User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 10:10:58 AM EDT
[#1]
P
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
You said you understood that crime prevention had nothing to do with "gun control" laws. Clearly that is not the case. You have internalized the justification for such laws given by citizen disarmament advocates and government officials. I have shocking news: Politicians Lie! When a government official or an elected official states that the purpose of a proposed or existing "gun control" law is crime reduction, he or she is LYING. Pointing out that the items are not used by people while committing crimes is pointless. It will not change the opinion of those who are determined to disarm you. It will not overcome the countless hours of propaganda consumed by millions of people as entertainment. If you are to have any hope of success, you must first understand the nature of the obstacles you face, which include, but are not limited to, the real reasons these laws exist. At this point, you do not. Of course, you have plenty of company. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Because safety and reducing crime are the guise that gun control laws are pushed under. Govt. Thoughts: More gun control/regulation of guns/silencers=less crime; therefore less regulation=more crime. So when more and more NFA items are being produced and used without the corresponding increase in crime, it invalidates the argument that they need to be regulated (at least in my head). Plus I know that MY silencers and MY machine guns would not be used in a crime, so I hate being punished/regulated based on others actions. I guess I think to logically or scientifically to be a lawyer. No increase in crime= no need for regulation. You said you understood that crime prevention had nothing to do with "gun control" laws. Clearly that is not the case. You have internalized the justification for such laws given by citizen disarmament advocates and government officials. I have shocking news: Politicians Lie! When a government official or an elected official states that the purpose of a proposed or existing "gun control" law is crime reduction, he or she is LYING. Pointing out that the items are not used by people while committing crimes is pointless. It will not change the opinion of those who are determined to disarm you. It will not overcome the countless hours of propaganda consumed by millions of people as entertainment. If you are to have any hope of success, you must first understand the nature of the obstacles you face, which include, but are not limited to, the real reasons these laws exist. At this point, you do not. Of course, you have plenty of company. Please enlighten us on the real reasons gun control laws exist. How does one change the minds of those determined to disarm us? Specifically if it won't work in these courts where logic seems to mean nothing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 10:30:03 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82: I'd like to hear about Mr. Soskins' qualifications and expertise to testify as to the "difficulty" of training with MGs, and his extensive experience with the range of self defense situations that wouldn't ever benefit from a FA capability. He must be a real Tier 0.1 operator.  Plus, I've never seen an infinite magazine - except in a movie or on TV. Even belt feds have a limited number of rounds per belt. Hope the judge reads the Congressional Record Nolo attached where NFA was being debated. Even those crooked politicians clearly realized that what they really wanted to do (ban) was unconstitutional, so they had to settle for the $200 tax. It wasn't any less unconstitutional in 1986. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82: Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey: Originally Posted By semiautomatic: What The Fuck ? Here, let me help you with that: " BE THANKFUL I ALLOW YOU TO OWN A HAND GUN YOU PEON NOW GET OUT OF HERE!" - or something to that effect. That's basically what the Justice Department and, so far, mamy district courts have said (with few exceptions): Heller and McDonald have established the second amendment means you have a right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home and the government may not ban all handguns. Everything else; every other restriction the Feds or states can come with are A-O.K. Take a gander at this lovely quote from the arguments Nolo posted for us: Nonetheless, even if the Court were to consider it under Step Two -- were to consider the regulation of machineguns under Step Two, it would find that they satisfy Step Two. NRA has left open the question of what standard of review should be applied at that stage. But as we've argued, the appropriate standard here, because of the minimal burden on self-defense -- of the machinegun ban, would be to treat it as a de minimus restriction on self-defense and therefore to analyze under a rational basis standard. The machinegun is much more difficult to train with; it's much more dangerous; it doesn't have any practical use, because very few self-defense confrontations require unleashing an unlimited -- really require unleashing a large number of rounds, let alone a continuous and large number of rounds. There is not a particular reason to think that a higher level of scrutiny should be required. There is not a particular burden on self-defense inside the home here. Pages 49 - 50. Wow.... Just.... wow. I'd like to hear about Mr. Soskins' qualifications and expertise to testify as to the "difficulty" of training with MGs, and his extensive experience with the range of self defense situations that wouldn't ever benefit from a FA capability. He must be a real Tier 0.1 operator. Plus, I've never seen an infinite magazine - except in a movie or on TV. Even belt feds have a limited number of rounds per belt. Hope the judge reads the Congressional Record Nolo attached where NFA was being debated. Even those crooked politicians clearly realized that what they really wanted to do (ban) was unconstitutional, so they had to settle for the $200 tax. It wasn't any less unconstitutional in 1986. The sheer audacity to say that the case has grounds only to dismiss it in favor of the .gov circular logic is astounding to me. Says a lot about these judges and how they lack the necessary reading comprehension skills for such a job. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 1:13:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
P Please enlighten us on the real reasons gun control laws exist. How does one change the minds of those determined to disarm us? Specifically if it won't work in these courts where logic seems to mean nothing? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
P Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Because safety and reducing crime are the guise that gun control laws are pushed under. Govt. Thoughts: More gun control/regulation of guns/silencers=less crime; therefore less regulation=more crime. So when more and more NFA items are being produced and used without the corresponding increase in crime, it invalidates the argument that they need to be regulated (at least in my head). Plus I know that MY silencers and MY machine guns would not be used in a crime, so I hate being punished/regulated based on others actions. I guess I think to logically or scientifically to be a lawyer. No increase in crime= no need for regulation. You said you understood that crime prevention had nothing to do with "gun control" laws. Clearly that is not the case. You have internalized the justification for such laws given by citizen disarmament advocates and government officials. I have shocking news: Politicians Lie! When a government official or an elected official states that the purpose of a proposed or existing "gun control" law is crime reduction, he or she is LYING. Pointing out that the items are not used by people while committing crimes is pointless. It will not change the opinion of those who are determined to disarm you. It will not overcome the countless hours of propaganda consumed by millions of people as entertainment. If you are to have any hope of success, you must first understand the nature of the obstacles you face, which include, but are not limited to, the real reasons these laws exist. At this point, you do not. Of course, you have plenty of company. Please enlighten us on the real reasons gun control laws exist. How does one change the minds of those determined to disarm us? Specifically if it won't work in these courts where logic seems to mean nothing? You have to determine for yourself what level of civil disobedinece you are willing to go to jail for. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 1:26:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Please enlighten us on the real reasons gun control laws exist. How does one change the minds of those determined to disarm us? Specifically if it won't work in these courts where logic seems to mean nothing? I already told you the purpose of "gun control' laws. Although you posted that you understood the post clearly you did not. Try reading it again. You will not change the minds of those who seek to disarm you. To ask that question is to demonstrate just how little you know about the obstacles you face. "The life of the law has not ben logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Common Law (1881) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 1:46:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars: You have to determine for yourself what level of civil disobedinece you are willing to go to jail for. Sadly that is probably where this will end up for all of us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 2:29:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Mariner82]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
The sheer audacity to say that the case has grounds only to dismiss it in favor of the .gov circular logic is astounding to me. Says a lot about these judges and how they lack the necessary reading comprehension skills for such a job. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
<snip> I'd like to hear about Mr. Soskins' qualifications and expertise to testify as to the "difficulty" of training with MGs, and his extensive experience with the range of self defense situations that wouldn't ever benefit from a FA capability. He must be a real Tier 0.1 operator.
Plus, I've never seen an infinite magazine - except in a movie or on TV. Even belt feds have a limited number of rounds per belt. Hope the judge reads the Congressional Record Nolo attached where NFA was being debated. Even those crooked politicians clearly realized that what they really wanted to do (ban) was unconstitutional, so they had to settle for the $200 tax. It wasn't any less unconstitutional in 1986. The sheer audacity to say that the case has grounds only to dismiss it in favor of the .gov circular logic is astounding to me. Says a lot about these judges and how they lack the necessary reading comprehension skills for such a job. Well, so far at least this judge in TX hasn't bought into the BS. There were a couple places where it looked to me like Soskins fell into a trap of his own making. It will be interesting to see if the judge picks up on them, but I doubt she'll re-read the transcript in the same light that we do - she just doesn't have the same background, and that's not her fault. The thing is, that despite the post-86 ban, there really area slew of FA weapons in private hands. They aren't used in crimes. Now, I'll grant that some increase in their use in crime may occur if the ban were lifted and prices dropped. Offhand, I'd say that continued restrictions on things like MAC-10s, mini-Uzis and FA handguns may be almost reasonable, since they're easily concealed, and would be attractive to drug gangs and the like. OTOH, at some point you have to wonder why FA haven't been seen already... it's not like we do a bang up job with stopping smuggling from Mexico or anything, and criminals will crime. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 2:31:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mp41]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. This. "Machine guns" are a force multiplier that the Government must not allow the common people to possess without restrictions or outright bans . However, our fight in the courts must not subside in the least. Nothing worthwhile is to be gained by acquiescence. Nolo and the others are doing their duty as Americans in the greatest traditions. In a valid bid to wright the nefarious wrongs perpetrated long ago by our-supposed masters-that infest our government. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:06:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheTaxMonkey]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Well, so far at least this judge in TX hasn't bought into the BS. There were a couple places where it looked to me like Soskins fell into a trap of his own making. It will be interesting to see if the judge picks up on them, but I doubt she'll re-read the transcript in the same light that we do - she just doesn't have the same background, and that's not her fault. The thing is, that despite the post-86 ban, there really area slew of FA weapons in private hands. They aren't used in crimes. Now, I'll grant that some increase in their use in crime may occur if the ban were lifted and prices dropped. Offhand, I'd say that continued restrictions on things like MAC-10s, mini-Uzis and FA handguns may be almost reasonable, since they're easily concealed, and would be attractive to drug gangs and the like. OTOH, at some point you have to wonder why FA haven't been seen already... it's not like we do a bang up job with stopping smuggling from Mexico or anything, and criminals will crime. In my opinion one of the most powerful arguments I have seen, and Nolo made us of it, is the fact that Heller and McDonald ruled to protect the handgun: the weapon of preference for criminals and used far more than any other in criminal offenses. If the Government cannot completely prohibit or restrict the ownership of the weapon most likely to be used by criminals, how can they justify a prohibition or restriction on a weapon least likely to be used by criminals? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:45:34 PM EDT
[#9]
It is depressing how far we have fallen.
In 1934, the Congress had a debate over just about everything: requiring registration of ALL FIREARMS, banning/restricting "bullet proof" armor, magazine/clip restrictions, etc. Every argument, just about, that you hear today was used them. Hell they even make reference to other nations restricting access to weapons and how the USA has a higher homicide rate than Great Britain. Monday, April 16, 1934: HoR: Committee on Ways and Means:
Mr. LEWIS. I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution. . Attorney General Cummings. Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, , and regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say "We will tax the machine gun" and when you say that" the absence a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated", . you are easily within the law. Mr. Lewis. In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but Allows of regulation. Attorney General Cummings. That is the idea. We have studied this very carefully. Page 19 (22 of the pdf document). One thing that stood out to me was that quite a few individuals in the record who wanted to ban something (machine guns, armor, magazines, etc) repeatedly went back to the Constitution as if it was a limiting factor that prevented them from doing what they really wanted to do. This comes out in a few questions and arguments made by various members throughout the testimony. Take a look at this: Mr. Treadway. I would like to follow you a moment and plead ignorance. You referred to the possibility of side-stepping the Constitution
The one feature of this bill that appeals to me is getting rid of machine guns. If the Constitution is side-stepped to bring in a taxing measure in order to secure regulations of this nature, why could we not side-stop it once more and prevent, by some kind of Federal statute, the manufacture of machine guns? Where, in the Constitution, are we so terribly tied down that we cannot prevent the manufacture of instruments of such a serious destructive nature as these are to human life? . Page 149 (151 in the PDF) My disdain an enmity for the 73th Congress and FDR knows no limit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:57:04 PM EDT
[#10]
The most destructive thing to human life in this country is abortion and that is legal. They are
not worried about human life. They are worried that we can fight back when they over step. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 9:14:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Page 49
V. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we hold that Watson has standing to bring his constitutional challenges to the NFA and GCA. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims. 
What The Fuck ? Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. My brother had this happen last week. He spent three weeks on his case and the judge said "I don't do law here" . Those exact words. They had to request a new judge, but it's shitty that most areas are such a "good ole boy" system that you can't report incidences because they will eventually be able to screw you over again. He regularly complains about logic being disregarded. It's overly disappointing to hear stories of the legal system. And law review is a sham, just parties and bitchwork. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 9:29:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: antman311]
[#12]
Thank you for your hard work, Nolo. Good luck in the appeals process. I will be following for further updates. I will donate when I can.
Edit: Just finished reading the transcripts for the oral argument. Good luck, Nolo. Definitely a tough fight ahead, but remember, they're on the wrong side. Even if he's a smooth talker, his arguments don't hold water, and I hope the judge can see that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 12:15:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattR:My brother had this happen last week. He spent three weeks on his case and the judge said "I don't do law here" . Those exact words. They had to request a new judge, but it's shitty that most areas are such a "good ole boy" system that you can't report incidences because they will eventually be able to screw you over again.
He regularly complains about logic being disregarded. It's overly disappointing to hear stories of the legal system. And law review is a sham, just parties and bitchwork. They don't all do law. They accept the argument that best fits their view, and some have no problem destroying a person even if what they've done is explicitly exempt or a defense of the law. "Nevertheless Judge Morin said, 'I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.' He then ruled that Mr. Witaschek had possessed 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the metal pieces in D.C. "The judge, however, still seemed to think this was a strange issue for a court. 'It’s taken four lawyers all afternoon to get through an interpretation of whether or not these are lawful,' he noted." 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 1:12:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
It is depressing how far we have fallen. In 1934, the Congress had a debate over just about everything: requiring registration of ALL FIREARMS, banning/restricting "bullet proof" armor, magazine/clip restrictions, etc. Every argument, just about, that you hear today was used them. Hell they even make reference to other nations restricting access to weapons and how the USA has a higher homicide rate than Great Britain. Page 19 (22 of the pdf document). One thing that stood out to me was that quite a few individuals in the record who wanted to ban something (machine guns, armor, magazines, etc) repeatedly went back to the Constitution as if it was a limiting factor that prevented them from doing what they really wanted to do. This comes out in a few questions and arguments made by various members throughout the testimony. Take a look at this: Page 149 (151 in the PDF) My disdain an enmity for the 73th Congress and FDR knows no limit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
It is depressing how far we have fallen. In 1934, the Congress had a debate over just about everything: requiring registration of ALL FIREARMS, banning/restricting "bullet proof" armor, magazine/clip restrictions, etc. Every argument, just about, that you hear today was used them. Hell they even make reference to other nations restricting access to weapons and how the USA has a higher homicide rate than Great Britain. Monday, April 16, 1934: HoR: Committee on Ways and Means:
Mr. LEWIS. I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution. . Attorney General Cummings. Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, , and regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say "We will tax the machine gun" and when you say that" the absence a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated", . you are easily within the law. Mr. Lewis. In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but Allows of regulation. Attorney General Cummings. That is the idea. We have studied this very carefully. Page 19 (22 of the pdf document). One thing that stood out to me was that quite a few individuals in the record who wanted to ban something (machine guns, armor, magazines, etc) repeatedly went back to the Constitution as if it was a limiting factor that prevented them from doing what they really wanted to do. This comes out in a few questions and arguments made by various members throughout the testimony. Take a look at this: Mr. Treadway. I would like to follow you a moment and plead ignorance. You referred to the possibility of side-stepping the Constitution
The one feature of this bill that appeals to me is getting rid of machine guns. If the Constitution is side-stepped to bring in a taxing measure in order to secure regulations of this nature, why could we not side-stop it once more and prevent, by some kind of Federal statute, the manufacture of machine guns? Where, in the Constitution, are we so terribly tied down that we cannot prevent the manufacture of instruments of such a serious destructive nature as these are to human life? . Page 149 (151 in the PDF) My disdain an enmity for the 73th Congress and FDR knows no limit. Link please. Lost mine. Thanks. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 8:36:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tisfortexas:
Link please. Lost mine. Thanks. http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/NFA-1934house.pdf Let me know if you have issues and I can email a copy of my PDF copy. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 9:44:50 PM EDT
[#16]
The fact that the judge said that he had standing to challenge the NFA but ruled in the .gov's favor was insane in its entirety.
So is this how the law works now? You are accused of murder You have standing to prove that you are innocent Judge convicts you anyways because the prosecutor spent a lot of time on his case and doesn't want to look bad And when the fuck did the government allow themselves to tell us what types of arms we're allowed to have? I think backroom politics are getting played here. Like Mr. Nolo said, forcing the ATF to give a deposition in discovery would be a disaster. Let the ATF get caught at least one time of approving post form 1's and they violate the equal protection clause. That door gets opened up and the whole validity of the NFA gets destroyed. Banning the ownership of a class of arms that you weren't even alive to buy at the time is discrimination in itself They tried that with the freed slaves "You can only vote if you can pass this literacy test but he doesn't have to take it because his grandfather could vote" Jim Crow? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 9:54:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Texas, better not fuck this up.... Or its going to be the new Florida.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 12:17:59 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By linny:
The fact that the judge said that he had standing to challenge the NFA but ruled in the .gov's favor was insane in its entirety. So is this how the law works now? You are accused of murder You have standing to prove that you are innocent Judge convicts you anyways because the prosecutor spent a lot of time on his case and doesn't want to look bad There's a difference between standing and merits. You gotta have both to win. If the judge had decided Watson didn't have standing, he wouldn't have had to address any other issue of the suit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 2:55:57 AM EDT
[#19]
I may have this wrong, but did the PA Judge say we had standing and merit to fight the NFA, just not through 922 (o)?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 3:34:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AzureReaver]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jmorg51:
I may have this wrong, but did the PA Judge say we had standing and merit to fight the NFA, just not through 922 (o)? No, the PA judge said we had standing, as in, an actual harm/claim caused by the law we targeted, and changing that law would resolve that harm. You'll need to read the wiki on the concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) Having standing doesn't speak to whether our challenges to that law have merit. After saying we had standing the judge said our challenges didn't have merit, cause the judge used the wrong meaning of "dangerous and unusual" and the wrong concept of "long standing law", as if '86 is really that long ago, and the wrong concept of "common use" (use by civilians instead of military), and just said, "machine guns are double plus scary and not commonly owned (since we banned them) so we can ban them". |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 5:15:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Markius-Fox]
[#21]
In the PA opinion, I found this line particularly interesting to the court's decision to side with the government.
On or about November 14, 2014, Watson under protest surrendered his machine gun to
BATFE Special Agent Kovach “without waiving any rights to contest the illegal mandate by the BATFE that he surrender that firearm.” C. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is warranted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact exists. If the above italicized and underlined means what I think it means, how much does anyone want to bet the BATFE destroyed Watson's machine gun post haste? If I am wrong, please let me know. Assuming I'm right however, for the sake of voicing an opinion, Mr. Watson could have been better off legally by refusing to surrender the machine gun until the conclusion of the case. As it appears though, and assuming that the BATFE destroyed the Watson MG after receipt, they secured their own motion for summary judgement before the case was even heard. And if Mr. Watson had refused to surrender the machine gun, the BATFE Special Agent would more than likely arrest Mr. Watson for illegal possession of an unregistered machine gun, in which it would be held onto as evidence for the case. But that is just one set conclusions I thought up. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 5:28:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Markius-Fox:
In the PA opinion, I found this line particularly interesting to the court's decision to side with the government. If the above italicized and underlined means what I think it means, how much does anyone want to bet the BATFE destroyed Watson's machine gun post haste? If I am wrong, please let me know. Assuming I'm right however, for the sake of voicing an opinion, Mr. Watson could have been better off legally by refusing to surrender the machine gun until the conclusion of the case. As it appears though, and assuming that the BATFE destroyed the Watson MG after receipt, they secured their own motion for summary judgement before the case was even heard. And if Mr. Watson had refused to surrender the machine gun, the BATFE Special Agent would more than likely arrest Mr. Watson for illegal possession of an unregistered machine gun, in which it would be held onto as evidence for the case. But that is just one set conclusions I thought up. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Markius-Fox:
In the PA opinion, I found this line particularly interesting to the court's decision to side with the government. On or about November 14, 2014, Watson under protest surrendered his machine gun to
BATFE Special Agent Kovach “without waiving any rights to contest the illegal mandate by the BATFE that he surrender that firearm.” C. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is warranted if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact exists. If the above italicized and underlined means what I think it means, how much does anyone want to bet the BATFE destroyed Watson's machine gun post haste? If I am wrong, please let me know. Assuming I'm right however, for the sake of voicing an opinion, Mr. Watson could have been better off legally by refusing to surrender the machine gun until the conclusion of the case. As it appears though, and assuming that the BATFE destroyed the Watson MG after receipt, they secured their own motion for summary judgement before the case was even heard. And if Mr. Watson had refused to surrender the machine gun, the BATFE Special Agent would more than likely arrest Mr. Watson for illegal possession of an unregistered machine gun, in which it would be held onto as evidence for the case. But that is just one set conclusions I thought up. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. You missed an important filing or two, and some context in the ruling. I don't remember the proper legal terms, but a request was filed to preserve the machine gun and it was agreed to by the ATF and ordered by the judge. It appears that there are still some issues to argue relating to the disposition of the receiver at this level, and I'm pretty sure the ATF will be required to continue to preserve the gun upon appeal, too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 6:48:50 AM EDT
[#23]
In both of these cases....did the Hollis and Watson get a refund of their tax? And if not would that be something that could be used in their favor?
|
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 7:15:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984:
You missed an important filing or two, and some context in the ruling. I don't remember the proper legal terms, but a request was filed to preserve the machine gun and it was agreed to by the ATF and ordered by the judge. It appears that there are still some issues to argue relating to the disposition of the receiver at this level, and I'm pretty sure the ATF will be required to continue to preserve the gun upon appeal, too. Thank you. |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 7:41:19 AM EDT
[#25]
When does the list of post 86 approved MG's get delivered to the court? Did I miss that? Anyway to get live streaming of the ATF's face when it happens?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 9:46:21 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08: How does one change the minds of those determined to disarm us? Specifically if it won't work in these courts where logic seems to mean nothing? The Founding Father's found that a .68 Cal musketball worked pretty good... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 1:41:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
When does the list of post 86 approved MG's get delivered to the court? Did I miss that? Anyway to get live streaming of the ATF's face when it happens? The judge in the Dallas case has to come back and tell us whether the case will procede, and then discovery happens, which will be when that list should come forth, but don't hold your breath, it will be a while. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 2:01:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AzureReaver:
The judge in the Dallas case has to come back and tell us whether the case will procede, and then discovery happens, which will be when that list should come forth, but don't hold your breath, it will be a while. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AzureReaver:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
When does the list of post 86 approved MG's get delivered to the court? Did I miss that? Anyway to get live streaming of the ATF's face when it happens? The judge in the Dallas case has to come back and tell us whether the case will procede, and then discovery happens, which will be when that list should come forth, but don't hold your breath, it will be a while. Hopefully they will pull that string. It sounded like the accusation was made, but no names were given. Hopefully the judge is curious. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 7:58:41 PM EDT
[#29]
As a layman like so many others here, I was a little confused to hear that Watson had standing but was dismissed before an argument could begin. I would think standing means that you at least deserve the time to argue your case, and that dismissal means that you don't deserve to the time to argue your case.
Which leads me to one of two different conclusions. Either - (a) Standing and dismissal mean something else (b) The judge is not fair The only thing I can find that sums it up clearly is a quote from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.", Source So I guess it actually means "This court is entitled to decide, and we decide to dismiss." While I'm not happy with the result, and I think their arguments are poor and totally ignore the points made in opposition to dismissal, To say that Watson had standing doesn't seem to be an admission that Watson deserves justice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:06:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By veloxsouth:
As a layman like so many others here, I was a little confused to hear that Watson had standing but was dismissed before an argument could begin. I would think standing means that you at least deserve the time to argue your case, and that dismissal means that you don't deserve to the time to argue your case. Which leads me to one of two different conclusions. Either - (a) Standing and dismissal mean something else (b) The judge is not fair The only thing I can find that sums it up clearly is a quote from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.", Source So I guess it actually means "This court is entitled to decide, and we decide to dismiss." While I'm not happy with the result, and I think their arguments are poor and totally ignore the points made in opposition to dismissal, To say that Watson had standing doesn't seem to be an admission that Watson deserves justice. In my experience most motions to dismiss in federal court are decided on the pleadings with no oral argument. And in the PA case the Plaintiff did not request oral argument. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where this will be appealed to, only hears oral arguments in about 20% of the appeals. They rely on the pleadings and the record before them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:29:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
When does the list of post 86 approved MG's get delivered to the court? Did I miss that? Anyway to get live streaming of the ATF's face when it happens? That certainly would have made a difference in Watson, because the judge harped on the point that without documented examples of other post-86 approvals, Watson didn't have any ammunition to back up its claim. Hopefully Nolo can get discovery and get that list to present to the court when Hollis goes to trial. In fact, being able to cite that section of the Watson ruling while presenting a list of post-86 approvals should bolster the case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:53:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
That certainly would have made a difference in Watson, because the judge harped on the point that without documented examples of other post-86 approvals, Watson didn't have any ammunition to back up its claim. Hopefully Nolo can get discovery and get that list to present to the court when Hollis goes to trial. In fact, being able to cite that section of the Watson ruling while presenting a list of post-86 approvals should bolster the case. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
When does the list of post 86 approved MG's get delivered to the court? Did I miss that? Anyway to get live streaming of the ATF's face when it happens? That certainly would have made a difference in Watson, because the judge harped on the point that without documented examples of other post-86 approvals, Watson didn't have any ammunition to back up its claim. Hopefully Nolo can get discovery and get that list to present to the court when Hollis goes to trial. In fact, being able to cite that section of the Watson ruling while presenting a list of post-86 approvals should bolster the case. Atf is probably busy "updating" the files. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 9:13:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
In my experience most motions to dismiss in federal court are decided on the pleadings with no oral argument. And in the PA case the Plaintiff did not request oral argument. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where this will be appealed to, only hears oral arguments in about 20% of the appeals. They rely on the pleadings and the record before them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By veloxsouth:
As a layman like so many others here, I was a little confused to hear that Watson had standing but was dismissed before an argument could begin. I would think standing means that you at least deserve the time to argue your case, and that dismissal means that you don't deserve to the time to argue your case. Which leads me to one of two different conclusions. Either - (a) Standing and dismissal mean something else (b) The judge is not fair The only thing I can find that sums it up clearly is a quote from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.", Source So I guess it actually means "This court is entitled to decide, and we decide to dismiss." While I'm not happy with the result, and I think their arguments are poor and totally ignore the points made in opposition to dismissal, To say that Watson had standing doesn't seem to be an admission that Watson deserves justice. In my experience most motions to dismiss in federal court are decided on the pleadings with no oral argument. And in the PA case the Plaintiff did not request oral argument. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where this will be appealed to, only hears oral arguments in about 20% of the appeals. They rely on the pleadings and the record before them. This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 9:30:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Thanks to FrankDrebin and NoloContendere for their responses. I overlooked the fact that there was no request for oral argument in Watson.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 9:36:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By veloxsouth:
As a layman like so many others here, I was a little confused to hear that Watson had standing but was dismissed before an argument could begin. I would think standing means that you at least deserve the time to argue your case, and that dismissal means that you don't deserve to the time to argue your case. Which leads me to one of two different conclusions. Either - (a) Standing and dismissal mean something else (b) The judge is not fair The only thing I can find that sums it up clearly is a quote from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.", Source So I guess it actually means "This court is entitled to decide, and we decide to dismiss." While I'm not happy with the result, and I think their arguments are poor and totally ignore the points made in opposition to dismissal, To say that Watson had standing doesn't seem to be an admission that Watson deserves justice. In my experience most motions to dismiss in federal court are decided on the pleadings with no oral argument. And in the PA case the Plaintiff did not request oral argument. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where this will be appealed to, only hears oral arguments in about 20% of the appeals. They rely on the pleadings and the record before them. This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. Ugh . . . Lawyers and their secrecy!  In all seriousness, I know there are excellent reasons for that, and I respect that. Keep fighting the good fight! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:11:08 AM EDT
[#36]
U
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By veloxsouth:
As a layman like so many others here, I was a little confused to hear that Watson had standing but was dismissed before an argument could begin. I would think standing means that you at least deserve the time to argue your case, and that dismissal means that you don't deserve to the time to argue your case. Which leads me to one of two different conclusions. Either - (a) Standing and dismissal mean something else (b) The judge is not fair The only thing I can find that sums it up clearly is a quote from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.", Source So I guess it actually means "This court is entitled to decide, and we decide to dismiss." While I'm not happy with the result, and I think their arguments are poor and totally ignore the points made in opposition to dismissal, To say that Watson had standing doesn't seem to be an admission that Watson deserves justice. In my experience most motions to dismiss in federal court are decided on the pleadings with no oral argument. And in the PA case the Plaintiff did not request oral argument. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where this will be appealed to, only hears oral arguments in about 20% of the appeals. They rely on the pleadings and the record before them. This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. I bet I can guess why, but I won't. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:35:06 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
............ This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. As an attorney can you please explain to me how a judge can summarily rule for the NFA and use the "in common usage" argument when machine guns (as small arms) had only VERY recently been available to the public before 1934? I mean, you could only buy one for a few years prior to 1934 at expensive prices before they were banned............but "oh fuck it, they are not in common use in 2015".
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:39:42 AM EDT
[#38]
Do you think the Feds will try to submit the PA case to the TX judge similar to how you did with the SBS SCOTUS ruling, or is that case too low in the courts to have bearing on the TX judge's consideration?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:53:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Captain_Morgan:
Do you think the Feds will try to submit the PA case to the TX judge similar to how you did with the SBS SCOTUS ruling, or is that case too low in the courts to have bearing on the TX judge's consideration? I know you're this to Nolo, but you can count on the DOJ advising the federal judge in Texas of the ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 9:09:56 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Captain_Morgan:
Do you think the Feds will try to submit the PA case to the TX judge similar to how you did with the SBS SCOTUS ruling, or is that case too low in the courts to have bearing on the TX judge's consideration? Of course. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 9:29:44 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RDak:
As an attorney can you please explain to me how a judge can summarily rule for the NFA and use the "in common usage" argument when machine guns (as small arms) had only VERY recently been available to the public before 1934? I mean, you could only buy one for a few years prior to 1934 at expensive prices before they were banned............but "oh fuck it, they are not in common use in 2015". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
............ This mirrors mine. I requested oral argument in Hollis and was granted it, even though the rules state you are not entitled to it. In Watson, oral argument was not requested for reasons I do not wish to get in to. As an attorney can you please explain to me how a judge can summarily rule for the NFA and use the "in common usage" argument when machine guns (as small arms) had only VERY recently been available to the public before 1934? I mean, you could only buy one for a few years prior to 1934 at expensive prices before they were banned............but "oh fuck it, they are not in common use in 2015". If you had the cash, nothing would have kept you from ordering up and importing a Maxim machinegun in 1887 or so. I'm not sure where you're getting that machine guns had only been available recently. "Common use" is a pretty loose legal concept in general. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:11:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Of course. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Captain_Morgan:
Do you think the Feds will try to submit the PA case to the TX judge similar to how you did with the SBS SCOTUS ruling, or is that case too low in the courts to have bearing on the TX judge's consideration? Of course. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but with your experience and intellect I think that will easily be turned against them. Me personally having zero law experience/training, would make this an opportunity to show that much of the PA case judges info was based on flawed logic/"facts". I didn't read then entire transcript yet but I know they cited how there was no proof on the claims of due process. Plus something along the lines of the fact that the law itself bans post '86. Heres an idea for the judges with reading comprehension problems. If "dangerous and unusual" is a reasonable claim, then to say that "prohibition" resulted in alcohol becoming "unusual" and "not in common use" the year after justified the cause. "Not a single bar or restaurant offered alcohol for use during prohibition so obviously no public demand or need was a result", well no shit eh? SMH! Anyone have DUI fatality statistics before, during and immediately after prohibition? =) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:28:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but with your experience and intellect I think that will easily be turned against them. Me personally having zero law experience/training, would make this an opportunity to show that much of the PA case judges info was based on flawed logic/"facts". I didn't read then entire transcript yet but I know they cited how there was no proof on the claims of due process. Plus something along the lines of the fact that the law itself bans post '86. Heres an idea for the judges with reading comprehension problems. If "dangerous and unusual" is a reasonable claim, then to say that "prohibition" resulted in alcohol becoming "unusual" and "not in common use" the year after justified the cause. "Not a single bar or restaurant offered alcohol for use during prohibition so obviously no public demand or need was a result", well no shit eh? SMH! Anyone have DUI fatality statistics before, during and immediately after prohibition? =) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Captain_Morgan:
Do you think the Feds will try to submit the PA case to the TX judge similar to how you did with the SBS SCOTUS ruling, or is that case too low in the courts to have bearing on the TX judge's consideration? Of course. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but with your experience and intellect I think that will easily be turned against them. Me personally having zero law experience/training, would make this an opportunity to show that much of the PA case judges info was based on flawed logic/"facts". I didn't read then entire transcript yet but I know they cited how there was no proof on the claims of due process. Plus something along the lines of the fact that the law itself bans post '86. Heres an idea for the judges with reading comprehension problems. If "dangerous and unusual" is a reasonable claim, then to say that "prohibition" resulted in alcohol becoming "unusual" and "not in common use" the year after justified the cause. "Not a single bar or restaurant offered alcohol for use during prohibition so obviously no public demand or need was a result", well no shit eh? SMH! Anyone have DUI fatality statistics before, during and immediately after prohibition? =) Nope, not "a single restaurant" - they pretty much all did... just on the QT because alcohol was "illegal." Made the Kennedys rich from smuggling scotch though, we we have that to show for it. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:47:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheTaxMonkey]
[#44]
I wonder if anybody has done an actual study on the preferred weapons of choice of the prohibition era gangster rather than just the big names immortalized by Hollywood and the media.
We all know about some of the infamous characters like Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Capone, etc, who, on occasion, liked specialty weapons (including machine guns). I have not studied the issue however I would guess the top three weapons of choice for prohibition era criminals would be something like this: (1) Fountain pen / pencil (2) Automobile (3) Revolver We know expensive, specialty weapons such as machine guns were sometimes used and even cited in the 1934 NFA testimony (St. Valentine's Day Massacre, for example) but just how common or likely was the Thompson, BAR, or some other specialty weapon like a select fire 1911 to be found or used by a criminal in that era? I wonder how closely that matches with reality and what impact Hollywood had on our perception of that era. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 9:27:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Nope, not "a single restaurant" - they pretty much all did... just on the QT because alcohol was "illegal." Made the Kennedys rich from smuggling scotch though, we we have that to show for it. And THAT of coarse was my point.
Since we of coarse have no way to know the number of "clandestine" machine guns in current "possession" we can only guess, by deductive reasoning of coarse...maybe it follows the same percentages of alcohol during prohibition?
The funniest part would be if we could have a "moratorium" of sorts. A way for people to offer a "number" of the "undocumented" machine guns they possessed, without penalty, so that the "common use" ratio could be ACCURATELY computed. 
Sort of like a gamble on the future of being able to register them legally, how you think THAT would go? LOL |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:57:00 AM EDT
[#46]
Too drunk/lazy to post a link, but the ATF "estimates" that for every 1 registered machine gun there are 3 unregistered. A friend of a friend of a friend has FA in Cali and he likes to brag how he goes to shoot FA on private property all the time. I think as the laws get dumber and dumber people will just silently stop following it. Being from CA I know A LOT of people who don't register their long guns (new law), and don't put the bullet button on their "assault weapons". Personal question of how much time are you willing to do to practice civil disobedience. I do think a 10 year maximum penalty for violating the NFA is insane, it should be a misdemeanor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:41:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
so by the same logic: 1 guy makes a machine gun=does not effect interstate commerce, but thousands of home made machine guns would effect interstate commerce. EXCEPT THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF MACHINE GUNS SINCE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Would the same logic have been applied to filburn's wheat if it was marijuana instead??, ie illegal at the time?? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government. so by the same logic: 1 guy makes a machine gun=does not effect interstate commerce, but thousands of home made machine guns would effect interstate commerce. EXCEPT THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF MACHINE GUNS SINCE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Would the same logic have been applied to filburn's wheat if it was marijuana instead??, ie illegal at the time?? The non-interstate commerce aspect has already been run up the legal flag pole for both homebrew machineguns and MJ. See "US v Stewart" and "Gonzales v Raich" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003) Both lost as the SCOTUS level. Bob Stewart went to prison for a couple decades for both the illegal machineguns as well as other felony convictions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:34:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Do we have info on how frequently MGs were added to the registry or transferred from one person to another before the ban went into effect?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 4:44:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chris0013:
Do we have info on how frequently MGs were added to the registry or transferred from one person to another before the ban went into effect? I'll let someone else chime in, but all the C3 dealers I have spoken with had told me that it was very uncommon to sell a MG |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 4:45:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Conju]
[#50]
Post #7000 says Go Nolo!
|
|
|
|
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.
