User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:24:58 PM EDT
[#1]
It is a start. I was just talking to my g/f's son about this very thing. I told him I would love to see them model after Va's shall issue but, may issue is a step in the right direction. Gun rights folks can attempt to go from may issue to shall issue at a later date.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:29:17 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a start. I was just talking to my g/f's son about this very thing. I told him I would love to see them model after Va's shall issue but, may issue is a step in the right direction. Gun rights folks can attempt to go from may issue to shall issue at a later date. We'll see what the judge thinks about it, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:36:54 PM EDT
[#3]
The bill also limits where someone can carry a concealed handgun, prohibiting them from entering schools and childcare centers, government buildings, hospitals, stadiums and arenas, public transportation, and bars and restaurants. They would also be forbidden from a perimeter around the White House and at many federal facilities, as well as within 1,000 feet of U.S. or foreign dignitaries. So basically, there is an ever-moving patch of about 10 square feet in DC where one with such a permit can actually carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:55:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We'll see what the judge thinks about it, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is a start. I was just talking to my g/f's son about this very thing. I told him I would love to see them model after Va's shall issue but, may issue is a step in the right direction. Gun rights folks can attempt to go from may issue to shall issue at a later date. We'll see what the judge thinks about it, too. Do you think the judge will say it is not enough in the right direction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 5:42:13 PM EDT
[#5]
New law still requires applicant to specify what is his "good reason" for having a permit.
Then Chief Epaulets has the final say on what she thinks is a good reason. Good luck with that. Living in high-crime neighborhood not enough. You must also have a stalker. 
http://youtu.be/exli6rGldBc http://youtu.be/exli6rGldBc 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:12:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Hopefully the judge rejects this law as the nonsense it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:23:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Well, it certainly is something... and much kudos to those fighting the good fight.
The pessimist in me isn't even the slightest bit excited though. The state I escaped from has that "good reason" clause, and no reason is good enough. If modeled after those few "may issue" states, the district will allow concealed carry per their books, but it'll be "no issue" in practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 6:34:29 PM EDT
[#8]
This, otherwise we need to start being out of state plaintiffs.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully the judge rejects this law as the nonsense it is. ETA: See it similar to MD, where unless you know someone impossible to get and renew every year or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:07:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This, otherwise we need to start being out of state plaintiffs. ETA: See it similar to MD, where unless you know someone impossible to get and renew every year or so. Quote HistoryQuoted: This, otherwise we need to start being out of state plaintiffs. Quoted: Hopefully the judge rejects this law as the nonsense it is. ETA: See it similar to MD, where unless you know someone impossible to get and renew every year or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:43:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Even if you get past the "good reason", it leaves about twenty feet of sidewalk where a resident could actually carry in the District, assuming some "dignitary" isn't within half a mile of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:40:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully the judge rejects this law as the nonsense it is. Do you really think he'll see this as anything other than what it is.... DC telling him to get stuffed? What he ought to do is reject it and vacate his stay order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:10:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you really think he'll see this as anything other than what it is.... DC telling him to get stuffed? What he ought to do is reject it and vacate his stay order. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hopefully the judge rejects this law as the nonsense it is. Do you really think he'll see this as anything other than what it is.... DC telling him to get stuffed? What he ought to do is reject it and vacate his stay order. That would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:45:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if you get past the "good reason", it leaves about twenty feet of sidewalk where a resident could actually carry in the District, assuming some "dignitary" isn't within half a mile of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 7:45:07 AM EDT
[#14]
This "May Issue" law is the same bullshit they have in MD. Keep it real. Essentially, no one still gets a permit, just like in MD.
MD went to federal court (Wollard Case) and lost the first trial, in which Judge Legg proclaimed it a right and declared the law unconstitutional. On appeal, MD prevailed and was allowed to keep their discriminatory "May Issue" policy. No one still gets permits. Being concerned about where one can carry is a waste of energy, since only the anointed ones (about 1 in 500,000) will end up with CCW. To the rest of us, it is a clear prohibition and to take this DC ruling and resulting legislative action as encouragement is not in keeping with reality. I'd say this is a non-event and in practical terms, to the average citizen (we the people), nothing has changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 8:27:56 AM EDT
[#15]
I like this quote.
"This bill is a big fail," said George Lyon, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that resulted in Scullin's ruling." In the article posted above I didn't read anything about non-resident ability to carry, either open or concealed. I believe that all citizens have the right to carry anywhere within these United States. With a few exceptions. This bill is at least a start. We are better off with it then without it. It is far from perfect though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 8:52:17 AM EDT
[#16]
I love this quote:
D.C. officials say that living in a high-crime neighborhood alone will not be justification alone, but being stalked would. In other words just because you want to protect yourself or family in that third world shithole of DC, well tough luck serf, go get bent were not issuing you a permit unless you are already a victim. I have strong doubts that this will meet the judges requirements. Don't forget MD already lost once on their shit law and only won on appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 8:54:11 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:...This bill is at least a start. We are better off with it then without it. It is far from perfect though. Not to argumentative Mike, but actually the RULING itself was a good start. The BILL is a do nothing, feel good (to us) response that allows compliance with the ruling without materially changing the way things are done. Big deal, they have to have a permit system and so they installed one with enough hurdles to prevent issuance of any permits at all. When I lived in MD, we had exactly the same bullshit law, and still do thanks to the federal court, and it boils down to "no one carries" when applied to normal citizens. I have a very hard time seeing how this bill changes anything at all. It clearly does not have the potential to become more citizen-friendly in the future, because case law now says it is an acceptable way to regulate the rights of the people, so saying "it's a start" is really rather delusional. You must have a system in place to allow citizens to exercise their rights, but you still get to select which animals are more equal. Pffft... When Woolard won his first round against MD, we were ecstatic. The federal appeals court then reversed the ruling and here we STILL sit with a completely arbitrary permit system. I am a law abiding citizen, firearms instructor and collector. I've had a FL CCW for 15 years and have been able to carry almost everywhere EXCEPT my home state. Please forgive me if I seem completely unimpressed by this piece of "progress" that is simply a duplication of MD's (and the federal court system's) idea of providing a way to exercise civil rights by the general citizenry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 8:56:12 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:.... Don't forget MD already lost once on their shit law and only won on appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 9:01:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But they DID win and unfortunately set a precedent that will hang around our necks like a stone. DC is now just more of the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:.... Don't forget MD already lost once on their shit law and only won on appeal. But you neglect to point out that there are several split rulings in various appeals courts going both ways. Maryland is a different circuit than DC for starters. So other circuits deciding this same issue have been won in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 9:11:06 AM EDT
[#20]
A proposal made by Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) to make public the names of concealed carry permit-holders was shot down, though some of his colleagues said they would consider it during debate on a permanent measure, which will be discussed in late October or early November. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 9:19:51 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But you neglect to point out that there are several split rulings in various appeals courts going both ways. Maryland is a different circuit than DC for starters. So other circuits deciding this same issue have been won in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:.... Don't forget MD already lost once on their shit law and only won on appeal. But you neglect to point out that there are several split rulings in various appeals courts going both ways. Maryland is a different circuit than DC for starters. So other circuits deciding this same issue have been won in. DC creates another avenue from which this can be taken through the judicial process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 10:01:32 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
A proposal made by Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) to make public the names of concealed carry permit-holders was shot down, though some of his colleagues said they would consider it during debate on a permanent measure, which will be discussed in late October or early November. http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003252831/049411471_gomer_pyle_surprise_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg On one hand, if they make it public, we'll get to see all the high and mighty anti-gun connected Democrats who get permits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 10:11:05 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But you neglect to point out that there are several split rulings in various appeals courts going both ways. Maryland is a different circuit than DC for starters. So other circuits deciding this same issue have been won in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:.... Don't forget MD already lost once on their shit law and only won on appeal. But you neglect to point out that there are several split rulings in various appeals courts going both ways. Maryland is a different circuit than DC for starters. So other circuits deciding this same issue have been won in. And split rulings among circuits is the quickest way to get the SCOTUS' attention... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 11:54:32 AM EDT
[#24]
 OK, I'll ride your roller coaster...just got off the one in MD...
MD had a plan for RTBKA, their discretionary permit system, which sucks for all but a special few; essentially security guards, cops, jewelers, bankers and the politburo. Woolard challenged the 'Good & Substantial" reason clause, based on just how capricious the standard can be. He won what seemed to be a very clear case with a well reasoned verdict, but lost when MD appealed. He wanted to go forward, but the Supremes declined to hear it. Done. Sometimes no ruling effectively IS a ruling. May Issue stands in MD and I guess just about anyplace else that likes that scheme. DC has now been told it has to have a plan for RTKBA, so it has adopted a discretionary permit system like Maryland's. So now, DC's law will suck for all but a special few as well. DC is taking the loss, so this case is over. Unless the judge takes exception to their bullshit effort to comply, May Issue stands, and in another federal court district no less. I doubt he'll reject May Issue, since another federal court just let MD prevail. So: Status Quo as is. Done. Essentially two back to back confirmations that this ridiculous permitting process is an OK way to acknowledge our RTKBA... So, please guys, cheer me up: Specifically, which promising case goes to the USSC from here that will modify THIS approach (sure we grant permits, but we actually don't). As it stands, there is no problem because permits are available and it seems to be the "State's Rights" to determine their own process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 2:18:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I'll ride your roller coaster...just got off the one in MD...
MD had a plan for RTBKA, their discretionary permit system, which sucks for all but a special few; essentially security guards, cops, jewelers, bankers and the politburo. Woolard challenged the 'Good & Substantial" reason clause, based on just how capricious the standard can be. He won what seemed to be a very clear case with a well reasoned verdict, but lost when MD appealed. He wanted to go forward, but the Supremes declined to hear it. Done. Sometimes no ruling effectively IS a ruling. May Issue stands in MD and I guess just about anyplace else that likes that scheme. DC has now been told it has to have a plan for RTKBA, so it has adopted a discretionary permit system like Maryland's. So now, DC's law will suck for all but a special few as well. DC is taking the loss, so this case is over. Unless the judge takes exception to their bullshit effort to comply, May Issue stands, and in another federal court district no less. I doubt he'll reject May Issue, since another federal court just let MD prevail. So: Status Quo as is. Done. Essentially two back to back confirmations that this ridiculous permitting process is an OK way to acknowledge our RTKBA... So, please guys, cheer me up: Specifically, which promising case goes to the USSC from here that will modify THIS approach (sure we grant permits, but we actually don't). As it stands, there is no problem because permits are available and it seems to be the "State's Rights" to determine their own process. this is pretty much my take, I never really thought the federal judiciary would let DC take it on the chin |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 3:30:40 PM EDT
[#26]
The solution to MD and DC is passing something like the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013, HR 2959. I believe the bill was also reintroduced earlier this year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 3:42:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I'll ride your roller coaster...just got off the one in MD...
MD had a plan for RTBKA, their discretionary permit system, which sucks for all but a special few; essentially security guards, cops, jewelers, bankers and the politburo. Woolard challenged the 'Good & Substantial" reason clause, based on just how capricious the standard can be. He won what seemed to be a very clear case with a well reasoned verdict, but lost when MD appealed. He wanted to go forward, but the Supremes declined to hear it. Done. Sometimes no ruling effectively IS a ruling. May Issue stands in MD and I guess just about anyplace else that likes that scheme. DC has now been told it has to have a plan for RTKBA, so it has adopted a discretionary permit system like Maryland's. So now, DC's law will suck for all but a special few as well. DC is taking the loss, so this case is over. Unless the judge takes exception to their bullshit effort to comply, May Issue stands, and in another federal court district no less. I doubt he'll reject May Issue, since another federal court just let MD prevail. So: Status Quo as is. Done. Essentially two back to back confirmations that this ridiculous permitting process is an OK way to acknowledge our RTKBA... So, please guys, cheer me up: Specifically, which promising case goes to the USSC from here that will modify THIS approach (sure we grant permits, but we actually don't). As it stands, there is no problem because permits are available and it seems to be the "State's Rights" to determine their own process. That's the thing though, while a circuit can give weight to the decision of another circuit, it's not binding. A circuit can rule independently of other circuits. When we have split rulings is when the SCOTUS is more likely to take it up. I was shocked when the 4th allowed MD to keep their may-issue. I'm interested to see if the DC Circuit doesn't like the City of DC (two different entities) trying to circumvent what the court thought was a clear ruling. If not, they may oil the city up over it. The other thing about DC is it's in it's own individual circuit. It's almost a direct line to SCOTUS. No other city or state has such a quick (possible) trip to SCOTUS than does DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 8:52:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the thing though, while a circuit can give weight to the decision of another circuit, it's not binding. A circuit can rule independently of other circuits. When we have split rulings is when the SCOTUS is more likely to take it up. I was shocked when the 4th allowed MD to keep their may-issue. I'm interested to see if the DC Circuit doesn't like the City of DC (two different entities) trying to circumvent what the court thought was a clear ruling. If not, they may oil the city up over it. The other thing about DC is it's in it's own individual circuit. It's almost a direct line to SCOTUS. No other city or state has such a quick (possible) trip to SCOTUS than does DC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK, I'll ride your roller coaster...just got off the one in MD...
MD had a plan for RTBKA, their discretionary permit system, which sucks for all but a special few; essentially security guards, cops, jewelers, bankers and the politburo. Woolard challenged the 'Good & Substantial" reason clause, based on just how capricious the standard can be. He won what seemed to be a very clear case with a well reasoned verdict, but lost when MD appealed. He wanted to go forward, but the Supremes declined to hear it. Done. Sometimes no ruling effectively IS a ruling. May Issue stands in MD and I guess just about anyplace else that likes that scheme. DC has now been told it has to have a plan for RTKBA, so it has adopted a discretionary permit system like Maryland's. So now, DC's law will suck for all but a special few as well. DC is taking the loss, so this case is over. Unless the judge takes exception to their bullshit effort to comply, May Issue stands, and in another federal court district no less. I doubt he'll reject May Issue, since another federal court just let MD prevail. So: Status Quo as is. Done. Essentially two back to back confirmations that this ridiculous permitting process is an OK way to acknowledge our RTKBA... So, please guys, cheer me up: Specifically, which promising case goes to the USSC from here that will modify THIS approach (sure we grant permits, but we actually don't). As it stands, there is no problem because permits are available and it seems to be the "State's Rights" to determine their own process. That's the thing though, while a circuit can give weight to the decision of another circuit, it's not binding. A circuit can rule independently of other circuits. When we have split rulings is when the SCOTUS is more likely to take it up. I was shocked when the 4th allowed MD to keep their may-issue. I'm interested to see if the DC Circuit doesn't like the City of DC (two different entities) trying to circumvent what the court thought was a clear ruling. If not, they may oil the city up over it. The other thing about DC is it's in it's own individual circuit. It's almost a direct line to SCOTUS. No other city or state has such a quick (possible) trip to SCOTUS than does DC. Pretty sure the full DC Circuit now leans decidedly left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 11:53:41 PM EDT
[#29]
But it's still, for now, in the hands of Judge Scullin... He' have to rule the DC attempt "not good enough", then the city would have to appeal to the Circuit, where they may still lose in a 3- judge panel. A correct en banc decision is much less certain but still possible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 12:04:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it's still, for now, in the hands of Judge Scullin... He' have to rule the DC attempt "not good enough", then the city would have to appeal to the Circuit, where they may still lose in a 3- judge panel. A correct en banc decision is much less certain but still possible. No way man it's game over man! I think a lot of people really need to learn more about how the Federal District, Circuit of Appeals and Supreme Court work hand in hand before saying it is a lost battle since the majority of decisions on those courts in the last few years have been beneficial to gun owners. But hey it's game over man because DC passed some POS legislation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2014 11:37:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Few people. if any, in recent decades have more to restore constitutional rights of any kind than attorney Alan Gura. It's a shame he's not a household name among gun owners, because he has done it not just in the face of opposition from legislatures and courts, but the NRA. It's the NRA that didn't want to pursue (and actually tried to sabotage) Heller. Now they act like they had something to do with it. Gura is the modern-day American equivalent of the Middle Ages' champion. For every man and woman who is unable to fight for freedom, he stands up and says, "Don't Tread on Them." DC as it stands today doesn't seem like much of a victory, but the man has moved the immovable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 4:30:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Absolutely kudos to Alan.
I'm continually impressed at his tenacity. The new DC law sucks rat bags. I'm almost glad that its that bad, since it makes it a fine target for further pummeling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2014 5:04:28 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Few people. if any, in recent decades have more to restore constitutional rights of any kind than attorney Alan Gura. It's a shame he's not a household name among gun owners, because he has done it not just in the face of opposition from legislatures and courts, but the NRA. It's the NRA that didn't want to pursue (and actually tried to sabotage) Heller. Now they act like they had something to do with it. Gura is the modern-day American equivalent of the Middle Ages' champion. For every man and woman who is unable to fight for freedom, he stands up and says, "Don't Tread on Them." DC as it stands today doesn't seem like much of a victory, but the man has moved the immovable. As has Stephen Halbrook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 8:21:25 AM EDT
[#34]
Chief Epaulets' remarks in today's WAPO:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-to-begin-accepting-first-applications-in-decades-for-concealed-firearm-permits/2014/10/16/9173ca86-5555-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html Living in a crime-plagued area of the city, for example, where killings have occurred or drug sales are common would not be sufficient cause for a concealed-carry permit, Lanier said. Owning a home that has been burglarized, even multiple times, also would not necessarily give an applicant standing, she said, because the District has been required since 2008 to allow residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Rather, Lanier said, for concealed-carry permits, “we’re talking about a specific threat to you. If there is a threat, you have been threatened, you are the victim of stalking, you are the victim of domestic violence,” she said. She said she would like the council to consider adding provisions in the permanent bill that would ban carrying weapons inside government buildings, in parking lots and in cabs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 10:47:20 AM EDT
[#35]
Going to take several more lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 11:13:14 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chief Epaulets' remarks in today's WAPO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-to-begin-accepting-first-applications-in-decades-for-concealed-firearm-permits/2014/10/16/9173ca86-5555-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chief Epaulets' remarks in today's WAPO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-to-begin-accepting-first-applications-in-decades-for-concealed-firearm-permits/2014/10/16/9173ca86-5555-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html Living in a crime-plagued area of the city, for example, where killings have occurred or drug sales are common would not be sufficient cause for a concealed-carry permit, Lanier said. Owning a home that has been burglarized, even multiple times, also would not necessarily give an applicant standing, she said, because the District has been required since 2008 to allow residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Rather, Lanier said, for concealed-carry permits, “we’re talking about a specific threat to you. If there is a threat, you have been threatened, you are the victim of stalking, you are the victim of domestic violence,” she said. She said she would like the council to consider adding provisions in the permanent bill that would ban carrying weapons inside government buildings, in parking lots and in cabs. One of the dumbest law enforcement members in the nation. She was hired because she is female, not because she is intelligent. DC is not safer as a result of this moron, but then again, the have/had child molesters/pornographers, pimps, and drug dealers on payroll acting as police officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 2:58:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chief Epaulets' remarks in today's WAPO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-to-begin-accepting-first-applications-in-decades-for-concealed-firearm-permits/2014/10/16/9173ca86-5555-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chief Epaulets' remarks in today's WAPO: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-to-begin-accepting-first-applications-in-decades-for-concealed-firearm-permits/2014/10/16/9173ca86-5555-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html Living in a crime-plagued area of the city, for example, where killings have occurred or drug sales are common would not be sufficient cause for a concealed-carry permit, Lanier said. Owning a home that has been burglarized, even multiple times, also would not necessarily give an applicant standing, she said, because the District has been required since 2008 to allow residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Rather, Lanier said, for concealed-carry permits, “we’re talking about a specific threat to you. If there is a threat, you have been threatened, you are the victim of stalking, you are the victim of domestic violence,” she said. She said she would like the council to consider adding provisions in the permanent bill that would ban carrying weapons inside government buildings, in parking lots and in cabs. She pretty much wants a CC permit system that allows very few to carry concealed, and even then, only in their own homes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:19:11 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to take several more lawsuits. Incrementalism, folks. Just like the grabbers do it. |
|
|
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.
