User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2022 4:57:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DirtyDigz]
[#1]
Is the the gov's latest response (filed today, 08/09/22)? :
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULES 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), AND 12(b)(6), OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE Although this Court need not reach the issue, Plaintiff’s challenge to ATF’s classification fails on the merits as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s entire argument is premised on an interpretation of the statutory phrase “single function of the trigger” that courts have repeatedly rejected. The FRT-15 fires multiple rounds automatically when the shooter maintains a single, constant rearward pull of the finger on the trigger, thus making it a “machinegun.” The phrase “single function of the trigger” is not unconstitutionally vague, as Plaintiff alleges. The phrase clearly means that a shooter can fire multiple rounds without the need to pull and release and pull again. Even if there is some ambiguity in the phrase, it is by no means standardless such that the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2022 5:10:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Interdasting
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2022 5:13:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DirtyDigz: Is the the gov's latest response (filed today, 08/09/22)? : MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULES 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), AND 12(b)(6), OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE I wish there was a "Like" button. Thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2022 5:43:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Can somebody translate that to 5 year old language
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2022 5:44:46 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: Can somebody translate that to 5 year old language Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: Can somebody translate that to 5 year old language it's a machine-gun |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2022 5:51:53 PM EDT
[#6]
So that's not the court's ruling, but rather "the case" being made by the government to dismiss?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2022 10:36:37 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alpha0815: So that's not the court's ruling, but rather "the case" being made by the government to dismiss? Correct. Despite the extremely recent Bruen ruling, they are hard charging ahead full speed. In other words they are saying "Fuck the constitution and fuck the supreme court, and also fuck the legislative branch- we do what we want. The 3 letter agencies are weaponized and attacking the people on all fronts. This is what a police stare looks like before it gets really bad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2022 10:40:07 AM EDT
[#8]
The phrase clearly means that a shooter can fire multiple rounds without the need to pull and release and pull again I think this phrase will come back to bight them in the ass since the FRT is a pull and release and pull again technically |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2022 10:43:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: I think this phrase will come back to bight them in the ass since the FRT is a pull and release and pull again technically Technically? How about actually. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2022 10:56:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Yeah I know that but from a legal perspective its all the technical aspects and mechanical functions that make the , "Well Ackshually Mr AFT man
 "
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2022 4:01:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: evlblkwpnz]
[#11]
-----
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/13/2022 4:58:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#12]
This is a bumpstock case decided this week (August 9, 2022) by a unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I post it here because their definition of a single function of the trigger would be bad news for forced reset triggers.
Read. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgpomgkjxpd/080922%20--%20DC%20Cir%20--%20Guedes%20et%20al%20v%20BATF%20et%20al%20decision.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2022 5:17:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: This is a bumpstock case decided this week (August 9, 2022) by a unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I post it here because their definition of a single function of the trigger would be bad news for forced reset triggers. Read. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgpomgkjxpd/080922%20--%20DC%20Cir%20--%20Guedes%20et%20al%20v%20BATF%20et%20al%20decision.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2022 5:19:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: This is a bumpstock case decided this week (August 9, 2022) by a unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I post it here because their definition of a single function of the trigger would be bad news for forced reset triggers. Read. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgpomgkjxpd/080922%20--%20DC%20Cir%20--%20Guedes%20et%20al%20v%20BATF%20et%20al%20decision.pdf |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 8:21:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Solo_: Wasn't able to get to the document Weird. It worked when I posted it. I'll see if I can find another copy posted online. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 8:23:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#16]
Here you go. It is well worth reading. I know it is not an FRT case, but it is a bump stock case talking about the ATF ruling and the congressional definition of a machine gun and what it means with respect to a pull or function of the trigger.
And it is the first appellate court ruling on this issue after Bruen. And it is unanimous. https://tmsnrt.rs/3p5oKbZ |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 8:25:31 PM EDT
[#17]
And here is a news article on the case (not as useful, but good for some context). https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/atf-beats-back-gun-rights-groups-challenge-bump-stock-ban-2022-08-09/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 8:28:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Here you go. It is well worth reading. I know it is not an FRT case, but it is a bump stock case talking about the ATF ruling and the congressional definition of a machine gun and what it means with respect to a pull or function of the trigger. And it is the first appellate court ruling on this issue after Bruen. And it is unanimous. https://tmsnrt.rs/3p5oKbZ Anyone else gets this or is everyone being able to open the document just fine?  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2022 9:56:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Here you go. It is well worth reading. I know it is not an FRT case, but it is a bump stock case talking about the ATF ruling and the congressional definition of a machine gun and what it means with respect to a pull or function of the trigger. And it is the first appellate court ruling on this issue after Bruen. And it is unanimous. https://tmsnrt.rs/3p5oKbZ There's a lot of mental gymnastics and BS in that document. They are talking about bumpstocks like they are an Akins accelerator. Why let facts get in the way now. 
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 8:51:45 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Solo_: Thanks brother - I really want to read it. The way that I see it gets posted here, it seems to immediately lose some of the information to the address it needs - this is the error message I get Anyone else gets this or is everyone being able to open the document just fine? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/Screen_Shot_2022-08-15_at_8_25_02_PM_jpg-2490689.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Solo_: Thanks brother - I really want to read it. The way that I see it gets posted here, it seems to immediately lose some of the information to the address it needs - this is the error message I get Anyone else gets this or is everyone being able to open the document just fine? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/Screen_Shot_2022-08-15_at_8_25_02_PM_jpg-2490689.JPG It works for me just by clicking on it. It appears to work for Cycolac, too. I have a suggestion. Go to the article in the post of mine right after the post you quoted, and there is a link to the opinion in that article that will take you to the opinion to read. Originally Posted By Cycolac: There's a lot of mental gymnastics and BS in that document. They are talking about bumpstocks like they are an Akins accelerator. Why let facts get in the way now. LOL! I get what you are saying, but now you see why I am concerned about the fate of forced reset triggers, right? The court essentially rules that because the gun keeps firing so long as pressure is applied at a certain level, that a bump stock is a machine gun. That describes almost exactly how a forced reset trigger is used. Apply a certain amount of pressure, and the gun keeps firing. How did you like their attempt to distinguish bump firing using a belt loop as not a machine gun? Not a lot of mental firepower went into that. I had some high hopes after Bruen, when the Supreme Court sent all of these bump stock cases back to the appellate courts for further review, that we might get some different results. The first case out of the gate does not seem to point to my high hopes being fulfilled. There are other circuits with bump stock cases to re-evaluate, but it is easy to play follow the leader and rule, "We join our sister circuit in DC in declaring that bump stocks are machine guns . . ." Then the next one, "We join our sister circuits in declaring . . ." Keep in mind that all of the bump stock civil cases have been losses. I guess we'll see whether it is the same result after Bruen and the death of Chevron deference. If they are all losses again, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court will take up the cases due to there being no split among the circuits. I put the case in this thread, though, because I think this case is a very strong signal on how an appellate court might rule on forced reset triggers. As you read the opinion, think about whether all of the same arguments would not apply to the Rare Breed FRT-15. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 8:56:57 AM EDT
[#21]
I guess I should point out that, while the case is unanimous, the judges were appointed by Carter, Clinton, and Obama. While that should not matter, we all know it does.
The problem here is, of course, that this is a Trump administration rule, so can we count on, for instance, a Trump appointed judge to rule differently? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 8:59:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: It works for me just by clicking on it. It appears to work for Cycolac, too. I have a suggestion. Go to the article in the post of mine right after the post you quoted, and there is a link to the opinion in that article that will take you to the opinion to read. LOL! I get what you are saying, but now you see why I am concerned about the fate of forced reset triggers, right? The court essentially rules that because the gun keeps firing so long as pressure is applied at a certain level, that a bump stock is a machine gun. That describes almost exactly how a forced reset trigger is used. Apply a certain amount of pressure, and the gun keeps firing. How did you like their attempt to distinguish bump firing using a belt loop as not a machine gun? Not a lot of mental firepower went into that. I had some high hopes after Bruen, when the Supreme Court sent all of these bump stock cases back to the appellate courts for further review, that we might get some different results. The first case out of the gate does not seem to point to my high hopes being fulfilled. There are other circuits with bump stock cases to re-evaluate, but it is easy to play follow the leader and rule, "We join our sister circuit in DC in declaring that bump stocks are machine guns . . ." Then the next one, "We join our sister circuits in declaring . . ." Keep in mind that all of the bump stock civil cases have been losses. I guess we'll see whether it is the same result after Bruen and the death of Chevron deference. If they are all losses again, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court will take up the cases due to there being no split among the circuits. I put the case in this thread, though, because I think this case is a very strong signal on how an appellate court might rule on forced reset triggers. As you read the opinion, think about whether all of the same arguments would not apply to the Rare Breed FRT-15. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Originally Posted By Solo_: Thanks brother - I really want to read it. The way that I see it gets posted here, it seems to immediately lose some of the information to the address it needs - this is the error message I get Anyone else gets this or is everyone being able to open the document just fine? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326068/Screen_Shot_2022-08-15_at_8_25_02_PM_jpg-2490689.JPG It works for me just by clicking on it. It appears to work for Cycolac, too. I have a suggestion. Go to the article in the post of mine right after the post you quoted, and there is a link to the opinion in that article that will take you to the opinion to read. Originally Posted By Cycolac: There's a lot of mental gymnastics and BS in that document. They are talking about bumpstocks like they are an Akins accelerator. Why let facts get in the way now. LOL! I get what you are saying, but now you see why I am concerned about the fate of forced reset triggers, right? The court essentially rules that because the gun keeps firing so long as pressure is applied at a certain level, that a bump stock is a machine gun. That describes almost exactly how a forced reset trigger is used. Apply a certain amount of pressure, and the gun keeps firing. How did you like their attempt to distinguish bump firing using a belt loop as not a machine gun? Not a lot of mental firepower went into that. I had some high hopes after Bruen, when the Supreme Court sent all of these bump stock cases back to the appellate courts for further review, that we might get some different results. The first case out of the gate does not seem to point to my high hopes being fulfilled. There are other circuits with bump stock cases to re-evaluate, but it is easy to play follow the leader and rule, "We join our sister circuit in DC in declaring that bump stocks are machine guns . . ." Then the next one, "We join our sister circuits in declaring . . ." Keep in mind that all of the bump stock civil cases have been losses. I guess we'll see whether it is the same result after Bruen and the death of Chevron deference. If they are all losses again, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court will take up the cases due to there being no split among the circuits. I put the case in this thread, though, because I think this case is a very strong signal on how an appellate court might rule on forced reset triggers. As you read the opinion, think about whether all of the same arguments would not apply to the Rare Breed FRT-15. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 9:08:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: I guess I should point out that, while the case is unanimous, the judges were appointed by Carter, Clinton, and Obama. While that should not matter, we all know it does. The problem here is, of course, that this is a Trump administration rule, so can we count on, for instance, a Trump appointed judge to rule differently? Solid point and one that gets overlooked. Even good judges are not gun people. We have zero people of real power on our side. Thanks President Trump for giving us bump stock bans and keeping us safe! Other than that, you're a solid dude. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 5:47:36 PM EDT
[#24]
So in lay-man's terms, it seems like they are saying that:
To defend this bump stock rule, they aren't using Chevron Deference to defend it - they are relying upon a "reasonable" definition of "automatic" and "single function of the trigger". Which is a leap. They are dissecting each individual word and phrase and using one of the dictionary definitions of that term; whichever definition best lends itself to their desired conclusion. When the current dictionary doesn't meet that goal, they are going back to either the colloquial understanding or "generally accepted/understood" meaning of such a word or phrase back in 1934 (or currently). It's some mental gymnastics at its finest, for sure. Note that they say they are using Chevron Deference as a secondary position that backs up their first conclusion anyway - but bring up Chevron just in case their play on definitions scheme doesn't work. I found this interesting, referring to the definition of "machinegun": Whether this definition encompasses bump stocks depends on how we interpret two of its interior phrases "single function of the trigger" and "automatically" and how those phrases relate to one another. Starting with "single function of the trigger," the Bureau interprets it as a "'single pull of the trigger' and analogous motions." Bump Stock Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,515. The phrase "analogous motions" includes "other methods of initiating an automatic firing sequence that do not require a pull," like a push of a button or voice command. The Bureau's interpretation of "single function of the trigger" thus both defines a "function" of the trigger as a "pull" of the trigger and clarifies that a "pull" of the trigger is a shooter's volitional action that initiates an automatic firing sequence. and Indeed, as early as Congress began discussing restrictions on machine guns through the National Firearms Act, a “single function of the trigger” was understood to mean a “single pull.” Congress initially proposed a definition of “machine gun” based on a weapon’s capability to fire multiple shots, specifically a firearm that could automatically or semiautomatically shoot “twelve or more shots without reloading.” See National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Comm. on Ways and Means, H.R., on H.R. 9066, 73d Cong. 1 (1934). Testifying before Congress, President of the National Rifle Association Karl T. Frederick advocated for an alternative definition that omitted the number of shots required and incorporated the “single function of the trigger” language. Id. at 40. Mr. Frederick further explained that “[t]he distinguishing feature of a machine gun is that by a single pull of the trigger the gun continues to fire as long as there is any ammunition in the belt or in the magazine.” Id.4 Roughly one month later, Congress adopted Frederick’s definition word for word. Id. at 83. See also H.R. Rep. No. 73-1780, at 2 (1934) (noting the bill’s “usual definition of machine gun as a weapon designed to shoot more than one shot without reloading and by a single pull of the trigger”). Reading “single function” to mean a “single pull” thus reflects the term’s contemporaneous understanding. This definition also aligns with Congress’s purpose in enacting federal legislation on machine guns to “[s]trictly regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of destructive devices” and to “combat the spiralling increase in serious crime in the United States.” |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 6:40:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Bumpstock was not a machine gun under a "reasonable definition" before it was a machinegun under the same reasonable definition.
Therein lies the problem, and it is Chevron without saying it is Chevron. ATF: "It isn't Chevron at all, it is what is "reasonable".......and we alone decide what is "reasonable"....and we can change our mind on it at anytime. Oh, and if that isn't good enough. It is Chevron." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2022 7:12:17 PM EDT
[#26]
2nd Amendment Lawyer with Advice on what to do with your RB FRT:
 What Can I Do With My Rare Breed Trigger Before ATF Shows Up At My Door? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 11:46:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: snm]
[#27]
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 2:11:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: This is a bumpstock case decided this week (August 9, 2022) by a unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I post it here because their definition of a single function of the trigger would be bad news for forced reset triggers. Read. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zgpomgkjxpd/080922%20--%20DC%20Cir%20--%20Guedes%20et%20al%20v%20BATF%20et%20al%20decision.pdf Or for people who are simply bump firing. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 2:34:17 PM EDT
[#29]
So neither of those vids speak to an important question: if you sold or destroyed the trigger, is saying that you did one of those (or providing the destroyed trigger) an admission of guilt that you had it at one point?
The Washington lawyer vid says not to disseminate photos of destroyed triggers, but he doesn't say to not say you had it at one point... why? What's the difference? Id assume most door knocks mean they already had records/proof that one was bought, so maybe it doesn't make a difference... |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 3:08:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#30]
I am taking this with a grain of salt. No names. Just a Youtube video with a claim, which is that ATF is showing up at homes for FRTs.
 BREAKING NEWS: ATF Showing Up At Private Residences To Seize Forced Reset Triggers?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 3:15:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By markyy: John Crump / CRS reporting some visits related to these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOCUqarx_-I&t=3s Summary? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 4:37:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Admiral_Crunch: Summary? None direct from Rare Breed seemingly just yet - |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 6:44:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: minion42]
[#33]
Bruen is a great decision, but people are wrong to think it will single-handedly knock down all gun laws. It’s a gigantic step forward but there is still work to do. Just because you can’t buy a machine gun at the gas station now doesn’t mean some of the apocalyptic things I see here.
Also, Chevron deference is still with us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2022 10:27:38 PM EDT
[#34]
I saw they got listed on the Forfeiture.gov site the other day. I think it was over 65 pages of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:27:07 AM EDT
[#35]
So is the general consensus these should be destroyed now by those that have them?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:33:11 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Solo_: ... ATF been visiting a couple of people with them FRTs. One or both had purchased on Gunbroker. None direct from Rare Breed seemingly just yet - Probably the ATF selling them so they canllickcik their own cream cone |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:34:40 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By blwngazkit: So is the general consensus these should be destroyed now by those that have them? Id rather just give it to them in a bag on hand receipt and not forfeit or destroy it just to have something to try and get my money or items back down the road if it ever goes to trial. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 10:40:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: NoMoAMMO]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By j3_: I saw they got listed on the Forfeiture.gov site the other day. I think it was over 65 pages of them. Hmmm did they take the rest of his inventory. Like how the valued them at only $1   Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:41:41 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: Probably the ATF selling them so they canllickcik their own cream cone |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:57:16 AM EDT
[#40]
Read one guy said he is planning to drop it at a gun buy back local to him.
Interesting idea, get a receipt from local po-po for if the aft comes knocking... Total forfeiture though and I doubt they'd actually give him anything for it.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 11:57:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: Hmmm did they take the rest of his inventory. Like how the valued them at only $1 https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56078/Capture_JPG-2494873.JPG Let's hope they don't end up in the hands of the drug cartel via Operation 'Really Fast and Furious' |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 12:17:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Is the 3 way selector variant out yet? He should make a ton of them, and do a close out sale for Black Friday just to ensure they make it to the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:08:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: Id rather just give it to them in a bag on hand receipt and not forfeit or destroy it just to have something to try and get my money or items back down the road if it ever goes to trial. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 1:58:05 PM EDT
[#44]
I thought the guy that got arrested had other stuff, like the Wish Glock switch and his trigger was thrown in with that mix?
I don't even own an FRT, but I still don't think I'd destroy it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:12:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoMoAMMO: I thought the guy that got arrested had other stuff, like the Wish Glock switch and his trigger was thrown in with that mix? I don't even own an FRT, but I still don't think I'd destroy it. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:32:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jtb33: I'm referring to the more recent one from John Crump's video yesterday. Then why is there not a name? Arrests are public record. Anybody know Paul Britton Finch? He was not arrested, but that is the name of the poster on social media claiming he got a visit from the ATF. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:35:08 PM EDT
[#47]
Anybody notice the the letter is the Charlotte Field Office, but the business card from Agent Chuck Donohoe shows Shrevesport, LA?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 2:57:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Then why is there not a name? Arrests are public record. Anybody know Paul Britton Finch? He was not arrested, but that is the name of the poster on social media claiming he got a visit from the ATF. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 3:03:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Malum-Prohibitum]
[#49]
. . . .
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 8/19/2022 3:05:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: What is the payoff to spend that time staring at a video? Since you know, can you tell me? It's not going to be a name, is it? An actual record? Anything? Was there a point to playing coy in your post and not just telling me what is so important that I should lose money to watch the video more slowly and in painstaking detail a second time? No one tell this guy 
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
