Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 128 of 194)
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: HKP always charges a premium, especially when things are in short supply, which is why they usually have what you're looking for when other folks are out of stock. It’s actually over $100 cheaper than on the HK-USA web store and at HK Parts Pro. |
|
Originally Posted By Dolomite: what does that mean? where does he say that? 24:00 in he says if you're a plaintiff in one of the 2 dozen or so friendly sbr/sbs states - you should be good to go, just follow state law. The Jensen portion enjoins "making", so Form 1. He points this out. What org does that refer to? that's a bread crumb. More info here. |
I'm not lazy, I just really enjoy doing nothing.
Joined:
Mar 2019
Posts:
15265
EE: 100% (17)
USA
|
Karl T. Frederick, the president of the National Rifle Association in 1934, supported the main provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) during congressional hearings. Just sayin. 
|
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Is that silencer that you own in the NFA registry because you went thru the Form 4 or Form 1 process? A 4473 can is not. The judges order forbids enforcement against members of the lawsuit. A spouse who is not a GOA member or other party to the lawsuit is not covered. $25 is cheap insurance. you miss the point if she does not have access to the safe she is not in possession. I was just giving you a free answer to asinine post. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: You complain about the length of this thread then post a 45 minute video of two legal talking heads umming and uhhing with no indication of where the worrying part is  No complain sis, and you did not watch it, or did not understand it. |
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Is that silencer that you own in the NFA registry because you went thru the Form 4 or Form 1 process? A 4473 can is not. The judges order forbids enforcement against members of the lawsuit. A spouse who is not a GOA member or other party to the lawsuit is not covered. $25 is cheap insurance. Is there any precedence whatsoever that anyone has ever been charged for residing in the same household as someone who owned a suppressor? There are millions of suppressors in circulation that are registered to individuals, so there are millions of people who you claim are "guilty" of possessing an unregistered suppressor by living with those people. Where are all the millions of prosecutions for this? |
|
Originally Posted By Cycolac: Karl T. Frederick, the president of the National Rifle Association in 1934, supported the main provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) during congressional hearings. Just sayin. I hear this all the time at the local gun club. It was almost 100 years ago, the leadership at the NRA has drastically changed their position in that time. Get over it. |
"The ARFCOM Survival Forum -- 90% LESS tinfoil than any other survival forum on the net." -- TriggerHappy83
Joined:
Sep 2025
Posts:
337
EE: 0% (0)
WV, USA
|
Originally Posted By shadycoh: you miss the point if she does not have access to the safe she is not in possession. I was just giving you a free answer to asinine post. My wife has access to OUR safe. Some of the guns in it were purchased by her. The jewelry in it is hers. Her passport is in it. Our wills, medical power of attorney docs, her mothers will, vehicles titles etc etc etc You do you. |
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: Is there any precedence whatsoever that anyone has ever been charged for residing in the same household as someone who owned a suppressor? There are millions of suppressors in circulation that are registered to individuals, so there are millions of people who you claim are "guilty" of possessing an unregistered suppressor by living with those people. Where are all the millions of prosecutions for this? The ATF sneaks in and murders them while they sleep removes the body and then SSS. No body no crime and the spouse gets blamed because he has a silencer so he must have killed the spouse with it and he goes to jail for murder. Its a WiN WIn wIn oh ya they get to shoot the dog too. |
|
Originally Posted By broken_reticle: I see stuff go OOS and back into stock, then back OOS pretty quickly. Accessories like mounts seem to be staying OOS. I've been on lists for weeks to be emailed when mounts were back in stock. This has been an issue since before the injunction. I finally got 2 plan b mounts from Liberty precision last week. Also had a hard time finding much in stock for the hub mounts too. |
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: My wife has access to OUR safe. Some of the guns in it were purchased by her. The jewelry in it is hers. Her passport is in it. Our wills, medical power of attorney docs, her mothers will, vehicles titles etc etc etc You do you. Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. |
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: Is there any precedence whatsoever that anyone has ever been charged for residing in the same household as someone who owned a suppressor? There are millions of suppressors in circulation that are registered to individuals, so there are millions of people who you claim are "guilty" of possessing an unregistered suppressor by living with those people. Where are all the millions of prosecutions for this? Originally Posted By graysonp: Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Is that silencer that you own in the NFA registry because you went thru the Form 4 or Form 1 process? A 4473 can is not. The judges order forbids enforcement against members of the lawsuit. A spouse who is not a GOA member or other party to the lawsuit is not covered. $25 is cheap insurance. Is there any precedence whatsoever that anyone has ever been charged for residing in the same household as someone who owned a suppressor? There are millions of suppressors in circulation that are registered to individuals, so there are millions of people who you claim are "guilty" of possessing an unregistered suppressor by living with those people. Where are all the millions of prosecutions for this? |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By shadycoh: Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. Originally Posted By shadycoh: Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: My wife has access to OUR safe. Some of the guns in it were purchased by her. The jewelry in it is hers. Her passport is in it. Our wills, medical power of attorney docs, her mothers will, vehicles titles etc etc etc You do you. Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. 
|
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
 "if you are at the range with your family, and you walk 100 yards away to hang a target, are your family members back at the bench with your silencer or sbr or sbs, are they in danger of having the ATF swoop in a charge them with contraband possession? We don't know. We just can't say. Better let this all shake out for a few months. We just don't know - be careful." |
|
Originally Posted By vaughn4380: I hear this all the time at the local gun club. It was almost 100 years ago, the leadership at the NRA has drastically changed their position in that time. Get over it. Originally Posted By vaughn4380: Originally Posted By Cycolac: Karl T. Frederick, the president of the National Rifle Association in 1934, supported the main provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) during congressional hearings. Just sayin. I hear this all the time at the local gun club. It was almost 100 years ago, the leadership at the NRA has drastically changed their position in that time. Get over it. They also managed to fend off a national handgun ban that was originally part of the NFA. |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
Originally Posted By atavistic: Is it time for the daily "I have a contact at ATF, and they are totally releasing updated guidance later today" post yet? |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By Dolomite: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2048/1000028472-3813720.jpg "if you are at the range with your family, and you walk 100 yards away to hang a target, are your family members back at the bench with your silencer or sbr or sbs, are they in danger of having the ATF swoop in a charge them with contraband possession? We don't know. We just can't say. Better let this all shake out dor a few months. We just don't know - be careful." These court decisions should be all the proof anyone needs that the ATF isn't some boogeyman to be feared, but the mindset is well engrained thanks to the fear-pushers. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
Joined:
Sep 2025
Posts:
338
EE: 0% (0)
WV, USA
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: Is there any precedence whatsoever that anyone has ever been charged for residing in the same household as someone who owned a suppressor? There are millions of suppressors in circulation that are registered to individuals, so there are millions of people who you claim are "guilty" of possessing an unregistered suppressor by living with those people. Where are all the millions of prosecutions for this? Those millions of suppressors are in fact registered. Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession A 4473 suppressor is unregistered. The judges order just forbids the ATF from enforcing the law that says you can be prosecuted for violating the law if you are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not stop the ATF from proseccting someone who is not a party to Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF) at this time. |
|
Originally Posted By shadycoh: Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. Me! My wife has never had the combination to my safe in our 30+ years of marriage. I told her if I shoukd suddenly die, she'll need someone to cut it open. Lol! |
It is not so much for its beauty that the forest makes a claim upon men's hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air, that emanation from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit.
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Originally Posted By graysonp: Is there any precedence whatsoever that anyone has ever been charged for residing in the same household as someone who owned a suppressor? There are millions of suppressors in circulation that are registered to individuals, so there are millions of people who you claim are "guilty" of possessing an unregistered suppressor by living with those people. Where are all the millions of prosecutions for this? Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession You can't because it hasn't. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: I have the Choate on my SP5K SBR, and you never regret getting the real deal. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: I bought an H&K A2 stock for my SP5 a few months back, betting that this was coming. I’m keeping my Gearhead Works Tailhook setup for travel though. I bought an HK Choate around the same time, paying the HKP iron price since it wasn't in stock anywhere else, but no regrets. I'm happy with it, and it's far more comfortable than the B&T telescopic stock on my APC Pro. I have the Choate on my SP5K SBR, and you never regret getting the real deal. Absolutely  
|
|
Originally Posted By M4Madness: Me! My wife has never had the combination to my safe in our 30+ years of marriage. I told her if I shoukd suddenly die, she'll need to find someone to cut it open. Lol! |
It is not so much for its beauty that the forest makes a claim upon men's hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air, that emanation from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit.
Joined:
Sep 2025
Posts:
339
EE: 0% (0)
WV, USA
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: That guy is pushing fear for clicks. The scenario is literally stupid bullshit people have been claiming forever that has never been played out in real life. The ol' "there's an ATF man behind every blade of grass waiting to get you" mindset is fucking pathetic for a bunch of people who pretend to be patriots. These court decisions should be all the proof anyone needs that the ATF isn't some boogeyman to be feared, but the mindset is well engrained thanks to the fear-pushers. 
|
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: They also managed to fend off a national handgun ban that was originally part of the NFA. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By vaughn4380: Originally Posted By Cycolac: Karl T. Frederick, the president of the National Rifle Association in 1934, supported the main provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) during congressional hearings. Just sayin. I hear this all the time at the local gun club. It was almost 100 years ago, the leadership at the NRA has drastically changed their position in that time. Get over it. They also managed to fend off a national handgun ban that was originally part of the NFA. I forgot about that, good point. |
"The ARFCOM Survival Forum -- 90% LESS tinfoil than any other survival forum on the net." -- TriggerHappy83
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: https://images.axios.com/twtb1FkgbNI5yjtfFgaVP3-IzJY=/0x188:4109x2499/1920x1080/2023/01/23/1674503267713.jpg?w=1920 That has nothing to do with the retarded scenario the guy in the video spoke of. |
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Those millions of suppressors are in fact registered. Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession A 4473 suppressor is unregistered. The judges order just forbids the ATF from enforcing the law that says you can be prosecuted for violating the law if you are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not stop the ATF from proseccting someone who is not a party to Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF) at this time. wow man keep adding to it at some point people might agree with your great points keep up the good work in saving us. SARCASM |
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: https://images.axios.com/twtb1FkgbNI5yjtfFgaVP3-IzJY=/0x188:4109x2499/1920x1080/2023/01/23/1674503267713.jpg?w=1920 Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Originally Posted By Cypher214: That guy is pushing fear for clicks. The scenario is literally stupid bullshit people have been claiming forever that has never been played out in real life. The ol' "there's an ATF man behind every blade of grass waiting to get you" mindset is fucking pathetic for a bunch of people who pretend to be patriots. These court decisions should be all the proof anyone needs that the ATF isn't some boogeyman to be feared, but the mindset is well engrained thanks to the fear-pushers. https://images.axios.com/twtb1FkgbNI5yjtfFgaVP3-IzJY=/0x188:4109x2499/1920x1080/2023/01/23/1674503267713.jpg?w=1920 What happened at Waco doesn't come close to the scenarios laid out by you or the doomer YouTuber, but that and Ruby Ridge are the only cards you folks have to play. Ever notice how both those incidents occurred within a year of each other, with a lot of the same assholes running things, and nothing similar has occurred since? That should be a clue. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Those millions of suppressors are in fact registered. Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession A 4473 suppressor is unregistered. The judges order just forbids the ATF from enforcing the law that says you can be prosecuted for violating the law if you are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not stop the ATF from proseccting someone who is not a party to Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF) at this time. in a marriage all property is owned 50/50 so she has 1/2 of your membership to the GOA already |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
1092
EE: 100% (30)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Those millions of suppressors are in fact registered. Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession A 4473 suppressor is unregistered. The judges order just forbids the ATF from enforcing the law that says you can be prosecuted for violating the law if you are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not stop the ATF from proseccting someone who is not a party to Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF) at this time. A Form 4 suppressor registered to an individual is not registered to the spouse or children. That's the point. John Doe leaves his suppressed rifle on the dining room table and leaves for the week. Jane Doe has a suppressor that's not registered to her. She's not getting arrested for that because no court would ever agree that she took possession of it illegally. That's the exact same scenario as a wife having a suppressor that was transferred on a 4473. This lawsuit changes nothing in that regard. If you own a suppressor that's registered in someone else's name, that's exactly the same as owning one without registration at all. The point here is that a spouse will never be considered to have taken illegal possession simply because they have access to something their spouse legally owns. You are making up BS scenarios that have no legal precedent and will never be enforced in the way you're suggesting. It will never hold up in court that a spouse illegally possesses a suppressor that her husband legally owns. If you can find a single court case in the history of the US that proves me wrong, go find it. Otherwise, stop fear mongering and spreading BS. |
|
Originally Posted By wherewildthingsare: This thread reminds me of my elementary school heydays. https://media0.giphy.com/media/6WgPXAa0FfaLhxbRCK/200.webp?cid=8dc8958c25xmg3zsa22fpc2dct26r14bx0h4sntjzgfozfcs&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: Depends on how often you piss off your wife. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By shadycoh: Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: My wife has access to OUR safe. Some of the guns in it were purchased by her. The jewelry in it is hers. Her passport is in it. Our wills, medical power of attorney docs, her mothers will, vehicles titles etc etc etc You do you. Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. In that light I may as well turn myself in to the local field office. |
"My battery is low and it's getting dark."
|
Originally Posted By mancow: In that light I may as well turn myself in to the local field office. Originally Posted By mancow: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By shadycoh: Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: My wife has access to OUR safe. Some of the guns in it were purchased by her. The jewelry in it is hers. Her passport is in it. Our wills, medical power of attorney docs, her mothers will, vehicles titles etc etc etc You do you. Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. In that light I may as well turn myself in to the local field office. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: That's not what I meant. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By mancow: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By shadycoh: Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: My wife has access to OUR safe. Some of the guns in it were purchased by her. The jewelry in it is hers. Her passport is in it. Our wills, medical power of attorney docs, her mothers will, vehicles titles etc etc etc You do you. Hence the if anyone asks she does not have the combination. What fool is not going to give his wife the combination. In that light I may as well turn myself in to the local field office. I know. Just saying I'm probably screwed either way.
|
"My battery is low and it's getting dark."
|
Originally Posted By Zap_Rowsdower: Those millions of suppressors are in fact registered. Try this example. It's six months ago and someone is home brewing suppressors without a Form 1 and gets a visit form the ATF. If they can prove the spouse knew what was going on and had access to them then they can be charged as well. Constructive possession A 4473 suppressor is unregistered. The judges order just forbids the ATF from enforcing the law that says you can be prosecuted for violating the law if you are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not stop the ATF from proseccting someone who is not a party to Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF) at this time. No one cares. Go DOOM in another thread. |
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: Seconded. This thread is turning into Groundhog Day. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By DD1801: I vote to remove pages 127 and 128, in their entirely, from this thread.  This thread is turning into Groundhog Day. All in favor? |
I can’t stand it to think my life is going so fast and I’m not really living it.
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: Seconded. This thread is turning into Groundhog Day. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By DD1801: I vote to remove pages 127 and 128, in their entirely, from this thread. This thread is turning into Groundhog Day. It's because there is no news. |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
Originally Posted By Dolomite: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2048/1000028472-3813720.jpg "if you are at the range with your family, and you walk 100 yards away to hang a target, are your family members back at the bench with your silencer or sbr or sbs, are they in danger of having the ATF swoop in a charge them with contraband possession? We don't know. We just can't say. Better let this all shake out for a few months. We just don't know - be careful." Attached File |
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
20
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Hate to burst your bubble, but they’ve been that high for a few years. The new production old style A3 stock is a couple of hundred more than the newer F stock, and the TACO tax has driven up prices even more. Welcome to the world of HK pricing. https://hkpartspro.com/hk-mp5sp5hk94-retractable-buttstock-a3 https://us.hkwebshop.com/hkstorefront/hk/en/Rifle-Parts/Rifle-Accessories/MP5-Retractable-Buttstock/p/225558 I know, and they've been on crack for years. HK thinks they build the best guns in the world, and I understand some of that, but, like Colt, they're screwing civilians. One of these years I'm going to build the MP5K I've always wanted, but it's going to have as few HK parts as possible. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
8634
EE: 0% (0)
OK, USA
|
Originally Posted By wherewildthingsare: This thread reminds me of my elementary school heydays. https://media0.giphy.com/media/6WgPXAa0FfaLhxbRCK/200.webp?cid=8dc8958c25xmg3zsa22fpc2dct26r14bx0h4sntjzgfozfcs&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g The beginning of this thread was full of freedom starved Americans. Talking about hacksaws and midnight freedom. I was stoked to see posts showing off their new found freedom. But it was Clearly just a bunch of jive freedom talk. Cause I aint seen shit. 
|
|
You guys will argue over a dead horse until it's bones turn into dust. Almost as bad as a bunch of woman arguing over which shade of green matches the pine tree at Christmas. |
SOCIALISM COMMUNISM AND FACISM ONLY WORK WHEN BOOT HEEL OF A POLITICAL CLASS IS ON THE NECK OF THE WORKING CLASS, PICKING POCKETS FOR THE LEISURE CLASS
Fighting Commies since 1969
Fighting Commies since 1969