Form 1 DENIED - There it is folks.... - Page 2

Hometown » Washington

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Form 1 DENIED - There it is folks.... (Page 2 of 14)

Posted: 5/28/2015 1:50:19 PM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:

were those submitted recently? the denials seem to be for march/april submissions, may submissions are still pending

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have two that still say "SUBMITTED/IN PROCESS", so hopefully this will get sorted out before they get to mine.

were those submitted recently? the denials seem to be for march/april submissions, may submissions are still pending

Yeah I too have one submitted at the end of February and haven't had it rejected yet.

Edit: guess I missed my email. I checked the website and mine was approved on 5/8 so please disregard my earlier info.

Posted: 5/28/2015 1:59:31 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
ETA: Just saw a post on Facebook that claims the ATF is going to retract all the approved Form 1's for SBR's in WA too. If true, we really need to light a fire under our Legislator's asses to get this fixed. What happened to getting the AG to issue an opinion? Did he maybe finally issue an opinion that goes against the spirit of the law and that's why this is happening? Makes me wonder.

View Quote

Link? I sure hope that's not true I only got to shoot the damn thing once lol

Posted: 5/28/2015 2:17:55 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

Link? I sure hope that's not true I only got to shoot the damn thing once lol

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
ETA: Just saw a post on Facebook that claims the ATF is going to retract all the approved Form 1's for SBR's in WA too. If true, we really need to light a fire under our Legislator's asses to get this fixed. What happened to getting the AG to issue an opinion? Did he maybe finally issue an opinion that goes against the spirit of the law and that's why this is happening? Makes me wonder.

Link? I sure hope that's not true I only got to shoot the damn thing once lol

+1 on Link, but logically since they have now made basically a new ruling they would have to be retroactively consistent.

Posted: 5/28/2015 2:37:44 PM EDT

[#4]

caught this link:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/05/foghorn/breaking-atf-begins-denying-nfa-paperwork-for-washington-state-residents/

I emailed the DOL Firearms email address to see if they are or know who might be the "WA Firearms Division" referenced.

Posted: 5/28/2015 3:07:56 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

+1 on Link, but logically since they have now made basically a new ruling they would have to be retroactively consistent.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
ETA: Just saw a post on Facebook that claims the ATF is going to retract all the approved Form 1's for SBR's in WA too. If true, we really need to light a fire under our Legislator's asses to get this fixed. What happened to getting the AG to issue an opinion? Did he maybe finally issue an opinion that goes against the spirit of the law and that's why this is happening? Makes me wonder.

Link? I sure hope that's not true I only got to shoot the damn thing once lol

+1 on Link, but logically since they have now made basically a new ruling they would have to be retroactively consistent.

Sorry, don't have a link. It wasn't an official post from the ATF or anything, just some random person who posted a comment about it claiming they have a "reliable source" that told them that. For now it's just a rumor, sorry I didn't make that clear.

Posted: 5/28/2015 3:19:13 PM EDT

[#6]

They'd have a VERY difficult time doing or justifying that. Multiple letters, some certified, to every approved applicant, refunds to all, and possible legal challenges. And then what about all those that went out of state to complete the build, which would make it unquestionably legal by both federal and state law. They would also have to have a grace period for people to "unmake" their SBR and do something with their short uppers.
I don't see it happening.

Posted: 5/28/2015 3:47:33 PM EDT

[#7]

Thank you to those f'ing armchair lawyers who brought this issue up. The current reason for denial was never an issue till these morons made it one because they were tinfoil wearing asshats. Per the ATF's own language, Ted's reason for denial is not a recognized reason because ATF only cares about POSSESSION. The denial must be challenged using their own rules. Read the ATF NFA handbook and see reasons to deny. That being said, one thing that needs to be done is to put federal pressure on the ATF via your representatives in congress. As for previously approved form 1, no worries, you now have a property interest that cannot be taken from you without due process (and that process will take a long time and be unsuccessful for ATF)

Posted: 5/28/2015 4:30:10 PM EDT

[#8]

ANYONE WHO HAD A FORM 1 DISAPPROVED

In order to get accurate demographics to use with advocacy groups, I would appreciate it if you would send me any of the following information you are comfortable sharing:

Name
File Date
Control Number

Please send them to nfachris (at) lunacite (dot) com

Posted: 5/28/2015 5:09:31 PM EDT

[#9]

Spoke with Brian Blake. He is working with the firearms division to see what the skinny is.

Posted: 5/28/2015 5:20:26 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
ANYONE WHO HAD A FORM 1 DISAPPROVED

In order to get accurate demographics to use with advocacy groups, I would appreciate it if you would send me any of the following information you are comfortable sharing:

Name
File Date
Control Number

Please send them to nfachris (at) lunacite (dot) com

View Quote

Info sent.

Posted: 5/28/2015 6:48:44 PM EDT

[#11]

Not that it will do any good but I sent an email this morning to "ask the experts" at the NFA branch, here is the text:

[b]On May 27, 2015 my eForm 1 which I filed for my trust on March 19, 2015 was denied by examiner Ted E. Clutter. I am a Washington State resident and not a licensed manufacturer of firearms.

The reason Mr. Clutter stated for disapproval was and I quote "Although RCW 9.91.190(2)[sic] exempts the possession, transport, and transfer it does not exempt your request to make (manufacture) an SBR? Therefore you are unable to make the type SBR in WA state; Refund in process? TEC "

First off the correct RCW that Mr. Clutter was quoting is RCW 9.41.190(2) and when quoting this RCW he did not mention the word "acquire." The entirety of that particular RCW's subsection is as follows:

"It is not unlawful for a person to possess, transport, acquire, or transfer a short-barreled rifle that is legally registered and possessed, transported, acquired, or transferred in accordance with federal law."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.190

Secondly, a "manufacturer" by the BATFE's own definition is as follows: "ATF’s long-standing position is that any activities that result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing that may require a manufacturer’s license.

https://www.atf.gov/.../atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-10.htm

So, my question is why was my eForm 1 denied when I am "acquiring" an SBR under Washington State RCW "in accordance with federal law" by making it. I am not actively engaged in "manufacturing" (as Mr. Clutter puts it) by the BATFE's own definition because I am not in the business of "the making of firearms for sale or distribution." In fact the SBR I would be making (not manufacturing) is going to lose resale value after approval of eForm 1.

Please advise,
Diger440, Trustee[/b]

Posted: 5/28/2015 6:51:32 PM EDT

[#12]

Maybe ted went off the deep end, quit his job, and denied everyone just to troll on his way out

Posted: 5/28/2015 6:56:01 PM EDT

[#13]

I highly doubt the decision is from Ted. Im sure its the ATF's legal office. Why they didnt figure this out in the 3 months from the time the law passed till it went into affect.

There may be a silver lining to this and thats the State AG may have increased pressure to make a ruling which could add clarity. This may be what the ATF is going after. From the ATF's position its BS the state enacted an unclear law and now they are taking a stance. Im sure the ATF thought out the ramifications for their current change in direction.

If they do rescind current approved Form 1's what about firearms that have been sold and transfered on form 4's etc. I think they will be oweing me a letter on why they allowed state laws to be broken if thats what they think is being done by creating SBR's here.

CJG

Posted: 5/28/2015 7:05:52 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
ANYONE WHO HAD A FORM 1 DISAPPROVED

In order to get accurate demographics to use with advocacy groups, I would appreciate it if you would send me any of the following information you are comfortable sharing:

Name
File Date
Control Number

Please send them to nfachris (at) lunacite (dot) com

View Quote

Info Sent

Posted: 5/28/2015 7:20:05 PM EDT

[#15]

You can add me to the approved once, rejected yesterday, SBR train that's running through Washington state.

By the number of people who received rejections last night, I'm guessing a decision was finalized to start giving all WA SBR form 1's denial decisions.

Dawgfish - please keep us posted about what Brian Blake can find out and who politically we can voice our opinion to get the amended language on the docket.

Posted: 5/28/2015 7:33:01 PM EDT

[#16]

If people are going to be emailing Ted, don't forget the legislative notes 'point'. Sure, it isn't the text of the law, but it speaks to intent and the legislature specifically mentioned the making process in there.

As far as retroactively rescinding approved Form 1s, good luck ATF. My shit was made in Oregon and you can't find a shred of law or agency regulation that says I can't...you did approve the 5320.20 for that purpose after all!

If ATF pushes this, me thinks Nolo is about to have a lot more clients.

Posted: 5/28/2015 7:53:19 PM EDT

[#17]

well with 1 approved and built into a great ar and the other disapproved last night i guess i'll just have to swap out between 22lr and 556 and hide on my land so when the ATF comes to confiscate they won't find me

Posted: 5/28/2015 8:07:19 PM EDT

[#18]

I spoke with a Seattle based IOI earlier this month, and he said that they were just waiting to hear back from the WA State AG on whether to continue approving SBR Form 1s from WA residents. Either they heard back or ATF decided to just stop until they actually hear back.

As for rescinding issued stamps, they might have a hard time with that, it is what spawned Hollis V. Holder/Lynch and its twin in Pennsylvania.

Posted: 5/28/2015 9:04:09 PM EDT

[#19]

E-filed form1 on 4/6 and not denied, yet. I am sure it will happen but just putting my experience out there.

Posted: 5/28/2015 9:23:50 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

understandable as it seems like he pulled an all-nighter on the denials yesterday.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Looks like Mr Clutter is out of the office today. I left him a message requesting a call back from him.

understandable as it seems like he pulled an all-nighter on the denials yesterday.

What a dipshit.

Posted: 5/28/2015 9:31:57 PM EDT

[#21]

Fuck,

I just submitted 3 form-1's a few weeks back

Posted: 5/28/2015 9:43:05 PM EDT

[#22]

Had another conversation with Blake right now. He got in touch with a live body at DOL firearms division and is working that angle. In the mean time Brian is trying to wrap his head around how DOL firearms division is involved.

Could someone please send me Ted Clutter's email address or phone number? I'll pass that on to Brian and he will follow up.

Thanks.

Posted: 5/28/2015 9:52:48 PM EDT

[#23]

[email protected]

Im sure Ted doesnt make the decisions, hes probably like a GS11 that sits and administers the database and plays examiner. Too bad we dont have a better conduit for communication into the leadership of the ATF.

Posted: 5/28/2015 10:02:46 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Had another conversation with Blake right now. He got in touch with a live body at DOL firearms division and is working that angle. In the mean time Brian is trying to wrap his head around how DOL firearms division is involved.

Could someone please send me Ted Clutter's email address or phone number? I'll pass that on to Brian and he will follow up.

Thanks.

View Quote

Thanks for the updates.

Having the author and original sponsor of the bill going to bat for us will hopefully demonstrate the legislative intent behind the law.

Hopefully he's able to to convey what the law MEANS, in order to get this rectified.

Perhaps he can convey that or articulate the fact that word acquired is there which is obviously intended to open up all other legal avenues to obtain SBR's (thought this was a given).

Posted: 5/28/2015 10:06:43 PM EDT

[#25]

Since people seem to be bashing Ted, I think it should be said that Ted has shown himself to be one of the good guys at NFA branch. He has gone out of his way to help people with issues that arise.
I believe that his name just gets systematically put in all denials. Km surest came down from higher up to issue the denials.

I hold off on bashing the guy, at least until we have some idea of what went down to cause the denials.

Posted: 5/28/2015 10:08:57 PM EDT

[#26]

I had my FFL interview in August last year, and my IOI said that he was the one that had brought it up with NFA and he believed all the form 1's that had been approved would eventually be revoked. I figured it had been so long now they must have just accepted it, bullshit to wait this long and start fucking with people.

Posted: 5/28/2015 10:42:30 PM EDT

[#27]

I'll be listening intently to see what direction they want to take for stamps already issued. The last thing I need is to find myself on the wrong side of the Feds because of purposefully obscure nuance language. I knew this seemed too easy.

Posted: 5/28/2015 11:03:17 PM EDT

[#28]

I just had mine come back Dissaproved for the same reason. Efiled on 3/27

Posted: 5/28/2015 11:05:28 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
Since people seem to be bashing Ted, I think it should be said that Ted has shown himself to be one of the good guys at NFA branch. He has gone out of his way to help people with issues that arise.
I believe that his name just gets systematically put in all denials. Km surest came down from higher up to issue the denials.

I hold off on bashing the guy, at least until we have some idea of what went down to cause the denials.

View Quote

Yeah, leave Ted alone. That dude is all over several of my forms. Far as I can tell with my approvals he does not sleep.

Posted: 5/28/2015 11:21:48 PM EDT

[#30]

Disapproved last night as well. Filed 3/19. Curious to see what happens next.

Posted: 5/28/2015 11:56:54 PM EDT

[#31]

A lot of people submitted (and had approved) 5320.20 forms to take their parts into Idaho or Oregon, make the SBR and then return.

Washington law was not violated in such a fashion.

Posted: 5/29/2015 12:11:24 AM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
A lot of people submitted (and had approved) 5320.20 forms to take their parts into Idaho or Oregon, make the SBR and then return.

Washington law was not violated in such a fashion.

View Quote

did they then engrave theout of state city and state or the WA one?

Posted: 5/29/2015 12:38:24 AM EDT

[#33]

Letter of the law on making-engraving says city/state where the making took place....BUT some people that have asked examiners or other atf types have been told that the city/state on the form 1 should be engraved. I'm paranoid, I just did both. Some people like minimal engraving...IMO if a real pro does it, it looks fine.

I have no problem with Ted...and I doubt he's even involved in the decision making on this. What I have a problem with is the tool bag who looks at a law obviously intended to legalize an item who then takes advantage of poor wording in order to say that the law really makes said item illegal. Its like, WTF? An SBR legalization bill that bans SBRs?! Dunno if that was the AG, legal clowns at ATF, or what...but they need to correct themselves.

Posted: 5/29/2015 12:50:27 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
A lot of people submitted (and had approved) 5320.20 forms to take their parts into Idaho or Oregon, make the SBR and then return.

Washington law was not violated in such a fashion.

View Quote

I am going to have to look into this method.

Posted: 5/29/2015 1:30:23 AM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

I am going to have to look into this method.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
A lot of people submitted (and had approved) 5320.20 forms to take their parts into Idaho or Oregon, make the SBR and then return.

Washington law was not violated in such a fashion.

I am going to have to look into this method.

Doesn't matter now. Using that method you still need to first file a Form 1, then another form for transport to OR. If they deny all Form 1's from WA state residents you will never get to the step to file for transport.

The only successful route is find a WA FFL/SOT to Form 2 your SBR, and then Form 4 that new "factory" SBR to your trust.

Posted: 5/29/2015 2:11:31 AM EDT

[#36]

Wouldn't work with eforms, but with paper you could submit a F1 and a 5320.20 together along with an explanatory note. Prolly wouldn't work....but maybe.

Posted: 5/29/2015 2:49:50 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
The only successful route is find a WA FFL/SOT to Form 2 your SBR, and then Form 4 that new "factory" SBR to your trust.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
The only successful route is find a WA FFL/SOT to Form 2 your SBR, and then Form 4 that new "factory" SBR to your trust.

Nope. SOT manufacturers aren't exempt either.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:
(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;
(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or
(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun or short-barreled shotgun was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.
(5) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.

WA 07/02 SOTs can only make them for LE, Mil or export usage. Not for general public sale.

Posted: 5/29/2015 7:34:58 AM EDT

[#38]

My SBR was approved 5/13. Different guy.

Questions:

1) For the recent denials - who are you recording as the manufacturer?

2) Does this not apply to suppressors? (or people rarely "make" their own?)

Posted: 5/29/2015 8:20:50 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

did they then engrave theout of state city and state or the WA one?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
A lot of people submitted (and had approved) 5320.20 forms to take their parts into Idaho or Oregon, make the SBR and then return.

Washington law was not violated in such a fashion.

did they then engrave theout of state city and state or the WA one?

The correspondence with the ATF that I had seen indicated that the engraving should be where the SBR is kept [the city and state of the trust]. Another bit of legal muddiness as the ATF used to say it is where the SBR is made.

Posted: 5/29/2015 9:41:55 AM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
My SBR was approved 5/13. Different guy.

Questions:

1) For the recent denials - who are you recording as the manufacturer?

2) Does this not apply to suppressors? (or people rarely "make" their own?)

View Quote

Form 1? Or was your SBR on a Form 4?

Posted: 5/29/2015 9:43:58 AM EDT

[#41]

So...if they revoke previously granted stamps, what will happen to our previously SBR'd firearms? Will they be seized, or can we re-barrel them back to non-NFA weapons?
As the whole thing is resultant from what really amounts to a bureaucratic technical oversight in the way the bill/law was worded, and that it will eventually be corrected (we hope), once the law is amended, will they re-instate our tax stamps, or do you suppose we'll all be filing/waiting again?
Will they allow the weapons to be re-stamped, or will we run into "Oh, sorry that serial number already exists on a contraband firearm" sort of issues?

Posted: 5/29/2015 10:02:19 AM EDT

[#42]

Can someone please send me Clutter's contact information?

Thank you

Posted: 5/29/2015 10:19:38 AM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:

Can someone please send me Clutter's contact information?

Thank you

View Quote

it was posted on this page.

Posted: 5/29/2015 10:32:56 AM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

1) For the recent denials - who are you recording as the manufacturer?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

1) For the recent denials - who are you recording as the manufacturer?

Doesn't matter, the denials are not happening because of the listed manufacture. They are happening because of how the WA state law regarding SBR's is written.

Quoted:
2) Does this not apply to suppressors? (or people rarely "make" their own?)

Just SBR, the WA state law for suppressors doesn't have the same language as the SBR law which is the issue here.

Posted: 5/29/2015 10:34:35 AM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
So...if they revoke previously granted stamps, what will happen to our previously SBR'd firearms? Will they be seized, or can we re-barrel them back to non-NFA weapons?

View Quote

I imagine it will be much the same as if you wanted to sale your NFA item as a non-NFA item. You would notify the ATF you are forfeiting your NFA stamp and wish the firearm be removed from the NFA registry. The serial number would no longer be associated with the NFA or a title II firearm in any way. You return it to a non-NFA configuration, and that's it.

There is nothing to say that serial number could not be stamped again by you or another individual down the road.

Posted: 5/29/2015 12:35:30 PM EDT

[#46]

So here is what I got from Brian Blake, the original sponsor of the bill.

A staff member at the DOL had a conversation with the ATF a few weeks back and the discussion centered on SB 5956, and lack of clarity and confusion about manufacturing SBR's. This person is not a policy maker, but apparently the ATF person may have taken it that way. The head of Washington DOL Firearms Division will be contacting the ATF to let them know that the conversation was not with a representative allowed to direct policy on behalf of Washington State.

The AG's office has not made any official statements on the bill at this time.

Also, the DOL did not advise the ATF to not approve the forms, nor did the AG's office. The DOL's position is that it isn't their position to interpret the laws, and that it is up to the ATF to make their own interpretation.

Also, Thanks RichM for sending me Ted Clutter's contact information and email addresses. Brian Blake and the DOL have that information now and they will contact Ted. The rest of you may want to not deluge Mr. Clutter with a bunch of emails. Brian says he will work on this. Please let him work through the process.

Thanks.

Posted: 5/29/2015 12:39:50 PM EDT

[#47]

THANKS DAWG!

Posted: 5/29/2015 12:56:12 PM EDT

[#48]

Thanks for the info dawg. As always, you're one of the best sources for REAL info on the www when it comes to WA gun legislation. 95% of what I read is rumor/conjecture. Nothing wrong with that, I certainly participate in it, but sometimes thous things take on a life of their own and practically become a consensus!

That said, the matter being "up to the ATF" is a little bit scary too. Those yahoos are legendary for bending logic to fit an anti gun agenda. They have certainly made much bigger "leaps" in the past on other issues than would be required here... so hopefully that doesn't happen again.

One more reason why WA law being completely silent on SBRs and suppressors would be preferable! No one could reinterpreted legislative silence as a ban.

Posted: 5/29/2015 2:49:36 PM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
So here is what I got from Brian Blake, the original sponsor of the bill.

A staff member at the DOL had a conversation with the ATF a few weeks back and the discussion centered on SB 5956, and lack of clarity and confusion about manufacturing SBR's. This person is not a policy maker, but apparently the ATF person may have taken it that way. The head of Washington DOL Firearms Division will be contacting the ATF to let them know that the conversation was not with a representative allowed to direct policy on behalf of Washington State.

The AG's office has not made any official statements on the bill at this time.

Also, the DOL did not advise the ATF to not approve the forms, nor did the AG's office. The DOL's position is that it isn't their position to interpret the laws, and that it is up to the ATF to make their own interpretation.

Also, Thanks RichM for sending me Ted Clutter's contact information and email addresses. Brian Blake and the DOL have that information now and they will contact Ted. The rest of you may want to not deluge Mr. Clutter with a bunch of emails. Brian says he will work on this. Please let him work through the process.

Thanks.

View Quote

And now the waiting game begins...so glad I just transferred my scorpion in this morning.

Posted: 5/29/2015 2:51:30 PM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:

Nope. SOT manufacturers aren't exempt either.

WA 07/02 SOTs can only make them for LE, Mil or export usage. Not for general public sale.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only successful route is find a WA FFL/SOT to Form 2 your SBR, and then Form 4 that new "factory" SBR to your trust.

Nope. SOT manufacturers aren't exempt either.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles:
(i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States;
(ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or
(iii) For exportation in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun or short-barreled shotgun was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.
(5) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony.

WA 07/02 SOTs can only make them for LE, Mil or export usage. Not for general public sale.

So Rainier and others cannot even build us an SBR?

What about the ones already built and approved by the ATF?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Form 1 DENIED - There it is folks.... (Page 2 of 14)

Hometown » Washington

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us