User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:44:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry.. Slow 13er here. Does this mean I can order a rifle/pistol from any FFL in the US without transferring it to a local FFL? No. The selling dealer still needs to do the 4473, NICS, etc. What it does say is that pistols are now treated like long guns when purchased - you don't have to be a resident of the state in which you purchase it. Currently you can go to a neighboring state and purchase a long gun and take it home. If you do that with a pistol, you can't take it with you - it needs to be shipped first to an FFL in the purchaser's state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:44:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before morons start writing ATF inquiring if it is ok to ship as outlined in the lawsuit. Watch it go under like the SiG Brace issue. It doesn't work that way, none of this works that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:44:35 PM EDT
[#3]
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:46:27 PM EDT
[#4]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:46:38 PM EDT
[#5]
If it isn't appealed successfully, that means we can buy hand gonnes across state lines?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:46:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. It would mean if I go to Kittery and want to buy a handgun, they wouldn't have to drive it over state lines and do the transfer in NH. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry.. Slow 13er here. Does this mean I can order a rifle/pistol from any FFL in the US without transferring it to a local FFL? No. It would mean if I go to Kittery and want to buy a handgun, they wouldn't have to drive it over state lines and do the transfer in NH. No. This court has jurisdiction over the Northern District of Texas only. Courts in the first circuit (e.g. New Hampshire) are not compelled to follow this decision. Even other courts in Texas can ignore it. So if you live in Austin, this decision does nothing for you immediately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:47:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet If you can find a dealer to sell it to you. I have the suspicion local ATF agents are burning up the phones right now "strongly suggesting" that dealers stick to the old rules until an appeals court rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:48:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can find a dealer to sell it to you. I have the suspicion local ATF agents are burning up the phones right now "strongly suggesting" that dealers stick to the old rules until an appeals court rules. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet If you can find a dealer to sell it to you. I have the suspicion local ATF agents are burning up the phones right now "strongly suggesting" that dealers stick to the old rules until an appeals court rules. No. This case was decided by a Northen District of Texas court, not the District of Kansas. Only applies there: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:49:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate trying to read legal crap. This post pursuant to § 9990(b)(3)(6-2)(e=MC2) and 2732 C.F.R.D.G. § 47248.92349(a)(B00Bi3s) for the aforementioned motion by the pursuant body of the decree of the relevance to the gonad juice of the §8762387(a)(b)(Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra) for the §(68763.3298732.363) and §(192.168.152.44) and §(867-5309). Every fucking law ever written should have a sentence at the top that says "This basically says blah blah blah" What happens when the "summary" sentence doesn't jive with the law? Who writes the summary? The summary would serve to obfuscate the truth even further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:49:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet Seems like it, as long as it is legal for you to possess the firearm in your home state. Now, I wouldn't try that shit if I were in St. Louis and lived in Crook County Illinois. Or be a Kalifornistinian, in Nevada or Arizona and buy a gun there. You're not bringing that shit back legally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:49:20 PM EDT
[#11]
That should help your case. Using historical context of firearm ownership was a great move.
I don't think the ban on 18-20 yr old buying handguns from an FFL will last forever either. However I do believe the ban on felons and mentally ill will never fall by court decisions since it is a historical ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:50:04 PM EDT
[#12]
awesome..Nolo, does this help on your suit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:50:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:51:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for the TL;DR crowd: FFL dealer sues because he can't transfer a handgun direct to residents of District of Columbia who can legally posses a gun in DC. "Because the Hansons could not immediately take possession, they declined to complete the transaction with Mance." So dealer lost business and sues for relief from the Federal Handgun Transfer Ban. "Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) areUNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately." The beauty of this is that the case started in Fall of 2014 and already has findings less than 6 months later. Oh that we could only hope that the Trust cases are as fast and successful. 
Nolo, thanks for your work keeping us up to date on all things 2A legal. The reason it was decided so quickly is that no discovery or trial took place. The Gov't sought to have the case dismissed at the outset. Plaintiff basically said "fuck you, not only are you wrong to seek dismissal, but we (the plaintiffs) are right on the law and want judgment right now without any discovery because there is no real factual issue in dispute." Court said, "Plaintiff is correct. Plaintiff wins." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:51:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
awesome..Nolo, does this help on your suit? I believe it does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:52:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. This court has jurisdiction over the Northern District of Texas only. Courts in the first circuit (e.g. New Hampshire) are not compelled to follow this decision. Even other courts in Texas can ignore it. So if you live in Austin, this decision does nothing for you immediately. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry.. Slow 13er here. Does this mean I can order a rifle/pistol from any FFL in the US without transferring it to a local FFL? No. It would mean if I go to Kittery and want to buy a handgun, they wouldn't have to drive it over state lines and do the transfer in NH. No. This court has jurisdiction over the Northern District of Texas only. Courts in the first circuit (e.g. New Hampshire) are not compelled to follow this decision. Even other courts in Texas can ignore it. So if you live in Austin, this decision does nothing for you immediately. I get that. I was just making an example that would have local relevance to both he and I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:53:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Nice!
I am headed to Colorado for a while and will likely purchase a handgun while I am there. This is good! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:54:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe it does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
awesome..Nolo, does this help on your suit? I believe it does. If these same lines of thought apply, it most definitely does- "items specifically protected by the Constitution can be restricted only by evidence, and not just asserted" & "the government cannot rely on speculation or conjecture to support government interest" Assertion, speculation & conjecture... That's all they've got. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:55:34 PM EDT
[#19]
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:56:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe it does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
awesome..Nolo, does this help on your suit? I believe it does. This judge used strict scrutiny, so absolutely it does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:56:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. If they are smart, they leave it alone. So i'm guessing an appeal is coming next 
Where would the appeal go next? Diana Ross and the SUPREMES?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:57:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. If it stands in that district it will be appealed in another district before long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:57:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. If they do that, lawsuits in other districts are sure to follow. Might as well stop it in its tracks here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:57:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate trying to read legal crap. This post pursuant to § 9990(b)(3)(6-2)(e=MC2) and 2732 C.F.R.D.G. § 47248.92349(a)(B00Bi3s) for the aforementioned motion by the pursuant body of the decree of the relevance to the gonad juice of the §8762387(a)(b)(Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra) for the §(68763.3298732.363) and §(192.168.152.44) and §(867-5309). Every fucking law ever written should have a sentence at the top that says "This basically says blah blah blah" Shaka and the walls fell....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:58:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate trying to read legal crap. This post pursuant to § 9990(b)(3)(6-2)(e=MC2) and 2732 C.F.R.D.G. § 47248.92349(a)(B00Bi3s) for the aforementioned motion by the pursuant body of the decree of the relevance to the gonad juice of the §8762387(a)(b)(Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra) for the §(68763.3298732.363) and §(192.168.152.44) and §(867-5309). Every fucking law ever written should have a sentence at the top that says "This basically says blah blah blah" Agreed. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:58:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are smart, they leave it alone. So i'm guessing an appeal is coming next
Where would the appeal go next? Diana Ross and the SUPREMES? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. If they are smart, they leave it alone. So i'm guessing an appeal is coming next
Where would the appeal go next? Diana Ross and the SUPREMES? Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals -- see the map I posted above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:59:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happens when the "summary" sentence doesn't jive with the law? Who writes the summary? The summary would serve to obfuscate the truth even further. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hate trying to read legal crap. This post pursuant to § 9990(b)(3)(6-2)(e=MC2) and 2732 C.F.R.D.G. § 47248.92349(a)(B00Bi3s) for the aforementioned motion by the pursuant body of the decree of the relevance to the gonad juice of the §8762387(a)(b)(Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra) for the §(68763.3298732.363) and §(192.168.152.44) and §(867-5309). Every fucking law ever written should have a sentence at the top that says "This basically says blah blah blah" What happens when the "summary" sentence doesn't jive with the law? Who writes the summary? The summary would serve to obfuscate the truth even further. I'm not saying the summary sentence IS the law. I understand perfectly that all the very specific wording and references are extremely important. The summary sentence is just a useful quick thing. Not able to be referenced or used as the actual law in the case. But something so the layman does not have to read it 5 times and still not actually understand what it says. Like: Quoted:
tl;dr version. Court applied strict scrutiny to infringements upon the Second Amendment. FFL's can transfer handguns to out-of-state residents so long as they comply with the other rules (in person meeting, etc.) which apply to rifles and shotguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:59:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are smart, they leave it alone. So i'm guessing an appeal is coming next Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. If they are smart, they leave it alone. So i'm guessing an appeal is coming next Good point. Where would the appeal go next? Diana Ross and the SUPREMES? Fifth Circuit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:00:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This was not my case. It was one of Gura's Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nice work, Nolo!  This was not my case. It was one of Gura's Have a beer with Gura for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:04:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Good deal!
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:06:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:07:59 PM EDT
[#32]
So this has something to due with the fact that when I was a student at school in Colorado, I still had to fly back to Massachusetts to purchase a stripped lower, because I couldn't buy handguns or lowers in CO? Neat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:11:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for the TL;DR crowd: FFL dealer sues because he can't transfer a handgun direct to residents of District of Columbia who can legally posses a gun in DC. "Because the Hansons could not immediately take possession, they declined to complete the transaction with Mance." So dealer lost business and sues for relief from the Federal Handgun Transfer Ban. "Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) areUNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately." The beauty of this is that the case started in Fall of 2014 and already has findings less than 6 months later. Oh that we could only hope that the Trust cases are as fast and successful.
Nolo, thanks for your work keeping us up to date on all things 2A legal. holy shit....the court didn't just find the law unconstitutional, they found it unconstitutional when measured by every possible standard. In other words, it's not a technical win, but a "this law doesn't have any ground to stand on" win. The court put their entire foot up Holder/BATFE's ass and broke it off at the knee. 2nd Amendment - strict scrutiny - FAILED - intermediate scrutiny - FAILED 5th Amenment - due process clause - FAILED The Defendants cited a Fifth Circuit case (Lane) as reasons why the Hanson's didn't have standing, and the court found that Lane instead proved that Mance did have standing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:12:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Nolo!
I am your biggest fan! 
You are awesome sauce... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:13:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hate trying to read legal crap. This post pursuant to § 9990(b)(3)(6-2)(e=MC2) and 2732 C.F.R.D.G. § 47248.92349(a)(B00Bi3s) for the aforementioned motion by the pursuant body of the decree of the relevance to the gonad juice of the §8762387(a)(b)(Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra) for the §(68763.3298732.363) and §(192.168.152.44) and §(867-5309). Every fucking law ever written should have a sentence at the top that says "This basically says blah blah blah" When the walls fell! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:14:10 PM EDT
[#36]
The important part is the Judge applied strict scrutiny. If we can get SCOTUS to accept this standard, it's game over for the gun grabbers on pretty much everything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:15:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
holy shit....the court didn't just find the law unconstitutional, they found if unconstitutional when measured by every possible standard. In other words, it's not a technical win, but a "this law doesn't have any ground to stand on" win. The court put their entire foot up Holder/BATFE's ass and broke it off at the knee. 2nd Amendment - strict scrutiny - FAILED - intermediate scrutiny - FAILED 5th Amenment - due process clause - FAILED The Defendants cited a Fifth Circuit case (Lane) as reasons why the Hanson's didn't have standing, and the court found that Lane instead proved that Mance did have standing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
for the TL;DR crowd: FFL dealer sues because he can't transfer a handgun direct to residents of District of Columbia who can legally posses a gun in DC. "Because the Hansons could not immediately take possession, they declined to complete the transaction with Mance." So dealer lost business and sues for relief from the Federal Handgun Transfer Ban. "Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) areUNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately." The beauty of this is that the case started in Fall of 2014 and already has findings less than 6 months later. Oh that we could only hope that the Trust cases are as fast and successful.
Nolo, thanks for your work keeping us up to date on all things 2A legal. holy shit....the court didn't just find the law unconstitutional, they found if unconstitutional when measured by every possible standard. In other words, it's not a technical win, but a "this law doesn't have any ground to stand on" win. The court put their entire foot up Holder/BATFE's ass and broke it off at the knee. 2nd Amendment - strict scrutiny - FAILED - intermediate scrutiny - FAILED 5th Amenment - due process clause - FAILED The Defendants cited a Fifth Circuit case (Lane) as reasons why the Hanson's didn't have standing, and the court found that Lane instead proved that Mance did have standing. Since FDR's squad of ass tumors found that not engaging in commerce is, in fact, engaging in commerce, it only seems reasonable that the Plaintiff has standing. In fact, I'd argue that any of us would have standing in any case with even a tangential relationship to commerce, even if we're not engaged in that commerce, due to the fact that our non-engagement is de facto egagement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:16:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So this has something to due with the fact that when I was a student at school in Colorado, I still had to fly back to Massachusetts to purchase a stripped lower, because I couldn't buy handguns or lowers in CO? Neat. You should try to get your money back. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:18:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet How's that? If you have to wait for NICS to clear it, during the background check, it may not be instantaneous. Sometimes, you get "delayed" response. Unless you can buy it now with an out of state Weapons Permit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:20:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nolo! I am your biggest fan! You are awesome sauce... As Nolo pointed out earlier, this is Gura's case. Nolo just provided a link and information on the case. It's really good to see this ruling. I hope if it gets appealed the 5th circuit upholds and demands strict scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:22:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you live in a ban state that dictates which handguns you can/can't buy, this looks like a solution to that problem - provided you're willing to do a bit of travel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:26:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you live in a ban state that dictates which handguns you can/can't buy, this looks like a solution to that problem - provided you're willing to do a bit of travel. Usually those states have an import ban on those guns and require registration, in that case you wouldn't be able to legally possess it and I bet most FFL's won't sell to you. It's a nice thought though and this ruling will certainly help arguments against banning the sale and import of guns banned by an arbitrary list, like CA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:27:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmmm...How does that apply to the "comply with the laws of the other state" when the laws are something like Maryland's fingerprints, etc. I'm guessing it will stay, but it will still make things interesting. Assuming it stands. ETA: Well well well - looks like that is void as well, as it's contained in the the articles voided. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: tl;dr version. Court applied strict scrutiny to infringements upon the Second Amendment. FFL's can transfer handguns to out-of-state residents so long as they comply with the other rules (in person meeting, etc.) which apply to rifles and shotguns. Hmmm...How does that apply to the "comply with the laws of the other state" when the laws are something like Maryland's fingerprints, etc. I'm guessing it will stay, but it will still make things interesting. Assuming it stands. ETA: Well well well - looks like that is void as well, as it's contained in the the articles voided. The Court just means "otherwise lawful." Only the federal ban on handgun sales to non-residents was at issue. Still must comply with state laws until those are challenged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:32:07 PM EDT
[#44]
OST...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:32:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Nice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:37:19 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you live in a ban state that dictates which handguns you can/can't buy, this looks like a solution to that problem - provided you're willing to do a bit of travel. Yep, only instate FFL's are restricted on what they can sell in MA, a quick trip to RI will solve that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:37:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:39:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet But why? Go to any gun shop on the MO side, ask if you can take a number, wait 25 minutes, and then pay extra. Or experience the same thing at Bass Pro. Same thing, really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:45:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Usually those states have an import ban on those guns and require registration, in that case you wouldn't be able to legally possess it and I bet most FFL's won't sell to you. It's a nice thought though and this ruling will certainly help arguments against banning the sale and import of guns banned by an arbitrary list, like CA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you live in a ban state that dictates which handguns you can/can't buy, this looks like a solution to that problem - provided you're willing to do a bit of travel. Usually those states have an import ban on those guns and require registration, in that case you wouldn't be able to legally possess it and I bet most FFL's won't sell to you. It's a nice thought though and this ruling will certainly help arguments against banning the sale and import of guns banned by an arbitrary list, like CA. Not sure about an import ban in CA - you just can't have a FFL transfer one to you. People are still allowed to own off roster guns and PPT them. I received an off-roster handgun via SSE when it was possible. When moving into the state with guns/etc you file paperwork to register them, but you don't have to surrender off roster handguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:48:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. This case was decided by a Northen District of Texas court, not the District of Kansas. Only applies there: http://www.fedbar.org/Image-Library/Public/Map-of-US-District-Courts-2000px.png Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet If you can find a dealer to sell it to you. I have the suspicion local ATF agents are burning up the phones right now "strongly suggesting" that dealers stick to the old rules until an appeals court rules. No. This case was decided by a Northen District of Texas court, not the District of Kansas. Only applies there: http://www.fedbar.org/Image-Library/Public/Map-of-US-District-Courts-2000px.png But I could in theory order from an individual in the subject district and get direct delivery to my home address, no? |
|
|
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.
