User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 9:34:07 PM EDT
WTS: Fully Transferable SCAR 17- $100K
I'm skeptical. 
My guess is it's a FNC sear that someone got a letter stating "It's OK", a la the Form 1 MG. What's everyone else's take? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 10:09:13 PM EDT
[#1]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 10:13:17 PM EDT
[#2]
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 11:15:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Well that was quick...No Message!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 11:18:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Ad was pulled I think.
Either the guy didn't format his ad correctly to Buddy's standards or Buddy sensed the obvious problem with the concept of an FNC sear in a SCAR and pulled it for that reason. That gun would be very dubious at any price, especially if the gun installed it based on a letter of determination. ATF could retract that letter at any time, it's not binding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 11:32:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Yeah not something i would mess around with. And good god for $100k you can start a FFl/SOT and but a post sample. You could just transfer firearms for all of your friends for free just as the legitimate reason for the business and then buy the SCAR. Even after taxes, fees and what not you would still save like $90k+
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 6:23:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Well there was a letter floating around from the ATF saying an FNC sear can be used in a scar if the reciever is in modified and if it can still function semi auto without the sear so im guessing they got one to work
Kicker is the atf wanted to inspect the weapon prior to approval so who knows if they submitted it to the atf This is just speculation on my part |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 8:09:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well there was a letter floating around from the ATF saying an FNC sear can be used in a scar if the reciever is in modified and if it can still function semi auto without the sear so im guessing they got one to work Kicker is the atf wanted to inspect the weapon prior to approval so who knows if they submitted it to the atf This is just speculation on my part Think there are even more ATF letters around denying this idea. This has been attempted over and over for the better part of 7 years. A single "yes" letter floating around isn't something to invest in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 10:25:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah not something i would mess around with. And good god for $100k you can start a FFl/SOT and but a post sample. You could just transfer firearms for all of your friends for free just as the legitimate reason for the business and then buy the SCAR. Even after taxes, fees and what not you would still save like $90k+ Haha. This was my first thought. You could create a legitimate business for less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:48:37 AM EDT
[#9]
There was a thread over on Sturm that somebody contacted the owner before the ad was pulled and the SCAR was reportedly set up with some type of universal conversion device that could be used on any gun where the fire control group was not part of the serialized receiver. (Like a SCAR or HK but not an M16 or AK)
http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/semiforum.cgi?read=119978 Total speculation on my part but could be some sort of registered electric solenoid conversion device where it can be set up to push/pull the disconnector out of the way on any semi auto that has one in a trigger pack. Who knows what the actual conversion method was and if it was truly approved but its a lot of money to gamble that it was and would continue to remain legit. Unless you absolutely have to have a full auto SCA17 it would see to just be much easier and cheaper to buy a G3K or a FAL Carbine if you want a lightweight full auto 308 rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:06:59 AM EDT
[#10]
dupe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:19:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was a thread over on Sturm that somebody contacted the owner before the ad was pulled and the SCAR was reportedly set up with some type of universal conversion device that could be used on any gun where the fire control group was not part of the serialized receiver. (Like a SCAR or HK but not an M16 or AK) http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/semiforum.cgi?read=119978 Total speculation on my part but could be some sort of registered electric solenoid conversion device where it can be set up to push/pull the disconnector out of the way on any semi auto that has one in a trigger pack. Who knows what the actual conversion method was and if it was truly approved but its a lot of money to gamble that it was and would continue to remain legit. Unless you absolutely have to have a full auto SCA17 it would see to just be much easier and cheaper to buy a G3K or a FAL Carbine if you want a lightweight full auto 308 rifle. I contacted him too. He asked for my number so he could call and fill me in. I haven't provided it because I don't feel comfortable giving out my personal cell number to someone I haven't talked to before. I'd use the work line, but I'm not sure that would fly. Tried getting a google voice number, but my phone is too archaic to run the app. I asked for details, pictures, a copy of the form, etc. to be emailed to me, but he wanted to talk on the phone. So that conversation is probably going nowhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:58:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Think there are even more ATF letters around denying this idea. This has been attempted over and over for the better part of 7 years. A single "yes" letter floating around isn't something to invest in. AFAIK there is no Case Law on using a sear in a gun it was not designed for. Would be nice if someone forced this issue and got favorable case law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:59:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless you absolutely have to have a full auto SCA17 it would see to just be much easier and cheaper to buy a G3K or a FAL Carbine if you want a lightweight full auto 308 rifle. F/A SCAR-17 is not as much fun as it might sound like. Like you said, get HK and you have options galore including belt fed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:06:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AFAIK there is no Case Law on using a sear in a gun it was not designed for. Would be nice if someone forced this issue and got favorable case law. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Think there are even more ATF letters around denying this idea. This has been attempted over and over for the better part of 7 years. A single "yes" letter floating around isn't something to invest in. AFAIK there is no Case Law on using a sear in a gun it was not designed for. Would be nice if someone forced this issue and got favorable case law. I agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:07:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F/A SCAR-17 is not as much fun as it might sound like. Like you said, get HK and you have options galore including belt fed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unless you absolutely have to have a full auto SCA17 it would see to just be much easier and cheaper to buy a G3K or a FAL Carbine if you want a lightweight full auto 308 rifle. F/A SCAR-17 is not as much fun as it might sound like. Like you said, get HK and you have options galore including belt fed. Yeah I don't know where my head was at originally when I thought it was cool. I guess I thought it was a 16 instead...a full auto .308 carbine is not really that appealing to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:27:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I don't know where my head was at originally when I thought it was cool. I guess I thought it was a 16 instead...a full auto .308 carbine is not really that appealing to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless you absolutely have to have a full auto SCA17 it would see to just be much easier and cheaper to buy a G3K or a FAL Carbine if you want a lightweight full auto 308 rifle. F/A SCAR-17 is not as much fun as it might sound like. Like you said, get HK and you have options galore including belt fed. Yeah I don't know where my head was at originally when I thought it was cool. I guess I thought it was a 16 instead...a full auto .308 carbine is not really that appealing to me. 5.56 IMO is right on the edge of being controlable in full auto, 7.62 is one in the chest, one it the head, 28 into the air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 10:39:00 PM EDT
[#17]
I talked to him it is legit, it is a transferable registered conversion device that can go into any semi that has the upper as the semi receiver host like an FNC or M249, M240 etc. he has a letter and it is the holy grail of transferables it is not some electronic thing it is a piece of metal, just wish believe it or not I don't care here is the original ad
NFA Market Board WTS: Fully Transferable SCAR 17 - $100K Up until now, something like this has not existed. We have an opportunity for a lucky buyer to have the ONLY transferable SCAR 17 in existence. I know what everyone is thinking...impossible. Technically you are correct BUT in this case we have a conversion device that has been adapted without modifying the receiver to a SCAR 17 host. I also know what you are thinking...impossible. Technically you are incorrect because we have a letter from the BATFE that describes a small family of conversion devices by SN which can be adapted to a host weapon WITHOUT modifying the receiver. The unique thing about the conversion device we are describing is not limited to a specific host or host family such as an HK sear which is also identified in the letter from the BATFE. As many of us are aware, there are a large number of foreign made Title I firearms that are available in which the lower 'fire control' group is not the registered component of the weapon. It is in these types of weapons that the conversion device can be adapted with a little gunsmith craftsmanship. Contact us if interested; serious inquires only: |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 7:41:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AFAIK there is no Case Law on using a sear in a gun it was not designed for. Would be nice if someone forced this issue and got favorable case law. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 2:32:42 PM EDT
[#19]
I can confirm this.
I was at a local shooting range and I fired a gentleman who had a SCAR 16 that was transferable, he had an ATF letter also but it was for the manufacturer of it not him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 2:47:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can confirm this. I was at a local shooting range and I fired a gentleman who had a SCAR 16 that was transferable, he had an ATF letter also but it was for the manufacturer of it not him. There are no transferable SCAR-anything. There maybe transferable sears installed in a S/A SCAR-something, but that is entirely different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 4:07:51 PM EDT
[#21]
The conversion device is unique in that it has no family of weapons associated with it when it was registered before May 19, 1986. That is what makes it so valuable to put in any modern semi auto.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 9:17:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The conversion device is unique in that it has no family of weapons associated with it when it was registered before May 19, 1986. That is what makes it so valuable to put in any modern semi auto. Specifically, what conversion device is this? A shoelace? Seriously, I'm very curious to hear about this autosear/device that has never been heard of until now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 6:49:22 PM EDT
[#23]
I joined this site just to post this warning about this gun...
As a new user, I have to break this post into three parts.... I have not seen this specific gun, but let me tell you what I encountered. I am a legitimate MG collector. You can find my posts on other forums under the name MachineGunTony. I recently purchased a fully transferrable M240 FNMI that I have pics up on HKPro, if that's any indication of how serious I am. I am a legit buyer and collector, and you can see pics of my collection on HKPro and thefiringline.com. Three months ago, there was a post on gunbroker for a transferable MK48 for $220,000, which is impossible because the Mk48 wasn't developed until after '86. I inquired into this gun and the seller told me that the gun used a machine gun part known as a 'Universal Trigger'. I spoke to the manufacturer who then produced letters from BATFE saying essentially what has been stated in this thread, that the trigger can be installed on an unconverted semi auto trigger. He seller also stated that he had installed and sold another 'Universal trigger' in a M249 for $125,000. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 6:50:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Being skeptical, I paid my lawyer to research this issue. I also had my class 3 dealer pull the FOIA request on this 'Universal Trigger'. Turns out, the trigger is nothing more than a Stemple MAC trigger. It belongs to the MAC family of guns. This trigger is NOT legal to install on anything other than a the MAC family of guns. The FFL and seller was not reading the BATFE letter correctly For example, try writing a letter to BATFE inquiring as to what you can install an RDIAS; BATFE will tell you the same thing, in that you you can install it in any semi auto that is unmodified (no drilling a hole for a GI auto sear, for example). They won't specifically say this this RDIAS is only for the AR family. You then can't take the letter, reshape the RDIAS and make it run on another family of guns. BATFE has issued a ruling on the issue of 'family' of guns.
I have email and pics of the form 3 documentation to prove everything I am writing. What you guys are writing about sounds suspiciously like the Stemple MAC triggers that I encountered, and is not legal to install in anything but a MAC. The seller was probably smart to take the gun down immediately. Somewhere out in there is an unwitting owner of an illegal M249 SAW with a 'Universal trigger'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 6:51:23 PM EDT
[#25]
I'm not saying that Lloyd is a scammer. I didn't see the actual post for sale. I'm just saying that the seller needs to consult an NFA lawyer and pull the FOIA request on whatever MG part that he has, which he claims can be installed in an M60 or M249. Those are two entirely different family of guns, and there is no one registered part that can legally run both, at least not that my lawyer or class 3 dealer knows of.
I will bet dollars to donuts that the registered part is a Stemple MAC trigger, and Lloyd is acting without legal counsel on this issue. BATFE rules are sometimes a trap for the unwary, and this is one of those traps. I'm just saying this thread sounds suspiciously like the item that I encountered, as there is NOT a trigger or part that can be installed in an M249. FYI, there are 11 of the Stemple MAC triggers, which Stemple registered right before the cut off date. He successfully fought in court to keep these triggers, but they are MAC triggers, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:07:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Here is the correspondence that the seller is talking about from BATFE. Read very carefully. This letter is a trap. Notice the use of the term, 'compatible'. Also, remember the ATF rule regarding machinegun 'families'.
edit: I tried posting three pics but they only showed the links. How do I post pics on this site? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:12:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Thanks for the information, Tony. I've followed your activity on HK pro, particularly with regard to your beautiful new 240. Its interesting you mention that MK48 on gunbroker; I remember seeing that as well and thinking
Basically, its just as I expected; a load of nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:19:05 PM EDT
[#28]
thanks, David,
I tried again. Only showed the link. I'll figure it out later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:21:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
thanks, David, I tried again. Only showed the link. I'll figure it out later. Post the links...I'll take 'em and post 'em up for you |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:22:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Good info MGT, and yes, I know the 240 you bought off the boards. It was a tempting stretch for me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:23:46 PM EDT
[#31]
Thanks David. Can you link these too please.
If anyone Is really tempted, I urge you to pull the FOIA on these serial numbers, and talk to a lawyer. The seller says he has four. Well, here are four of said MG parts... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:42:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Posting these pics on behalf of Machineguntony
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:12:59 PM EDT
[#33]
Do you have the FOIA on these to see how they were registered ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:15:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have the FOIA on these to see how they were registered ? I registered a conversion device in 82. No caliber, BBL, OAL. Just a model and SN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:21:42 PM EDT
[#35]
(redacted)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:22:46 PM EDT
[#36]
So how do attach a family of weapons to just a serial number ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:33:58 PM EDT
[#37]
I mean if the FOIA does not say anything about a MAC well then how do you determine the family?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:53:43 PM EDT
[#38]
I have given the serial numbers so that each person, who may be contemplating a purchase, can conduct their own due diligence. I posted the pics of the letters and serial numbers so that you wouldn't have to rely on my word. I couldn't find the FOIA results, and I'm not about to ask my lawyer for copies, as he charges for work performed, and that includes copies. From what I saw on documents, and was told by my lawyer (and by the original seller), these were originally MAC triggers.
Please conduct your own due diligence and make your own determination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:24:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean if the FOIA does not say anything about a MAC well then how do you determine the family? You don't. My device, nobody but me knows what is was for. DIAS? HK Sear? FNC Sear? Glock Sear? MiniGun side plate? Nobody knows but me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 2:11:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I registered a conversion device in 82. No caliber, BBL, OAL. Just a model and SN. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you have the FOIA on these to see how they were registered ? I registered a conversion device in 82. No caliber, BBL, OAL. Just a model and SN. Is that how it's listed on the form 1/4? In that case, I wouldn't think there would be much stopping you from putting it in anything at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 3:35:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On the advice of my lawyer, here is what I then told the owner...paraphrase my conversation with the owner... 'You phrased your request wrong, you only asked if the BA triggers can be installed in an unmodified semi auto gun. You must ask, explicitly and specifically, can you install this trigger into a MK48?'. I also pointed out that his letter stated that the gun must be 'semi auto'. I told him that there is no such thing as a semi auto MK48. BATFE was thinking he was going to install the trigger into a semi auto MAC and make it an automatic. He then replied, 'well, I can make a semi auto MK48 because I have a machine shop, so then you have a semi auto that complies with the letter'. I said that if an ATF letter came back as specifically to the extent of, 'Yes, you can install BAM026 in a MK48', then I would pay for the MK48, and then pay for another of the triggers installed into a M249'. Like said, I come with credentials, and I am known to several NFA dealers as a regular buyer. The seller, at the time, also agreed to indemnify me, via contract, that if BATFE later confiscated the guns, that the seller would reimburse me the money paid. I conducted a due diligence study, and found that the original seller of the MK48 was an established FFL. I then waited for the BATFE correspondence for clarification... However, three months passed by and I didn't hear anything but crickets chirping. Then I see this on Sturm on on AR-15.com. Btw, this Lloyd, out of Houston, is probably a broker, and is not the original FFL that I dealt with. Apparently, the original FFL couldn't produce the letter and then subsequently had 'Lloyd' broker this SCAR17. He had a willing buyer in me, and instead he passed it to another person? Very suspicious. Strange thing is that the reported price of the SCAR 17 is $100,000. That's also suspicious because I offered way more than $100,000. Proceed with caution. It should be noted that the letter states "....may be installed in any compatible firearm..." This is easy to overlook, but I think it clearly implies that it cannot be installed in an incompatible firearm, thus you can't modify the conversion device either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 7:21:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It should be noted that the letter states "....may be installed in any compatible firearm..." This is easy to overlook, but I think it clearly implies that it cannot be installed in an incompatible firearm, thus you can't modify the conversion device either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
On the advice of my lawyer, here is what I then told the owner...paraphrase my conversation with the owner... 'You phrased your request wrong, you only asked if the BA triggers can be installed in an unmodified semi auto gun. You must ask, explicitly and specifically, can you install this trigger into a MK48?'. I also pointed out that his letter stated that the gun must be 'semi auto'. I told him that there is no such thing as a semi auto MK48. BATFE was thinking he was going to install the trigger into a semi auto MAC and make it an automatic. He then replied, 'well, I can make a semi auto MK48 because I have a machine shop, so then you have a semi auto that complies with the letter'. I said that if an ATF letter came back as specifically to the extent of, 'Yes, you can install BAM026 in a MK48', then I would pay for the MK48, and then pay for another of the triggers installed into a M249'. Like said, I come with credentials, and I am known to several NFA dealers as a regular buyer. The seller, at the time, also agreed to indemnify me, via contract, that if BATFE later confiscated the guns, that the seller would reimburse me the money paid. I conducted a due diligence study, and found that the original seller of the MK48 was an established FFL. I then waited for the BATFE correspondence for clarification... However, three months passed by and I didn't hear anything but crickets chirping. Then I see this on Sturm on on AR-15.com. Btw, this Lloyd, out of Houston, is probably a broker, and is not the original FFL that I dealt with. Apparently, the original FFL couldn't produce the letter and then subsequently had 'Lloyd' broker this SCAR17. He had a willing buyer in me, and instead he passed it to another person? Very suspicious. Strange thing is that the reported price of the SCAR 17 is $100,000. That's also suspicious because I offered way more than $100,000. Proceed with caution. It should be noted that the letter states "....may be installed in any compatible firearm..." This is easy to overlook, but I think it clearly implies that it cannot be installed in an incompatible firearm, thus you can't modify the conversion device either. Yeah, well we all know that if that was REALLY the rule, we could figure out how to make any gun run with an unmodified HK sear pack or a DIAS. Trouble is, that's not the complete rule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 8:47:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't. My device, nobody but me knows what is was for. DIAS? HK Sear? FNC Sear? Glock Sear? MiniGun side plate? Nobody knows but me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I mean if the FOIA does not say anything about a MAC well then how do you determine the family? You don't. My device, nobody but me knows what is was for. DIAS? HK Sear? FNC Sear? Glock Sear? MiniGun side plate? Nobody knows but me. Very interesting. Are you willing to give more details regarding the mechanics and what you've installed it in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 8:17:33 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very interesting. Are you willing to give more details regarding the mechanics and what you've installed it in? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean if the FOIA does not say anything about a MAC well then how do you determine the family? You don't. My device, nobody but me knows what is was for. DIAS? HK Sear? FNC Sear? Glock Sear? MiniGun side plate? Nobody knows but me. Very interesting. Are you willing to give more details regarding the mechanics and what you've installed it in? It was DIAS. But the point I was making was based on what was written on the form, nobody knows what it really was but me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 2:18:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was DIAS. But the point I was making was based on what was written on the form, nobody knows what it really was but me. Gotcha. I've never really thought of it that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 9:45:39 AM EDT
[#46]
Let me clarify something here. I have in the past seen all of these devices in question. They are registered full auto triggers for Mac's with no disconnector. . There is an atf letter to a previous owner that says they must be used in Mac family of firearms only.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 10:33:11 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here is the correspondence that the seller is talking about from BATFE. Read very carefully. This letter is a trap. Notice the use of the term, 'compatible'. Also, remember the ATF rule regarding machinegun 'families'.
edit: I tried posting three pics but they only showed the links. How do I post pics on this site? Welcome to ARFCOM. Until you have 50 posts, you can't post pics w/out moderation. A few years back, there was an unfortunate incident... Got any Legos? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 12:20:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Welcome to ARFCOM. Until you have 50 posts, you can't post pics w/out moderation. A few years back, there was an unfortunate incident... Got any Legos? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Here is the correspondence that the seller is talking about from BATFE. Read very carefully. This letter is a trap. Notice the use of the term, 'compatible'. Also, remember the ATF rule regarding machinegun 'families'.
edit: I tried posting three pics but they only showed the links. How do I post pics on this site? Welcome to ARFCOM. Until you have 50 posts, you can't post pics w/out moderation. A few years back, there was an unfortunate incident... Got any Legos? What incident? I must have missed out!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 5:08:35 PM EDT
[#49]
I hope the new owner has more luck than when I owned them....
Here is a photo of S/N BAM026 (page 3).  " />
 " />
 " />
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 5:27:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Len thank you for posting that. Given how the SCAR functions in fullauto with an automatic sear that is analogous to that of an FNC, I cannot see how these devices could legally be used in a SCAR without FTB giving the same judgement as they did in your case.
|
|
|
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.
