User Panel
Remember, the 'nays' were AGAINST the MG ban hughes amendment.
rangle said the ayes have it, the amendment passed. Still looking for the tape. |
|
Got the NRA looking in their video files. They had BETTER have a video of the 86 gun control act!
Still looking for my tape. |
|
negotiate rights away, nra, is still looking, called again.
They spend millions on some gun range for harry reid to shoot on, but never taped the most important gun discussions of the last 25 years, the '86 gun bill? |
|
Quoted:
They spend millions on some gun range for harry reid to shoot on, but never taped the most important gun discussions of the last 25 years, the '86 gun bill? Hard to tell in advance what is important. |
|
Quoted:
Quite frankly the law is discriminatory to people born after 1968. If you want to look at it that way, it's discriminatory to anyone who wasn't 21 yet in 1968. |
|
So have any of you found this video?
I was only 2.5mo old at the time the bill was "passed" and I would like to see this. |
|
It makes me mad, 'cause I can close my eyes and see rangel and his gavel standing there and saying, "The ayes have it"
There have been rumors for years in the MG community that some very well heeled democraps had a boatload of FA stuff. They did very well with the $175 HK sears going to $10,000+. dirtbags. |
|
I know this sounds nutz, but I think I'll try the brady bunch on Monday.
They just may have the footage of '86 and '94. |
|
I'm interested to see where this goes. It is interesting to hear some of this information. So prior to '86, buying a machine gun was just like buying an SBR or suppressor?
|
|
Quoted:
I'm interested to see where this goes. It is interesting to hear some of this information. So prior to '86, buying a machine gun was just like buying an SBR or suppressor? Yep. Well, I believe there was in import ban since like '68, but domestic MGs were a tax stamp away. |
|
Thought of this earlier today.
What happened with US vs Rock Island Armory? http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm My understanding is that the NFA requirements for machine guns were deemed unconstitutional under the reasoning that the NFA is a tax/revenue statute and the gov't can't require a tax, then refuse to accept payment. Last I read about it, it sounded to me like the US vs Rock Island Armory ended with us winning at a local/(district?/Illinois?) level, and that the case was dropped and did not make it any higher. (Don't know, is that correct?) However, because IL. law prohibits machine guns it didn't really buy us anything. With the new incorporation challenges, would this give us an avenue to challenge the Hughes Amendment? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... Might be a novel argument for the defense in an illegal mg case. Is there a lawyer in the house? That's precisely what I was thinking. I'm sure it would have to go to SCOTUS though. I'm not sure if SCOTUS has spoken on the subjects but courts with right of review over legislation generally hold the principle that they don't interfere with the legislative process, only the end result. So while SCOTUS may deal with the constitutionality of the MG ban, they probably won't overturn it because Congress didn't follow procedural rules. That is an issue for Congress to address. |
|
Raoc, it's worse than that.
Today you still can pay the $200 tax with a form 1 and make your own SBR or silencer, subject to stupid state laws, like NYS , NJ, IL and others. Prior to the ban, YOU COULD PAY THE $200 TAX ON A FORM 1 AND DRILL YOUR OWN AR15 INTO AN M16. Machine gun prices were not too far from the semi prices back then, since a lot of folks just went ahead and bought a semi, since the wait for a form 1 or form 4 (existing MG transfer) could take almost a year. That's what you lost. Real AKs, real M16s, real M60s, real G3s, real FALs, real UZIs, etc., made by you for your own use. Unless you are a millionaire. |
|
My offer still stands if somebody finds the tape.
There is one change. It is no longer a 'pay for the cost of', it is a reward. $100, through paypal or gun pal, to whomever finds this tape and gets it up. From PM: If I can find it, what kind of format do you want?...
Youtube would be best. Anything that can easily be spread far and wide will do. |
|
Close!
I found the a.m. tape I made of April 8th, 1986. It was a VHS tape and I thought I had taped it in BETA. Maybe I have one of each! Now to find the right date. |
|
Quoted:
Close! I found the a.m. tape I made of April 8th, 1986. It was a VHS tape and I thought I had taped it in BETA. Maybe I have one of each! Now to find the right date. you are the man if you can find it! Good luck! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Close! I found the a.m. tape I made of April 8th, 1986. It was a VHS tape and I thought I had taped it in BETA. Maybe I have one of each! Now to find the right date. you are the man if you can find it! Good luck! Update? |
|
Quoted:
You won't find the footage. I've scoured the internet plenty of times, to no avail. I'm sure plenty of people recorded it on VHS, but I've yet to see anyone upload their copy. Has anyone thought of contacting CSPAN and requesting the video or transcripts? I'm sure there would be a charge of some kind, but probably not excessive. |
|
Already did it. No luck. Is anybody here working at CSPAN?
Called NRA, twice. You would think these worthless drones would have ALL THE VIDEO FROM THE 1986 GUN DEBATES, RIGHT? nra, worse than useless. I wouldn't be surprised if the nra was behind letting the ban pass. I couldn't get the brady outfit to look without contributing. |
|
CSPAN doesn't have any video/transcripts for house committee meetings online for april in 1986. |
|
Quoted:
CSPAN doesn't have any video/transcripts for house committee meetings online for april in 1986.
CSPAN was launched in 1979. I wonder if they have anything on file from back then. If so, they should have the footage. Does anyone know if you can purchase copies of old broadcasts? eta: How do I order a Video, Congressional Directory, Merchandise, or Transcript? Where do I call if I have an order question? Videos, Congressional Directories, and other C-SPAN merchandise can be ordered online at http://www.c-span.org/store or by calling 877-662-7726. C-SPAN does not offer written transcripts for purchase. Portions of transcripts associated with each video are available online. Order questions can be directed to Archives by emailing [email protected] or by calling the toll-free number referenced above. - http://cspan.org/About/Viewer/faq.aspx Can someone call that number and ask? I have strep throat and can't speak at the moment. edit2: cspan also says you can legally upload it to youtube: Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.
- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/rights |
|
Quoted:
The Supreme Court has said Congress decides its own rules. If the Speaker says it passed, it passed.
Quoted:
I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... Might be a novel argument for the defense in an illegal mg case. Is there a lawyer in the house? Kharn |
|
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/congress.php?date=1986-04-18
wikipedia lists the date as May 19, 1986. C-span has that day blocked off b/c it's a saturday. (see link) |
|
The hearing was in April. I do have the day's congressional session on tape, it's the same as the CSPAN record.
They seem to not have the special sessions or hearings on file at CSPAN. That judiciary committee hearing is what I'm looking for. Does anybody know someone at Brady or some other gun ban outfit? They may actually have all the tapes from the 86 gun control debates. I am banned from all the gun control sites because of my GOA activity. They seem to know it's me, no matter what computer or telephone I use. So - anybody have a family member or spouse who sits on some power position at handgun control inc.? nra sucks and has no records. |
|
Heard from Gun Owners of America last night, they don't have the video.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Supreme Court has said Congress decides its own rules. If the Speaker says it passed, it passed.
Quoted:
I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... Might be a novel argument for the defense in an illegal mg case. Is there a lawyer in the house? Kharn Or as they say "The fix is in". |
|
Don't look for Brady Campaign, they were Handgun Control Inc. back then. Sarah Brady hijacked it later on.
The NRA wasn't too interested in machine guns back then. |
|
Quoted: negotiate rights away, nra, is still looking, called again. They spend millions on some gun range for harry reid to shoot on, but never taped the most important gun discussions of the last 25 years, the '86 gun bill? How could the NRA video-tape Senate floor debate? C-SPAN was created for, and has the monopoly of, videoing Congress. No one else can. |
|
Quoted: Nothing - it's moot. Quoted: I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=10783207 |
|
YOU GUYS ARE WRONG ON THE VOTE THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE HUGHES AMENDMENT!!!
I watched that vote live on C-Span that day. The vote on the Hughes amendment WAS BEFORE THE FULL HOUSE IN THE MAIN HOUSE CHAMBER.......IT WAS NOT A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VOTE!! Charlie Wrangel was the ACTING HOUSE SPEAKER when the vote on the Hughes Amendment took place. He asked for a voice vote and has been already stated, the NO's were clearly in the majority but Wrangel stated that the AYE's had it. Everything was predictable up to this point. Normally after a voice vote is held and the Speaker announces the "winning" side, someone will ask for a RECORDED VOTE TO BE TAKEN. This way it is recorded for history how each Representative voted and thus what the vote totals were. A RECORDED VOTE WAS NOT ASKED FOR AFTER THE VOICE VOTE!!! Why no one demanded a recorded vote I do not know. The situation is VERY STRANGE to say the least! |
|
Why don't you get the Congressional Record and verify the actual time of the passage of the FOPA by the House? It wasn't May 19, 1986 - that's the day ETA: it was signed into law went into effect. It was passed several months before that. ETA: See David Hardy's article at http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html#fn6 reference the House discharge petition (footnote 7). The Hughes Amendment was offered on the floor during the late nite House floor debate ETA: of the discharge petion after the Senate finally passed the FOPA that actually passed the sent the FOPA to the President fo signature. Rangel was the Speaker Pro Tempore. William Hughes didn't announce it ahead of time (though the anti-gun congressmen all knew about it). It was a shock to the reformers (FOPA supporters) and a lot of members weren't even on the House floor. It wasn't added in committee. The NRA was caught flat-footed. They then had the choice of pissing off Reagan (who said he'd sign the FOPA) and ETA: asking him to veto killing their own bill after a SEVEN YEAR FIGHT over something most people didn't even know about (NFA) and frankly, most NRA members didn't care about - or taking all the good that came with FOPA and swallowing the little bit of shit (922(o)). There wasn't even time to get the word out. This was pre-Internet. Newspapers barely reported the bill. The American Rifleman and NRA mailings touted all the positive parts AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT WILLIAM HUGHES WAS COOKING UP! So, there was no advance warning. The Senate ETA: had then passed the previous House bill after years of debate so there was no chance to undo it in the Senate and then committee. About the only people who really knew about it were the NFA guys - mostly the SOT 02s. 922(o) pisses me off every day. On the other hand, I can buy ammo over the Internet instead of having to walk into a store, show ID and have the sale recorded in a permanent bound book, have 18 U.S.C. § 921, etc. I wish I'd done Form 1s on 10 AR receivers before May 19, 1986. But in 1986 my wife wouldn't let me have the $2K to do it, let alone the $500 for the receivers. |
|
After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF. Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF. Farmer also questioned whether Congress had the power, under the Constitution, to ban the mere possession of a type of firearm and whether the exercise of any such power would violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation, but did not rule on the constitutional issues raised. The NRA's Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case. The Court declined, as it does the vast majority of cases. Thus the decision stands in the Eleventh Circuit, which encompasses Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=130 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was the hughes amendment passed via reconciliation similar to what they are trying to do with this healthcare bill? I wasn't alive at the time. I think that is the biggest non-second amendment issue that the courts might one day have to consider. Quite frankly the law is discriminatory to people born after 1968. Never thought about it that way. |
|
You might also want to read the great David Hardy's law review artice on the FOPA (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html). He's one of the top 2A attorneys.
It lloks like the House passed the discharge petition on Mar 13, 1986 (the House had previously passed the bill, it took seven (7) years for the Senate to do so). I was wrong above. The Hughes Amendment was added to the House "discharge petition" ( a rare procedure). IntroductionOn May 19, 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) was signed into law.[1] The first comprehensive redraft of the federal firearm laws since 1968,[2] FOPA was predictably lauded as "necessary to restore fundamental fairness and clarity to our Nation's firearms laws"[3] and damned as an "almost monstrous idea" and a "national disgrace."[4] The controversy was not limited to the rhetorical. Seven years passed between FOPA's introduction and its Senate vote;[5] the House vote required passage of a discharge petition[6] ––only the eighth to succeed in the last twenty-six years.[7] The controversy surrounding FOPA's genesis is commensurate to the legal impact of its provisions. FOPA effectively overrules six decisions of the United States Supreme Court, <small id="pg586" class="pg">(p.586)</small>moots what would have become a seventh,[9] and negates perhaps one-third of the total caselaw construing the Gun Control <small id="pg587" class="pg">(p.587)</small>Act of 1968.[10] FOPA's impact, however, is not limited to the Gun Control Act, nor even to federal statutes. By expressly exempting interstate transportation of firearms from the reach of many state firearm laws,[11] it affects state proceedings as well. A detailed comprehension of FOPA is thus essential to an understanding of both federal and state firearm laws.<small id="pg588" class="pg">(p.588)</small> Unfortunately, such a comprehension is not easily achieved. FOPA reflects not a simple, single legislative decision, but a complex series of compromises, many of which are only partially reflected in the record.[12] Even where the record is complete, it is rarely clear. The House bill that ultimately became FOPA is supported by a report, but the report explains not why FOPA should have been adopted, but rather, why it ought to have been rejected.[13] The House bill's predecessor and Senate counterpart, S. 49, was never referred to committee and went instead to the floor with no report whatsoever.[14] S. 49's ancestors were the subject of two reports[15] which, unfortunately, are in hopeless conflict in certain aspects.[16] To add to its original complexity, FOPA was, prior to its effective date, amended by a second enactment[17] which was in turn modified by a concurrent resolution.[18] The need for a comprehensive review of this <small id="pg589" class="pg">(p.589)</small>controversial and convoluted legislation is thus clear.[19] The statute's core can be found in the real consistencies obscured by seeming chaos. The purpose of this Article is to examine the Firearms Owners' Protection Act in both historic and legal perspectives. Accordingly, the Article first examines the framework of federal firearm legislation as it evolved prior to FOPA. Then, the seven-year evolution of FOPA itself is analyzed. Finally, this Article evaluates the nature of the more significant changes embodied in this controversial enactment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
negotiate rights away, nra, is still looking, called again. They spend millions on some gun range for harry reid to shoot on, but never taped the most important gun discussions of the last 25 years, the '86 gun bill? How could the NRA video-tape Senate floor debate? C-SPAN was created for, and has the monopoly of, videoing Congress. No one else can. C-SPAN first went on the air on March 19, 1979, broadcasting a speech by then-congressman Al Gore. C-SPAN2, a spin-off network, covers all live sessions of the U.S. Senate and went on the air on June 2, 1986 C-SPAN wasn't around to cover the May 86 Congress. Nor did they have exclusive rights to at that time. The NRA could have but FAILED/CHOSE not to cover the senate floor debate. |
|
I wish it was possible to win this battle...
I would gladly do whatever I can to help, but I think it's hopeless. We have to fight to keep our semi autos... Damn anti's. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: negotiate rights away, nra, is still looking, called again. They spend millions on some gun range for harry reid to shoot on, but never taped the most important gun discussions of the last 25 years, the '86 gun bill? How could the NRA video-tape Senate floor debate? C-SPAN was created for, and has the monopoly of, videoing Congress. No one else can. C-SPAN first went on the air on March 19, 1979, broadcasting a speech by then-congressman Al Gore. C-SPAN2, a spin-off network, covers all live sessions of the U.S. Senate and went on the air on June 2, 1986 C-SPAN wasn't around to cover the May 86 Congress. Nor did they have exclusive rights to at that time. The NRA could have but FAILED/CHOSE not to cover the senate floor debate. I mis-typed "Senate" when I meant "House" in my original post. To correct myself (1) the Hughes Amendment was offered in floor debate in the House of Representatives on and (2) and no one, including the NRA, was allowed to video the Senate prior to C-SPAN2, which (3) doesn't matter because of (1). Read David Hardy's Columbia Law Review article. The confusion of those days comes through clearly. http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html S. 49 then passed to the House where its counterpart, Representative Volkmer's H.R. 945, had been languishing in the Judiciary Committee since its introduction.[192] S. 49 was referred to the same committee. That S. 49 would not be reported out was hardly news; but only hubris could have led committee chairman Peter Rodino to immediately and publicly pronounce the bill "dead on arrival."[193]<small id="pg622" class="pg">(p.622)</small> On October 3, 1985, Representative Volkmer submitted a rule calling for consideration of the bill.[194] The timing was significant; the thirty-day waiting period for filing a motion to discharge the Judiciary Committee from consideration of the bill and the seven-day waiting period for moving to discharge the Rules Committee from considering the rule would expire on the same day.[195] Discharging the rule, which allowed debate of the bill, gave significant tactical advantages over discharging the bill itself.[196] Even so, the petition faced an extremely difficult struggle. A discharge requires signatures of a majority of the entire House––218 members. Names of signers are made public only if and when the petition succeeds.[197] The House leadership is free to examine the list and exert pressure on vulnerable signers. A member who signs is free to withdraw at any time; once the 218 signatures are obtained, the petition must be put to a vote and muster a majority of those present and voting. A failure in the last test bars all similar discharge petitions for the remainder of the session.[198]<small id="pg623" class="pg">(p.623)</small> The difficulties of these barriers explain why only seven discharge petitions had succeeded in the preceding quarter-century.[199] Nonetheless, on October 22, 1985, Representative Volkmer filed a petition to discharge the Committee on Rules from consideration of the rule allowing floor action on H.R. 945.[200] The petition moved quickly; less than two months later it had 158 signatures.[201] Then the drive hit a wall; a month later, the count still stood at 158.[202] The apparent standoff may have encouraged overconfidence in the bill's opponents; they made no effort at this stage to employ the traditional counter to a potentially successful petition––the reporting out of a heavily restructured alternative bill. The misjudgment was pivotal. When Congress returned from recess, the count surged ahead; by early March, Volkmer had 203 signatures plus eight commitments to sign.[203] With Volkmer only four votes away from a discharge, his opposition sought aid from the House leadership in pressuring signers off the petition. The quest was in vain: the reply was that they were too late; the landslide had developed without a check. Representative Rodino, Chairman of House Judiciary, was to report forthwith a substitute bill and the leadership would give it prompt floor action.[204] H.R. 4332 was quickly introduced by Representative Hughes, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.[205] This bill would have incorporated some features of S. 49, largely in diluted form,[206] and would have added a number of measures favored by Hughes, most notably a variety of <small id="pg624" class="pg">(p.624)</small>mandatory sentence provisions. Only eight days passed between its March 6 introduction and the full Judiciary Committee's vote to report out a more polished substitute.[207] It was one day too many; on March 13, the discharge petition received its 218th signature and was taken up by the clerk.[208] In exchange for speedier consideration, Volkmer agreed to a rule allowing his bill as an amendment by way of substitute for H.R. 4332.[209] A number of last minute amendments modified his substitute to parallel closely S. 49, with the major difference being a co-opting of H.R. 4332's mandatory sentencing.[210] The last minute amendments contributed to subsequent confusion in the debates.[211] The floor fight was quick and messy. H.R. 4332 and Volkmer's substitute were debated simultaneously.[212] Hughes moved a package of amendments to the substitute which would have, among other things, required proof only of a "knowing" violation, deleted the requirement that an alleged unlicensed dealer be shown to have had a "principal" intent of money profits, and limited the interstate "pass-through" provision to rifles and shotguns, cased and <small id="pg625" class="pg">(p.625)</small>inaccessible.[213] The amendments lost 248-173.[214] An attempt to narrow the interstate pass-through also failed, 242-177.[215] A third proposed amendment, limiting dealer sales to nonresidents, passed, 233-184.[216] One final amendment, banning private ownership of any machinegun not already in lawful ownership on the date of enactment, was raised with only minutes left in the time allotted under the rule. It passed on a rather irregular voice vote.[217] The substitute was then accepted in place of H.R. 4332, was passed, and then substituted for the Senate-passed S. 49.[218] The House version of S. 49 differed in various aspects from the Senate bill. Mandatory sentence provisions had been expanded, and some new ones were added; interstate sales had been limited to rifles and shotguns, and the freeze on machineguns had been attached. Rather than seeking a conference, whose House members would have been appointed by the House leadership, the Senate leadership brought the House bill to a floor vote. The complex saga of FOPA, however, was not quite over. As a price for an antifilibuster time agreement, the House version of FOPA was passed along with a new Senate bill, S. 2414, which would amend three of its provisions.[219] The first amendment altered the interstate transportation provision. As passed, FOPA permitted any nonprohibited person to "transport an unloaded, not readily accessible firearm in interstate commerce" notwithstanding state or local law.[220] S. 2414 would allow such persons to "transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm ... if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment...."[221] A second <small id="pg626" class="pg">(p.626)</small>amendment is somewhat more striking. It amended FOPA's definition of "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to insert a provision that "proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism."[222] The amendment, apparently intended to deal with a hypothetical situation involving a supplier of terrorists at cost,[223] was as poorly drafted as it was unusual.[224] The third amendment would require dealers selling from a personal collection to maintain an informal record of the sale.[225] S. 2414 passed both House and Senate on voice votes.[226] Only after passage was it realized that while some of the amended sections of FOPA had an immediate effectiveness,[227] the remainder of that Act was not meant to take effect until six months after passage. S. 2414 was to go into effect immediately, leaving an incongruity <small id="pg627" class="pg">(p.627)</small>whereby an isolated section or sentence would take effect before the remainder of the amended provision. The Senate hurriedly voted out a concurrent resolution linking S. 2414's effective dates to those of the FOPA sections it amended, and the House concurred.[228] At long last, FOPA and its amendments were law. FOPA's seven years of gestation illustrate the legislative application of Holmes' dictum that the life of the law has not been logic, but experience.[229] |
|
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.