User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:27:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brianmat:
But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:54:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TescoVee]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyJones: When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyJones: Originally Posted By Brianmat: But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:55:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
To save money by converting semis that they already have? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By Brianmat:
But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. Don't they have to go through an SOT for that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:58:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
To save money by converting semis that they already have? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By Brianmat:
But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. the last time I looked M16s were $35 from Uncle Sam. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:58:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By medicmandan: Don't they have to go through an SOT for that? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By medicmandan: Don't they have to go through an SOT for that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 4:59:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyJones: the last time I looked M16s were $35 from Uncle Sam. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 5:09:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gamma762]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Older LEOs, school me on this. Were there a lot of Military surplus rifles going to LEOs in the 80s and 90s? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By RyJones:
the last time I looked M16s were $35 from Uncle Sam. No. Traditionally PDs typically had a small number of military type rifles or SMGs which rarely left the arms room other than some big city SWAT teams or the like. Post 86 ban, SOT dealers started offering lucrative trade in programs to PDs to trade their older transferable MGs for new firearms, be it post-86 MGs, or just duty handguns or shotguns or the like. The transfer of surplus rifles to local police agencies began in earnest due to a combination of... Army switching to all M4s and putting their M16A2s in storage, the large number of M16A1s still in storage needed to go. Post-9/11 and post-Columbine hysteria. And I have a suspicion that it was offered as a way to thwart any more transferables making their way from PD armories to the open market, although that number is probably small at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 6:13:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
To save money by converting semis that they already have? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By Brianmat:
But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. That right there is funny. No government entity worries about saving money. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 7:15:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-08-02/html/CREC-1996-08-02-pt1-PgE1461.htm Why do you think the batfe doesn't want nfrtr discovery? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Monoz:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
You know, "If you're going to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs." And "If you don't think this is fun you're in the wrong line of work..."But I don't "always think forfeiture." Since the "nfrtr is 100% accurate", (for testifying purposes), the batfe should have no trouble producing exactly how many form 1s and form 4s were allowed post 1986. The nfrtr is not 100% accurate. Example: People can legally change their names. There is no requirement to notify the ATF if you change your name. Therefore, after a name change the NFRTR no longer has a record showing current ownership. That's not what they "testify"to  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO6BQVAZpwUDid he just admit that they have instructed, continue to instruct, and will ALWAYS instruct their agents to LIE IN COURT?????????? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-08-02/html/CREC-1996-08-02-pt1-PgE1461.htm Why do you think the batfe doesn't want nfrtr discovery? Delayed flight in Vegas gave me time to read this. Didn't reduce my stress level even a little. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 8:27:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82: That right there is funny. No federal government entity worries about saving money. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82: Originally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By RyJones: Originally Posted By Brianmat: But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. That right there is funny. No federal government entity worries about saving money. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 8:39:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
To save money by converting semis that they already have? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By Brianmat:
But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. PD's don't do that. They purchase new stuff from major manufacturers due to warranty and liability issues. All they need is one ND with a modified gun and the little bit they saved doing the conversion is going to be paltry compared to the payout. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 8:39:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Top_Secret]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
I'm sure there are lots of local PDs that are strapped for cash. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By Brianmat:
But wouldn't that aggregate include LE items as well? When would LE form 1 anything? They get (essentially) free M16s from the federal government and they can buy new SMGs etc. That right there is funny. No federal government entity worries about saving money. While true, I still have to think instances of LE Form 1 MGs would be extremely limited. I'd honestly be shocked if there was more than a hundred of them. ETA: As Bubbles pointed out, the liability alone wouldn't be worth it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 8:52:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Top_Secret: While true, I still have to think instances of LE Form 1 MGs would be extremely limited. I'd honestly be shocked if there was more than a hundred of them. ETA: As Bubbles pointed out, the liability alone wouldn't be worth it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Top_Secret: Originally Posted By TescoVee: I'm sure there are lots of local PDs that are strapped for cash. While true, I still have to think instances of LE Form 1 MGs would be extremely limited. I'd honestly be shocked if there was more than a hundred of them. ETA: As Bubbles pointed out, the liability alone wouldn't be worth it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 7:46:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: HistoricArmsLLC]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Probably, I'm just trying to get an idea of what NOLO will have to scour through if the FOIA is miraculously granted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
I'm sure there are lots of local PDs that are strapped for cash. While true, I still have to think instances of LE Form 1 MGs would be extremely limited. I'd honestly be shocked if there was more than a hundred of them. ETA: As Bubbles pointed out, the liability alone wouldn't be worth it. Your assuming that he has to scour to find them 
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 8:09:10 AM EDT
[#15]
What's the big deal I own a MG , paid 6000 for it 2 years ago looks almost like new runs great.
Here's a pic: 
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 9:41:04 AM EDT
[#16]
Well I'm still feeling pretty good about the case so good I bought a few parts kits just in case things go our way :). Hello MG42.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 11:42:07 AM EDT
[#17]
the entire point of "BURST" was that people that lack good training suck at trigger control, so to force them to not do mag dumps and not hit anything, they forced burst on them...
how many firefight videos on youtube do you need to see to get this point... |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 1:59:35 PM EDT
[#18]
This Thread was linked on another website. I registered here to follow the outcome.
Good Luck |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 2:05:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Best-of-Bama:
What's the big deal I own a MG , paid 6000 for it 2 years ago looks almost like new runs great.
Here's a pic: http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc489/Fordman2011/LilMiss1_zps6e334895.jpg Yeah, but automatic MGs are slower than dirt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 2:47:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sedaeng:
This Thread was linked on another website. I registered here to follow the outcome. Good Luck What site? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 3:01:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Superq7:
What site? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Superq7:
Originally Posted By sedaeng:
This Thread was linked on another website. I registered here to follow the outcome. Good Luck What site? What difference, at this point, does it make?
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 10:28:35 PM EDT
[#22]
March 11 is almost here. Get ready to pick through the ATFs shit.
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 10:34:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlazinTheAmazin:
March 11 is almost here. Get ready to pick through the ATFs shit. What happens March 11th |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 10:37:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner:
What happens March 11th Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner:
Originally Posted By BlazinTheAmazin:
March 11 is almost here. Get ready to pick through the ATFs shit. What happens March 11th DOJ files it's sur-sur-reply in Texas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 10:38:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
DOJ files it's sur-circularreasoning-sur-reply in Texas. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By southerngunner:
Originally Posted By BlazinTheAmazin:
March 11 is almost here. Get ready to pick through the ATFs shit. What happens March 11th DOJ files it's sur-circularreasoning-sur-reply in Texas. FIFY |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 11:14:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Does this have anything to do with the eforms being "down for maintenance"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2015 11:25:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kangy:
Does this have anything to do with the eforms being "down for maintenance"? No. Happens all the time |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 1:50:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
No. Happens all the time Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By kangy:
Does this have anything to do with the eforms being "down for maintenance"? No. Happens all the time E-Forms have E-AIDS |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 2:35:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jhota:
Yeah, but automatic MGs are slower than dirt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jhota:
Originally Posted By Best-of-Bama:
What's the big deal I own a MG , paid 6000 for it 2 years ago looks almost like new runs great.
Here's a pic: http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc489/Fordman2011/LilMiss1_zps6e334895.jpg Yeah, but automatic MGs are slower than dirt. Not an automatic, semi-automatic. With good timing shifting you can shift without the clutch. Everyone kept saying MG this and MG that , made me think of my car! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:43:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Best-of-Bama:
Not an automatic, semi-automatic. With good timing shifting you can shift without the clutch. Everyone kept saying MG this and MG that , made me think of my car! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Best-of-Bama:
Originally Posted By jhota:
Originally Posted By Best-of-Bama:
What's the big deal I own a MG , paid 6000 for it 2 years ago looks almost like new runs great.
Here's a pic: http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc489/Fordman2011/LilMiss1_zps6e334895.jpg Yeah, but automatic MGs are slower than dirt. Not an automatic, semi-automatic. With good timing shifting you can shift without the clutch. Everyone kept saying MG this and MG that , made me think of my car! Same principle as double-clutching a crash box, just get things spinning at the right speed. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:15:11 AM EDT
[#31]
I noticed that the judge in TX case was nominated by Clinton, obviously a Democrat. And the judge in the PA case was nominated by Bush, obviously a Republican. Would anyone care to comment as to how that would effect their potential holding in the case. (If I am wrong as to who nominated the particular federal judges, please correct me. I only did a quick google search... :) )
Presumably a Federal Judge that is nominated by a particular president is likely to hold their partisan views on hot button political issues like guns. Thoughts? My observations of federal cases is that on partisan issues judges rarely stray from the party line... But I am not a lawyer yet... So I speak as a fool... I will say that the judge in the TX case gives me hope, even though she was appointed by Clinton. The fact that she allowed the sur-reply indicates to me that she is at least willing to hear Nolo out... Either that or the ATF messed up so much she wants to give the ATF another bite at the apple by giving them yet another chance to reply in the sur-sur-reply. Regardless, I look forward to reading the ATF's sur-sur-reply, it will be at least inventive. :D |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 9:50:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Star_Lord:
I noticed that the judge in TX case was nominated by Clinton, obviously a Democrat. And the judge in the PA case was nominated by Bush, obviously a Republican. Would anyone care to comment as to how that would effect their potential holding in the case. (If I am wrong as to who nominated the particular federal judges, please correct me. I only did a quick google search... :) ) Presumably a Federal Judge that is nominated by a particular president is likely to hold their partisan views on hot button political issues like guns. Thoughts? My observations of federal cases is that on partisan issues judges rarely stray from the party line... But I am not a lawyer yet... So I speak as a fool... I will say that the judge in the TX case gives me hope, even though she was appointed by Clinton. The fact that she allowed the sur-reply indicates to me that she is at least willing to hear Nolo out... Either that or the ATF messed up so much she wants to give the ATF another bite at the apple by giving them yet another chance to reply in the sur-sur-reply. Regardless, I look forward to reading the ATF's sur-sur-reply, it will be at least inventive. :D Or she wants to be able to say she heard extra arguments and wasn't swayed. I just don't read anything into it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 10:04:53 AM EDT
[#33]
Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese...
|
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 10:35:39 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Star_Lord:
I noticed that the judge in TX case was nominated by Clinton, obviously a Democrat. And the judge in the PA case was nominated by Bush, obviously a Republican. Would anyone care to comment as to how that would effect their potential holding in the case. (If I am wrong as to who nominated the particular federal judges, please correct me. I only did a quick google search... :) ) Presumably a Federal Judge that is nominated by a particular president is likely to hold their partisan views on hot button political issues like guns. Thoughts? My observations of federal cases is that on partisan issues judges rarely stray from the party line... But I am not a lawyer yet... So I speak as a fool... I will say that the judge in the TX case gives me hope, even though she was appointed by Clinton. The fact that she allowed the sur-reply indicates to me that she is at least willing to hear Nolo out... Either that or the ATF messed up so much she wants to give the ATF another bite at the apple by giving them yet another chance to reply in the sur-sur-reply. Regardless, I look forward to reading the ATF's sur-sur-reply, it will be at least inventive. :D A democrat in Texas is a republican in Kalifornia. Hope that puts things into perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 10:54:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ek207108:
Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 11:53:19 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
The sur-reply is very straight forward. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By ek207108:
Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 11:57:44 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
From a PR perspective it may behoove NoloContendere to put together a summary of his arguments for each case. Just a paragraph or 2 for the unwashed masses (and perhaps the media ). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By ek207108:
Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. Hang tight. 
Game changer. Soon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:00:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Hang tight. Game changer. Soon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By dillehayd: Originally Posted By mean_sartin: Originally Posted By ek207108: Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. Hang tight. Game changer. Soon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:01:21 PM EDT
[#39]
How soon?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:01:45 PM EDT
[#40]
I know. Everyone wants answers now. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. I give as much info as I can because I understand people want updates on what is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:02:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Diesel_Maximus_2992]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Hang tight. Game changer. Soon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By dillehayd: Originally Posted By mean_sartin: Originally Posted By ek207108: Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. Hang tight. Game changer. Soon. ETA: just because of the impatient ones  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:07:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
NOLO, this may have been asked before, but under the premise of a victory at the Supreme Court in these law suits. How will that victory affect the current, past, and future ammunition bans/restrictions Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By ek207108:
Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. Hang tight.
Game changer. Soon. ammo is not a part of THIS suit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:11:30 PM EDT
[#43]
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
ammo is not a part of THIS suit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:11:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: ammo is not a part of THIS suit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Hang tight. Game changer. Soon. ammo is not a part of THIS suit. Now that's just too bad |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:30:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By home_alone1:
E-Forms have E-AIDS Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By home_alone1:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By kangy:
Does this have anything to do with the eforms being "down for maintenance"? No. Happens all the time E-Forms have E-AIDS I believe the E-forms website was designed by the same co that designed the ObamaCare website, so that explains a lot |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:31:42 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:42:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
I know. Everyone wants answers now. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. I give as much info as I can because I understand people want updates on what is happening. The effort is appreciated. I believe most of recognize that there is absolutely no requirement for anything resembling the updates you provide. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:56:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Game changer? What? How? Who?
You can't do this to me! I have a heart condition! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 1:01:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Hang tight.
Game changer. Soon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By ek207108:
Is there any chance we can get a summary on page one? I am too dumb to read through 9 iterations of legalese... The sur-reply is very straight forward. Hang tight.
Game changer. Soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 1:09:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saladman: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saladman: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: ammo is not a part of THIS suit.  |
|
|
|
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.
