes, DOT says they are safe enough to be transported on the road butttttt.." When I called them on their bullshit, they delayed and delayed for a year until they worked out with DOT to get the fuze's classification as "Articles Pyrotechnic" revoked. So now, a fuze with .25oz of black powder requires a magazine (but since I already owned it, not an FEL as no unlawful private transfer was taking place). I had to work out contingency storage. So it sounds like you got your fuze back as you legally purchased it prior to it being reclassified from a "pyrotechnic" to an "explosive" but since it is now regulated as an explosive it has to be stored in a certified explosive magazine once you got it back? It sounds like F1 DD Grenades are still a no go utilizing a standard commercial fuze (even a blackpower based fuze) and you would have to come up with some alternative fuze that doesn't require a magazine. That may make sense why the guy with the recent approval on grog's board is having to 3D print a M228 style fuze body and I am guessing it may be a fill onsite type of fuze to get around the FEL and explosive magazine storage requirement, just like the body is a fill onsite with a non-regulated binary explosive as well to get around the FEL and magazine requirement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 12:19:16 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Thank you for the update. So it sounds like you got your fuze back as you legally purchased it prior to it being reclassified from a "pyrotechnic" to an "explosive" but since it is now regulated as an explosive it has to be stored in a certified explosive magazine once you got it back? It sounds like F1 DD Grenades are still a no go utilizing a standard commercial fuze (even a blackpower based fuze) and you would have to come up with some alternative fuze that doesn't require a magazine. That may make sense why the guy with the recent approval on grog's board is having to 3D print a M228 style fuze body and I am guessing it may be a fill onsite type of fuze to get around the FEL and explosive magazine storage requirement, just like the body is a fill onsite with a non-regulated binary explosive as well to get around the FEL and magazine requirement. I saw a grenade on r/NFA that you buy the body and file the stamp, then when it's approved they give you a binary explosive. Basically since you only mix it the day of use, there's no storage requirements. I'm not 100% sure how that works and the $400 grenade body + $200 stamp seemed like a lot of money to "try it out"
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 2:01:53 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Thank you for the update. So it sounds like you got your fuze back as you legally purchased it prior to it being reclassified from a "pyrotechnic" to an "explosive" but since it is now regulated as an explosive it has to be stored in a certified explosive magazine once you got it back? It sounds like F1 DD Grenades are still a no go utilizing a standard commercial fuze (even a blackpower based fuze) and you would have to come up with some alternative fuze that doesn't require a magazine. That may make sense why the guy with the recent approval on grog's board is having to 3D print a M228 style fuze body and I am guessing it may be a fill onsite type of fuze to get around the FEL and explosive magazine storage requirement, just like the body is a fill onsite with a non-regulated binary explosive as well to get around the FEL and magazine requirement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Originally Posted By Ben: ATF has no control over explosives that DOT has determined to be "Articles Pyrotechnic". ATF regularly claims otherwise, but the law doesn't give ATF the leeway to say "Yes, DOT says they are safe enough to be transported on the road butttttt.." When I called them on their bullshit, they delayed and delayed for a year until they worked out with DOT to get the fuze's classification as "Articles Pyrotechnic" revoked. So now, a fuze with .25oz of black powder requires a magazine (but since I already owned it, not an FEL as no unlawful private transfer was taking place). I had to work out contingency storage. Thank you for the update. So it sounds like you got your fuze back as you legally purchased it prior to it being reclassified from a "pyrotechnic" to an "explosive" but since it is now regulated as an explosive it has to be stored in a certified explosive magazine once you got it back? It sounds like F1 DD Grenades are still a no go utilizing a standard commercial fuze (even a blackpower based fuze) and you would have to come up with some alternative fuze that doesn't require a magazine. That may make sense why the guy with the recent approval on grog's board is having to 3D print a M228 style fuze body and I am guessing it may be a fill onsite type of fuze to get around the FEL and explosive magazine storage requirement, just like the body is a fill onsite with a non-regulated binary explosive as well to get around the FEL and magazine requirement. Not exactly. You don't have to be licensed to own or store regulated explosives in a magazine. The magazine just has to still meet the requirements to be in spec. So it would be illegal without an FEL to acquire a fuze, but if you made your own it is legal as long as your store it properly. How confident are you in your ability to not blow yourself up though? Grenades scare me, and I've been through courses on how to make bombs on the government's dime. Even then I don't really have the confidence or inclination to make my own fuze. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 3:31:08 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: Not exactly. You don't have to be licensed to own or store regulated explosives in a magazine. The magazine just has to still meet the requirements to be in spec. So it would be illegal without an FEL to acquire a fuze, but if you made your own it is legal as long as your store it properly. How confident are you in your ability to not blow yourself up though? Grenades scare me, and I've been through courses on how to make bombs on the government's dime. Even then I don't really have the confidence or inclination to make my own fuze. In terms of blowing myself up I don't think I would ever actually "assemble" a Form 1 grenade and say pull the pin and throw it, especially with a homemade fuze. I think guy from TX MG Ord blew himself up doing something along these lines as well a couple years back. Probably similar to your original motivation I think it would be fun to legally own "a grenade" even if it was essentially relegated to a conversation piece. I have 90 something other NFA firearms but no explosive DDs, so it would be fun to try something different. With the addition of the FEL requirement to the Form 1 a couple years back and folks getting hassled for formerly unregulated commercial fuzes I sort of just buried the idea until I read about the recent approval the other guy got (technically two approvals) which rekindled my interest in the project. Maybe it would be easier to F1 a molatov cocktail but this doesn't sound as much fun as a grenade. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 3:37:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: DoubleTaps]
[#31]
I'll pay for your first sub machine gun if it gets approved where I, as in the lowest on the totem pole, can form 1 and build my own.
I mean all the luck to you. Keep us posted! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 4:19:56 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Thanks, I was always under the impression to be in possession of regulated explosives you needed a FEL (and appropriate magazine). Sounds like you could build your own homebrew fuze and your own magazine to store it in without a FEL. I assume it may still be an issue to transport a regulated explosive fuze anywhere you could use it. In terms of blowing myself up I don't think I would ever actually "assemble" a Form 1 grenade and say pull the pin and throw it, especially with a homemade fuze. I think guy from TX MG Ord blew himself up doing something along these lines as well a couple years back. Probably similar to your original motivation I think it would be fun to legally own "a grenade" even if it was essentially relegated to a conversation piece. I have 90 something other NFA firearms but no explosive DDs, so it would be fun to try something different. With the addition of the FEL requirement to the Form 1 a couple years back and folks getting hassled for formerly unregulated commercial fuzes I sort of just buried the idea until I read about the recent approval the other guy got (technically two approvals) which rekindled my interest in the project. Maybe it would be easier to F1 a molatov cocktail but this doesn't sound as much fun as a grenade. Correct, you'd still have to comply with all the DOT rules for transporting explosives, FEL or not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 4:34:32 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jbntex: Thank you for the update. Good to know. I'm glad you prevailed. Is it correct that explosives magazines don't have to be certified or inspected... They just have to meet the ATF's minimum physical requirements? I only see something about "The licensee shall inspect magazines every 7 days." but if you're not a FEL/FEP holder then presumably there's no oversight/documentation requirement. (Maybe that differs state-to-state as well, since states can also have a say regarding magazines.) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 4:43:29 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: Thanks for explaining all that! Good to know. I'm glad you prevailed. Is it correct that explosives magazines don't have to be certified or inspected... They just have to meet the ATF's minimum physical requirements? I only see something about "The licensee shall inspect magazines every 7 days." but if you're not a FEL/FEP holder then presumably there's no oversight/documentation requirement. (Maybe that differs state-to-state as well, since states can also have a say regarding magazines.) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: Originally Posted By jbntex: Thank you for the update. Good to know. I'm glad you prevailed. Is it correct that explosives magazines don't have to be certified or inspected... They just have to meet the ATF's minimum physical requirements? I only see something about "The licensee shall inspect magazines every 7 days." but if you're not a FEL/FEP holder then presumably there's no oversight/documentation requirement. (Maybe that differs state-to-state as well, since states can also have a say regarding magazines.) I was told in writing that as a non-licensee I am not subject to inspection requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2023 4:54:00 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: I was told in writing that as a non-licensee I am not subject to inspection requirements. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 9:41:52 AM EST
[#36]
If you succeed i'll send 1k bones your way.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2023 10:50:08 AM EST
[#37]
I will pay $500 towards first round legal fees. You can IM me for details, or call me (i think you may have my number from Arizona APC correspondence).
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2023 12:54:54 AM EST
[#38]
@Ben , would it make sense to join up with someone else who is already pursuing this to soften the blow of the punishment of the process? Allegedly, some guy named Jake in Wyoming is suing ATF for not approving Form 1 for MG. That's my understanding of it, which could be wrong. It's worth a look at least.
 ?? BIG Lawsuit To Remove The NFA |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2023 1:05:46 AM EST
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2023 8:50:24 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By evlblkwpnz: @Ben , would it make sense to join up with someone else who is already pursuing this to soften the blow of the punishment of the process? Allegedly, some guy named Jake in Wyoming is suing ATF for not approving Form 1 for MG. That's my understanding of it, which could be wrong. It's worth a look at least.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gXenAzpxkWow While I agree with the content of the video, the guy is a total dbag waving that paddle around like a roided up frat boy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2023 9:12:01 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By evlblkwpnz: @Ben , would it make sense to join up with someone else who is already pursuing this to soften the blow of the punishment of the process? Allegedly, some guy named Jake in Wyoming is suing ATF for not approving Form 1 for MG. That's my understanding of it, which could be wrong. It's worth a look at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gXenAzpxkI'm concerned about the idea of teaming up with someone who filed suit without an attorney. |
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2023 9:28:08 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: I'm concerned about the idea of teaming up with someone who filed suit without an attorney. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz: @Ben , would it make sense to join up with someone else who is already pursuing this to soften the blow of the punishment of the process? Allegedly, some guy named Jake in Wyoming is suing ATF for not approving Form 1 for MG. That's my understanding of it, which could be wrong. It's worth a look at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gXenAzpxkI'm concerned about the idea of teaming up with someone who filed suit without an attorney. Your concern is justified based on the typical results of such a lawsuit. Pro se litigants have an abysmally low chance to get a ruling in their favor compared to counsel. It's something like 25% of the average versus hiring legal representation. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2023 10:01:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: hoodfu]
[#43]
I used to be concerned that if we had a lot more machine guns in civilian hands, we'd see more stolen and we'd see the near zero usage by criminals go up. All that has changed now that machine guns are 15 cents of 3D printed plastic for both handguns and ar-15s. Machine guns being found with criminals is now reaching common place, so in my mind the hesitation isn't justified anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2023 9:55:57 PM EST
[#44]
Of anyone I've ever met in my life, if there was someone I had to pick that could actually make such a thing happen....it'd be Ben.
Good luck bro. I don't have much to give, but if you wind up taking donations to fight that fight, I'll give what I can. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2023 8:39:10 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MRTEX: If you succeed i'll send 1k bones your way. That's about 5 ATF agents. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/13/2023 12:28:13 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lexington: That's about 5 ATF agents. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lexington: Originally Posted By MRTEX: If you succeed i'll send 1k bones your way. That's about 5 ATF agents. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2023 11:55:21 AM EST
[#47]
Another new machine gun masturbation thread.
~37 years, nothing has changed except for more Case Law against new machine guns. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2023 12:30:05 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RenegadeX: Another new machine gun masturbation thread. ~37 years, nothing has changed except for more Case Law against new machine guns. So you're confident? You're willing to give me what odds then? How many dollars against a dollar from me? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2023 12:40:28 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: So you're confident? You're willing to give me what odds then? How many dollars against a dollar from me? I’m on your side, but I went back and reread your OP. Strictly as a bet, your proposition is only winnable by you, because there’s no time limit on the conditions. Either you win, or the process remains open. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/20/2023 12:59:32 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ben: There are. I've seen them. If you’re interested in PM’ing me on this, I’m looking for examples of case law that allowed this. I currently have an active Federal case where the US is trying to destroy a MG I own that was stolen and then went into forfeiture. I filed paperwork that referenced Bruen as well as case law where Amnesty registration was allowed decades after the 1968 30-day Amnesty. I really just wanted to get my stuff back, but since I was forced by the government into that position, I asked for an unconstitutional judgement & repeal of § 922(o) and § 5861 while I was at it. |
|
|
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.
