Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 5/3/2001 4:16:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 4:15:20 AM EDT by garandman]
US Senators - Look for the "Connect with Your Senator" drop down box - [url]www.senate.gov[/url] US House of Reps - Scroll down the page and look for "Write Your Rep" near the bottom of the page. [url]www.house.gov[/url] Office of the Attorney General - Click on the Link near the top of the page [url]www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html [/url] See next post for text of my letter, which you can feel free to borrow and plagiarize as needed. Don't own an FAL?? Do you own a muzzle brake?? THEN THIS AFFECTS [size=4] YOU [/size=4] Get to it!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 4:17:39 AM EDT
It has come to my attention that ATF recently released what has been described to me as a “vaguely unfavorable ruling” regarding the muzzle brake that DS Arms and Tapco are using on the FAL rifle. While many in both the media and the firearms community have painted ATF as being the natural enemy of gun owners, I wish to put that aside, and speak with you as an American. I do my dead level best to obey the law. I try to keep up with the latest rulings regarding firearms, as well as all other non-firearms regulations, and what I need to do to keep myself compliant. But what I am being told about this situation with the DS Arms muzzle brake frightens me. Mostly because of its arbitrary nature, and how it impacts BOTH firearms owners and firearms sellers and manufacturers. I am told that DS Arms and Tapco had approval for this brake BEFORE issuing it to law abiding purchasers. To now go and “move the goal posts” on those people is patently unfair. Were I an average citizen, too absorbed in trying to make a living and support my family, I would never have known about this ruling. I would be in violation of the 1994 Crime Bill. I would be a felon. Simply by owning what JUST A MONTH AGO was legal to own. Further, how can a seller / manufacturer EVER be assured of being in compliance with the law when the rules are FOREVER changing? Assume DS Arms had sold 1 million of these rifles. With a stroke of a bureaucratic pen, you have put a multi-million dollar liability on them, RETROACTIVELY. To a conspiracy theorist, it looks like you are trying to put a gun maker out of business. While the actual liability is somewhat less than that, you can see my point. You can imagine why many gun owners have come to see the ATF as an arbitrary bunch of despots interested only in wielding their power. I am certain that you do not view yourself as such, and that you are simply “doing your job.” Well, here is a chance for you to prove your motivations. Simply REVERSE the unfavorable ruling. WHY should you do that?? As I and many other FAL owners can testify, this brake does NOT suppress flash. You should try firing this rifle at dusk, and SEE the flash signature that is emitted. While I can argue effectively that the ENTIRE flash suppressor ban was built on feel-good policy and junk science, that is NOT the point. The point is that THIS muzzle brake is NOWHERE NEAR being a flash suppressor, per a knowledgeable interpretation of the 1994 Crime Bill, as any firearms technician could tell you. It is my hope that before making a ruling that will adversely affect the public you are SUPPOSED to serve, including gun owners, manufacturers and retailers, you would have the integrity to actually fire one of these rifles for yourself, and learn the truth about them. Sincerely,
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 9:05:45 AM EDT
Ree-cieved. Thanks
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 4:37:32 AM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 5:03:22 AM EDT
now this is the sort of thing, that we should be doing........ count me in.
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 5:10:40 AM EDT
Top Top