User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
CT, USA
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 2:14:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
Nolo... Since the ATF never requires that an owner in anyway certify that an approved machine gun has actually been made into a machine gun. Obviously one could surmise that if an approved build was later sold and transferred as a machine gun that it was most likely one, but at the end of the day, how exactly can the ATF verify that any approved machine gun was actual built into a machine gun prior to the 1986 cut off? Not sure if that line of reasoning plays into your arguments somewhere but the thought occurred to me after reading your response to their response to your request  .
What also struck me about your response is I can see them now going back and revoking every approved machine gun that was approved after May 12,1986 as they'd have to factor in mailing times from the time the form was approved, packaged and mailed to the person who submitted for approval and then time to manufacture. Doing so would at least allow them to say "We just fixed that!" ...The fallout over at Subguns would be epic and I'd be curious to know if the ATF would be on the hook for any lost values in guns. Wes They can't. They can hardly tell you exactly how many mgs there are since there are so many holes and errors in the registry. If they did revoke them, my guess is they would have to rely on owners to turn them in. I bet there are quite a few people who have mgs and the only record of the approved form 1 or 4 is their own personal copy. Also the backlash from all the rich and powerful who have post 86 mgs too. I'd like to see that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 2:22:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
They can't. They can hardly tell you exactly how many mgs there are since there are so many holes and errors in the registry. If they did revoke them, my guess is they would have to rely on owners to turn them in. I bet there are quite a few people who have mgs and the only record of the approved form 1 or 4 is their own personal copy. Also the backlash from all the rich and powerful who have post 86 mgs too. I'd like to see that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Nolo... Since the ATF never requires that an owner in anyway certify that an approved machine gun has actually been made into a machine gun. Obviously one could surmise that if an approved build was later sold and transferred as a machine gun that it was most likely one, but at the end of the day, how exactly can the ATF verify that any approved machine gun was actual built into a machine gun prior to the 1986 cut off? Not sure if that line of reasoning plays into your arguments somewhere but the thought occurred to me after reading your response to their response to your request .
What also struck me about your response is I can see them now going back and revoking every approved machine gun that was approved after May 12,1986 as they'd have to factor in mailing times from the time the form was approved, packaged and mailed to the person who submitted for approval and then time to manufacture. Doing so would at least allow them to say "We just fixed that!" ...The fallout over at Subguns would be epic and I'd be curious to know if the ATF would be on the hook for any lost values in guns. Wes They can't. They can hardly tell you exactly how many mgs there are since there are so many holes and errors in the registry. If they did revoke them, my guess is they would have to rely on owners to turn them in. I bet there are quite a few people who have mgs and the only record of the approved form 1 or 4 is their own personal copy. Also the backlash from all the rich and powerful who have post 86 mgs too. I'd like to see that. How much is a post 86 (but the application date is before May 19, 1986) machine gun worth if BATFE changes their minds and starts retroactively disapproving the stamps when you try to transfer one? A $25k transferable isn't worth much if it is no longer transferable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 3:02:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: limaxray]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
Nolo... Since the ATF never requires that an owner in anyway certify that an approved machine gun has actually been made into a machine gun. Obviously one could surmise that if an approved build was later sold and transferred as a machine gun that it was most likely one, but at the end of the day, how exactly can the ATF verify that any approved machine gun was actual built into a machine gun prior to the 1986 cut off? Not sure if that line of reasoning plays into your arguments somewhere but the thought occurred to me after reading your response to their response to your request .
What also struck me about your response is I can see them now going back and revoking every approved machine gun that was approved after May 12,1986 as they'd have to factor in mailing times from the time the form was approved, packaged and mailed to the person who submitted for approval and then time to manufacture. Doing so would at least allow them to say "We just fixed that!" ...The fallout over at Subguns would be epic and I'd be curious to know if the ATF would be on the hook for any lost values in guns. Wes Would they need to factor in manufacturing time? I would think it legally becomes an MG when the form's approved, not when you put mill to metal. Sort of like the receiver's the legal firearm, no matter if it's barreled or not. Not that it matters much, we're talking about a week. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 3:16:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: rlltd42]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
They can't. They can hardly tell you exactly how many mgs there are since there are so many holes and errors in the registry. If they did revoke them, my guess is they would have to rely on owners to turn them in. I bet there are quite a few people who have mgs and the only record of the approved form 1 or 4 is their own personal copy. Also the backlash from all the rich and powerful who have post 86 mgs too. I'd like to see that. How many of those MGs have been sold multiple times over the years? I have the form 4 for my MG, that's the extent of the information I have about its origins…I know nothing about the owners/stamp dates prior to the guy I bought it from. Any retroactive revocation would have to originate from the ATF side and their (rumor has it) incomplete/inaccurate records. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 3:40:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Wangstang]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By limaxray:
Would they need to factor in manufacturing time? I would think it legally becomes an MG when the form's approved, not when you put mill to metal. Sort of like the receiver's the legal firearm, no matter if it's barreled or not. Not that it matters much, we're talking about a week. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By limaxray:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Nolo... Since the ATF never requires that an owner in anyway certify that an approved machine gun has actually been made into a machine gun. Obviously one could surmise that if an approved build was later sold and transferred as a machine gun that it was most likely one, but at the end of the day, how exactly can the ATF verify that any approved machine gun was actual built into a machine gun prior to the 1986 cut off? Not sure if that line of reasoning plays into your arguments somewhere but the thought occurred to me after reading your response to their response to your request .
What also struck me about your response is I can see them now going back and revoking every approved machine gun that was approved after May 12,1986 as they'd have to factor in mailing times from the time the form was approved, packaged and mailed to the person who submitted for approval and then time to manufacture. Doing so would at least allow them to say "We just fixed that!" ...The fallout over at Subguns would be epic and I'd be curious to know if the ATF would be on the hook for any lost values in guns. Wes Would they need to factor in manufacturing time? I would think it legally becomes an MG when the form's approved, not when you put mill to metal. Sort of like the receiver's the legal firearm, no matter if it's barreled or not. Not that it matters much, we're talking about a week. The law said that the gun had to be made by the May 19th, 1986 date, so yes, even if the form was approved, you'd have to factor in time to receive the letter/approved form and then manufacture. There were not emails to let you know as soon as it was approved or phone calls for each approval back in 1986, so the only way you'd know is after the agent signed off, packaged it...it went to a distribution location, then to the post office(Two days to get to the post office), then mail (at best 3 days to arrive for you get it and open it at the end of the day), now we are into day 6 at best to start manufacturing. Mailing took longer than 3 days in most cases though. Wes |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 3:47:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rlltd42:
How many of those MGs have been sold multiple times over the years? I have the form 4 for my MG, that's the extent of the information I have about its origins…I know nothing about the owners/stamp dates prior to the guy I bought it from. Any retroactive revocation would have to originate from the ATF side and their (rumor has it) incomplete/inaccurate records. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rlltd42:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
They can't. They can hardly tell you exactly how many mgs there are since there are so many holes and errors in the registry. If they did revoke them, my guess is they would have to rely on owners to turn them in. I bet there are quite a few people who have mgs and the only record of the approved form 1 or 4 is their own personal copy. Also the backlash from all the rich and powerful who have post 86 mgs too. I'd like to see that. How many of those MGs have been sold multiple times over the years? I have the form 4 for my MG, that's the extent of the information I have about its origins…I know nothing about the owners/stamp dates prior to the guy I bought it from. Any retroactive revocation would have to originate from the ATF side and their (rumor has it) incomplete/inaccurate records. I don't know. I'm just speculating based off info from this thread. I would think the more recent the transfer the better chance they have a record of it. An original owner from the 60s not so much. Or how many people have moved and didn't send an update letter. I bet most don't. Im anxious to see how many other mgs were approved after Hughes and who they were for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 6:19:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
I'd be curious to know if the ATF would be on the hook for any lost values in guns. Of course they wouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 6:37:32 PM EDT
[#8]
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 6:38:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 6:46:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AppealPlay:
The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 6:50:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. I don't know. It is an interesting point. If there are holes in the NFA registry (which apparently everyone agrees there are) there might be legal MGs that the ATF has no idea about unless they are transferred. I wonder what ATF's procedure is when a transfer comes in for a gun they don't have a record of. Does ATF actually check every form they come across against the registry? If they just approve the transfer of a gun not in their registry as a matter of procedure I imagine it is possible there are fraudulent MGs floating around. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 6:52:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. To further the point that the system is obsolete. What's to stop someone from making a full auto with matching counterfeit paperwork? Is there a way for a police officer to check if it's vaild? Say at the range, someone calls the police for automatic gunfire, you produce the fake required paperwork, what more can the officer do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 7:11:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Marlboroman79:
To further the point that the system is obsolete. What's to stop someone from making a full auto with matching counterfeit paperwork? Is there a way for a police officer to check if it's vaild? Say at the range, someone calls the police for automatic gunfire, you produce the fake required paperwork, what more can the officer do? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Marlboroman79:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. To further the point that the system is obsolete. What's to stop someone from making a full auto with matching counterfeit paperwork? Is there a way for a police officer to check if it's vaild? Say at the range, someone calls the police for automatic gunfire, you produce the fake required paperwork, what more can the officer do? Didn't some guy in AK have a sten with a stamp that the ATF couldn't verify. The ATF thought the stamp was real but could've find the gun in the registry. I believe they tried to prosecute him and he surrendered the gun to have them drop the charges. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 8:52:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Didn't some guy in AK have a sten with a stamp that the ATF couldn't verify. The ATF thought the stamp was real but could've find the gun in the registry. I believe they tried to prosecute him and he surrendered the gun to have them drop the charges. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Originally Posted By Marlboroman79:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. To further the point that the system is obsolete. What's to stop someone from making a full auto with matching counterfeit paperwork? Is there a way for a police officer to check if it's vaild? Say at the range, someone calls the police for automatic gunfire, you produce the fake required paperwork, what more can the officer do? Didn't some guy in AK have a sten with a stamp that the ATF couldn't verify. The ATF thought the stamp was real but could've find the gun in the registry. I believe they tried to prosecute him and he surrendered the gun to have them drop the charges. Never heard of that one, but I'd be pissed if I paid for a mg and had to surrender it due to atfs mistake. I would have gone to court |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/7/2016 9:41:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Villafuego]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. That is a bit of an overstatement.....at best! Most of the issues arise with weapons that have not changed hands in many years.......the stuff registered post-WW2 and up till the amnesty. The forms were substantially different, everything was on index cards/etc....... The same type of gun may have been listed 10 different ways......with 10 different serial numbers. Try to do a Form 5 or 4 on an MP-40 that just showed up in a deceased vets estate.....you may put the proper model number, and actual serial number on your F5/4, but if the Vet, in the 40's, on the original IRS/ATT registration listed the model as "Nazi Burp Gun", and used the "AYF-41" manufacturers code as the serial number, then your transfer is gonna run into issues.....and to most folks make it look like the registry is a total clusterfuck...... People have attempted to sell guns with fraudulent paperwork/stamps in the past.......and they get caught. There are numerous instances where pre-may samples have been transferred (erroneously) to individuals......usually due to the lack of transfer restrictions being noted on the F3/4, but that just doesn't happen anymore.....A fellow tried to sell an Interarms imported IMI Uzi as transferrable a few years ago.....turned out to be a pre-may sample and I'm not sure how that ended up......I don't know if it was forfeited, or the individual was allowed to keep it , but with restrictions on further transfers... In order to have a F1 for an MG in hand, and the weapon manufactured prior to the May cutoff, the paperwork would have had to be submitted at least 4-6 months prior to the Hughes Ammendment/FOPA even coming up for a vote..... You'll have a tough time finding an individual F1 submitted/approved post-may that hasn't already been caught. If the ATF allowed the Stemple M-60 folks to keep their guns (but limit future transfers to Post-may status), and allow F1's that were "in the pipeline" prior to the cutoff, you could almost say they threw a few gun owners "a bone" they didn't have to..... Is what some see as "improper enforcement" going to be sufficient justification to overturn the law however ???? |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 1:55:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Nolo: I thought the Watson reply brief was outstanding. Hypothetically what would an ultimate decision look like if the Appeals court want to push the issue up rather than attempting to decide on, potentially, one or more sweeping issues?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 3:46:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. The few cases I have heard about they requested and made copies of the transferors paperwork as well. So you might get asked for the form 4 that put it in your possession. Either way the risk reward is pretty bad. I don't know anyone that would risk a felony for 25 grand. These lawsuits are the best fightin we've done in a while and I hope they pay off for us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 5:54:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Excellent replies Nolo. Thank you once again.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 6:10:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 10mm_:
Did we win yet? Two weeks |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 6:11:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
The few cases I have heard about they requested and made copies of the transferors paperwork as well. So you might get asked for the form 4 that put it in your possession. Either way the risk reward is pretty bad. I don't know anyone that would risk a felony for 25 grand. These lawsuits are the best fightin we've done in a while and I hope they pay off for us. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
Originally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By rebelcovehunter:
So what is to stop someone from transferring a current non registered MG (but essentially pass it off as having been registered) via form 4 to a particular persons trust? It would in essence add it to the registry now since they cannot prove that it wasn't on the registry before it was closed. The fear of a felony conviction and prison time most likely. The point I'm trying to make though is that the gov has absolutely no clue what is or is not on the registry, so I wonder how many newer MGs have been done that way. The few cases I have heard about they requested and made copies of the transferors paperwork as well. So you might get asked for the form 4 that put it in your possession. Either way the risk reward is pretty bad. I don't know anyone that would risk a felony for 25 grand. These lawsuits are the best fightin we've done in a while and I hope they pay off for us. People do armed robbery for 50 bucks every day. People do stupid shit for small amounts. They'll do nutso stuff for 25k. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 7:41:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JSmithXYY:
Two weeks Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JSmithXYY:
Originally Posted By 10mm_:
Did we win yet? Two weeks That's just arguments. Then we have to wait for the decision, I don't know how long but I'd guess a few months. Then, win or lose it gets appealed up the chain. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:06:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By captainpooby:
Then, win or lose it gets appealed up the chain. This part kills me. Not going to say this makes this step pointless, but wtf?!?! Is there a good reason they don't just skip to the chase, or are they creating jobs or something with these bs hoops 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:12:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By oetkbyetdia: This part kills me. Not going to say this makes this step pointless, but wtf?!?! Is there a good reason they don't just skip to the chase, or are they creating jobs or something with these bs hoops http://www.audizine.com/forum/images/smilies/banghead.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By oetkbyetdia: Originally Posted By captainpooby: Then, win or lose it gets appealed up the chain. This part kills me. Not going to say this makes this step pointless, but wtf?!?! Is there a good reason they don't just skip to the chase, or are they creating jobs or something with these bs hoops http://www.audizine.com/forum/images/smilies/banghead.gif because there is protocol and it is best to exhaust all legal means possible in an effort to do it right. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:14:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By oetkbyetdia:
This part kills me. Not going to say this makes this step pointless, but wtf?!?! Is there a good reason they don't just skip to the chase, or are they creating jobs or something with these bs hoops http://www.audizine.com/forum/images/smilies/banghead.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By oetkbyetdia:
Originally Posted By captainpooby:
Then, win or lose it gets appealed up the chain. This part kills me. Not going to say this makes this step pointless, but wtf?!?! Is there a good reason they don't just skip to the chase, or are they creating jobs or something with these bs hoops http://www.audizine.com/forum/images/smilies/banghead.gif It's the judicial process. Can't have everything go straight to the SC. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:18:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Banditman:
because there is protocol and it is best to exhaust all legal means possible in an effort to do it right. Most definitely an exhausting protocol and reminds me of the story about that Sisyphus dude on the hill with the rock 
Or, is this just an effort to exhaust the plaintiffs legal means? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:23:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Those that thought they were IBTL are very likely going to get an expensive lesson. I still regret not getting a pix of the vein bulging out on the head of a subgun owner at the Dallas Market Hall gun show when my Belorussian friend was talking loudly that the MP40's for sale for $24K were junk compared to the NIB box ones that were available in Belarus for $200. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:26:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wganz:
I still regret not getting a pix of the vein bulging out on the head of a subgun owner at the Dallas Market Hall gun show when my Belorussian friend was talking loudly that the MP40's for sale for $24K were junk compared to the NIB box ones that were available in Belarus for $200. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wganz:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Those that thought they were IBTL are very likely going to get an expensive lesson. I still regret not getting a pix of the vein bulging out on the head of a subgun owner at the Dallas Market Hall gun show when my Belorussian friend was talking loudly that the MP40's for sale for $24K were junk compared to the NIB box ones that were available in Belarus for $200. You can buy MGs in Belarus? I'll just add that to the list of potential AppealPlay homelands... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 9:37:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AppealPlay:
You can buy MGs in Belarus? I'll just add that to the list of potential AppealPlay homelands... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AppealPlay:
Originally Posted By wganz:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Those that thought they were IBTL are very likely going to get an expensive lesson. I still regret not getting a pix of the vein bulging out on the head of a subgun owner at the Dallas Market Hall gun show when my Belorussian friend was talking loudly that the MP40's for sale for $24K were junk compared to the NIB box ones that were available in Belarus for $200. You can buy MGs in Belarus? I'll just add that to the list of potential AppealPlay homelands... Belize is closer and has better weather. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:07:40 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:24:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Hollis - Kolbe 28j Letter Supplemental Authority filed tonight. Hopefully the courts will apply SS to your case as they would any other Constitutional right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:29:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Some time back it was said that if strict scrutiny could be invoked that this issue would be a slam dunk for our side. I cannot think of anything else besides an act of Devine Providence that Kolbe got dropped into our laps just as these cases were preparing to be heard.
I wonder what the wailing and gnashing of teeth I the ATF and DOJ has sounded like since Friday? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:40:28 PM EDT
[#32]
HI guys
I am glad you enjoyed the reply brief. So as Nolo said we will be having oral arguments the first week of April in both New Orleans and Philly. I would like to gauge the interest in having a dinner after both arguments. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2016 11:46:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood: HI guys I am glad you enjoyed the reply brief. So as Nolo said we will be having oral arguments the first week of April in both New Orleans and Philly. I would like to gauge the interest in having a dinner after both arguments.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 12:03:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
HI guys I am glad you enjoyed the reply brief. So as Nolo said we will be having oral arguments the first week of April in both New Orleans and Philly. I would like to gauge the interest in having a dinner after both arguments. I'm in!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 12:10:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Harmonic_Distortion]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
I'm in! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
HI guys I am glad you enjoyed the reply brief. So as Nolo said we will be having oral arguments the first week of April in both New Orleans and Philly. I would like to gauge the interest in having a dinner after both arguments. I'm in! I'm in! (Philly) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 12:12:21 AM EDT
[#36]
I'll take you both to Nick and Sam's if you come back this way and I can make it.
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 1:14:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Sounds like they're getting scared.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/08/3746663/the-nra-just-scored-one-of-its-biggest-victories-in-years/ Suppose, for example, that an unusually conservative Congress is elected in 2016, and that Congress repeals the ban on machine guns. All that would be necessary under Thomas’s rule to render such a ban permanently unconstitutional would be for a large number of gun owners to obtain machine guns and not use them in the commission of a crime. The NRA and gun manufacturers, moreover, would have an obvious interest in ensuring that these guns become commonly held as quickly as possible — as they would be in a literal arms race to distribute the guns widely before Congress can reinstate the ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 1:25:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By I-LUV-AR15s: Sounds like they're getting scared. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/08/3746663/the-nra-just-scored-one-of-its-biggest-victories-in-years/ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By I-LUV-AR15s: Sounds like they're getting scared. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/08/3746663/the-nra-just-scored-one-of-its-biggest-victories-in-years/ Suppose, for example, that an unusually conservative Congress is elected in 2016, and that Congress repeals the ban on machine guns. All that would be necessary under Thomas’s rule to render such a ban permanently unconstitutional would be for a large number of gun owners to obtain machine guns and not use them in the commission of a crime. The NRA and gun manufacturers, moreover, would have an obvious interest in ensuring that these guns become commonly held as quickly as possible — as they would be in a literal arms race to distribute the guns widely before Congress can reinstate the ban. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 1:28:40 AM EDT
[#39]
I'd turn my sbr's into full auto asap. Make everything FA. Even my Henry repeater.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 1:46:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jinxsters: I'd turn my sbr's into full auto asap. Make everything FA. Even my Henry repeater. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 1:50:16 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jinxsters:
I'd turn my sbr's into full auto asap. Make everything FA. Even my Henry repeater. Well a lever action was one of the first FA guns, wasn't it? I seem to recall that's what Browning started playing with first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 1:56:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Marlboroman79:
To further the point that the system is obsolete. What's to stop someone from making a full auto with matching counterfeit paperwork? Is there a way for a police officer to check if it's vaild? Sure they can call the ATF branch like anybody else and confirm the current registrar. If you call the NFA branch and request to confirm if John Doe is the current registrar of record for Serial # ABC123, Model XYZ, machinegun they will tell you if that is correct. They wont divulge who the owner is if you have no information but will give you a yeah/neah if the information you have is correct. Say at the range, someone calls the police for automatic gunfire, you produce the fake required paperwork, what more can the officer do? The officer calls the ATF branch to confirm if the gun is registered if they believe the paperwork is a forgery. Lets say its outside the NFA branch phone operators working hours because its the weekend. Worst case they arrest you, confiscate your gun/s, and call it in Monday morning. Maybe they just take your guns, copy your DL information and tell you to come back Monday afternoon to pick them up. The ATF wont tell you any specific information about current ownership but they will confirm if the gun by serial # is in the NFRTR and the information you have in hand is correct. I have done dozens of NFA F4 transfers over the years and the ATF has 100% of the time been able accurately confirm the registration and perform the transfer. I even had one guy I bought an Uzi from years ago transcribed one digit of the serial number onto the F4 incorrectly. ATF caught that error and kicked it back for correction. That was when the NFA branch was in DC and had much less controls than they do now. The system was never originally set up to be able run accurate data-analytics on the specific number of each "model" out there. It primary purpose is to verify registration by serial number. Its certainly not 100% perfect especially when it comes to records that are 50+ years old and collected by a different agency. However, I suspect that the NFRTR is probably pretty accurate when it comes whether a specific serial number exists in the NFRTR and the manufacturer and date of registration based of my experience. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 2:41:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: wolfwood]
[#43]
If a lunch or dinner gets some traction we can leave it up to you guys whether you just want to have a meal or if there is interest I can turn it into a lecture on the state of firearms litigation and the Second Amendment.
I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the country regarding the history of the Second Amendment. I know that sounds like bragging but that just happens to be the case and I'd be happy to talk on the subject. We could not have gotten this lawsuit together if not for the people that donated to this case and the least I could do is impart some of what I know to you guys if there is interest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 3:11:57 AM EDT
[#44]
That sounds awesome. If I were closer to either location I'd definitely be in for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 3:19:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Can i make new mushine gunz yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 3:30:04 AM EDT
[#46]
If you guys were in the St Louis area, I'd happily meet you guys out for dinner and a 2A Lecture....
Sigh... |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 3:40:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
If a lunch or dinner gets some traction we can leave it up to you guys whether you just want to have a meal or if there is interest I can turn it into a lecture on the state of firearms litigation and the Second Amendment. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the country regarding the history of the Second Amendment. I know that sounds like bragging but that just happens to be the case and I'd be happy to talk on the subject. We could not have gotten this lawsuit together if not for the people that donated to this case and the least I could do is impart some of what I know to you guys if there is interest. If you guys do that, any chance at all you could record it for here?  And again thank you all for what you are doing for Americans.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 3:52:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: E-Mag]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: Can i make new mushine gunz yet?  |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:24:03 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By E-Mag:
That part would be easy Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By E-Mag:
Originally Posted By I-LUV-AR15s:
Sounds like they're getting scared. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/08/3746663/the-nra-just-scored-one-of-its-biggest-victories-in-years/ Suppose, for example, that an unusually conservative Congress is elected in 2016, and that Congress repeals the ban on machine guns. All that would be necessary under Thomas’s rule to render such a ban permanently unconstitutional would be for a large number of gun owners to obtain machine guns and not use them in the commission of a crime. The NRA and gun manufacturers, moreover, would have an obvious interest in ensuring that these guns become commonly held as quickly as possible — as they would be in a literal arms race to distribute the guns widely before Congress can reinstate the ban. There is already a large number of machine guns owned and not used in commission of crimes. Most happen to be in the hands of military/police, but some being in the hands of private citizens. They are still common even tho we have been told not for 'you". That is the point of this lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:38:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
HI guys I am glad you enjoyed the reply brief. So as Nolo said we will be having oral arguments the first week of April in both New Orleans and Philly. I would like to gauge the interest in having a dinner after both arguments. I am down for Nola. Is there an exact date yet? |
|
|
|
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.
