Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 195 of 195)
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Well fuck indeed. Score one for the anti-gun scum and their litigious terrorism. Hopefully someone else will hold the line over there in the meantime and we'll see you again when the next domino falls and things are a little safer. In the meantime please refrain from calling the people putting themselves at risk to make the injunction actually worth a shit insane unless you're ready to thank them later when their insanity helps open the way for you to start doing what they took the risk to do first. Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By bigbore: Well, Fuck. I gotta go back on what I said, and back to Form 4s. I spoke to the customers who already took possession and all are cool with filling out a Form 4 for their suppressors. With my background I should have thought of this first, but I got caught up in the excitement. Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. Criminally you have nothing to worry about if you are a dealer or buyer of a suppressor without a Form 4 regarding the transfer. The manufacturers transferring suppressors on form 3s to their dealers, that they are encouraging to sell on 4473s have nothing to worry about either. The FFLs selling those suppressors are fucked if any of those suppressors are used in a way which results in harm or death. Scenario - FFL sells a suppressor to a guy on a 4473, no form 4. That guy sells it to his neighbor who puts it on the pistol he uses to kill his girlfriend. The Lawyers from the Brady bunch reach out to the estate of the dead bitch and find out where the gun and silencer came from. When they see the silencer was illegally sold by the FFL, that FFL is a named defendant in the wrongful death lawsuit. The FFL turns it over to their insurance who denies coverage because the suppressor was sold illegally. The FFL is now personally responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and a possible judgment they can never afford. The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. Well fuck indeed. Score one for the anti-gun scum and their litigious terrorism. Hopefully someone else will hold the line over there in the meantime and we'll see you again when the next domino falls and things are a little safer. In the meantime please refrain from calling the people putting themselves at risk to make the injunction actually worth a shit insane unless you're ready to thank them later when their insanity helps open the way for you to start doing what they took the risk to do first. And now this is why bigbore needs to chill out with his legal interpretation….(convincing others that there is an issue that doesn’t exist in real life.) |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: You keep mentioning the law. The injunction is protection from enforcement of what? The law. The statuary law is still in place. If you weren't breaking the law you wouldn't need protection from enforcement, would you? Seriously- just stop. Your interpretation of how laws work is fundamentally wrong…. (See- case law). |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By uniquesnd: Set up a separate LLC for suppressor sales if you get sued then fold the company. Well being an LLC should be SOP for any firearms dealer with half a brain to begin with. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Originally Posted By tac556: He certainly is not the only person here to have been sued. Hell- his case never even went to an actual trial. BTDT…. He is gun shy and can do as he pleases, but geez…. I'm not talking about criminal law, or case law. I'm talking about what my insurance told me regarding my coverage. If an insurance company can find an excuse to deny a claim, they are going to do it. I don't think this is a situation any FFL insurance company has dealt with before, so they are sticking to their definition of "the law". In this case the law is the 1934 NFA Act. Which is still a law on the books stating I must sell silencers on a Form 4. And the government is still enforcing this law. Which I can do today and have done. At the same time, there is a Judges injunction saying that is unconstitutional and I don't have to sell silencers using the Form 4 process. Which I can do today and have done. The Judge has enjoined the government for prosecuting me. Both those statements are true, and are in effect at the same time. I can do one, or the other or both. My insurance company apparently sees that as conflicting. I'm contacting my agent again today asking for something from one of their legal dudes to confirm they understand the situation and will put in writing that my coverage will or will not be effected whether or not I transfer a silencer on a Form 4 or not. My insurance company is Lockton Affinity - that largest insurer of FFLs in the country. Taking this time to getting this settled in writing is going to benefit a lot of people. ETA: Speaking of case law. Is there any regarding a law that was ruled unconstitutional for some, but still actively enforced by the government as a valid standing law for others? |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By VacaDuck: PA6-CF is cheap enough. I have roughly $43 worth of filament in these cans and $10 in thread adapters. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/102931/3737-3813065.jpg Originally Posted By VacaDuck: Originally Posted By CZRider: Definitely more than $500 but a lot less than you'd expect. I'd guess maybe 1000 for the setup to print that spool, I think the kiln is about 300, and you're in for a real adventure figuring out how it all works. Once you dial it in though and write off probably a kilogram of inconel PLA as part of the startup cost, you're looking at repeatable $80 inconel cans, give or take. I'd probably stick to the aluminum or stainless filament if I was crazy enough to attempt it, or just stick with high-performance conventional filament that doesn't need a 2250F kiln to finish. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/102931/3737-3813065.jpg I am printing PA6-CF on an Elegoo Centauri Carbon. The only upgrades are a hardened nozzle and filament dryer. I was very skeptical, but this stuff really is strong and tough. I machined a bit off of the end of my cap to clean it up a bit. I tried to see if I could smooth off the ends with a flame and it didn't touch it. I do a lot of composite work and I have my doubts about how much short strands really help, but it is pretty strong. I am tempted to do a kevlar wrap. Mine survived 22lr firing just fine. |
|
Of course it's not a situation they've dealt with, because this is the first time since those big-government busybody assholes in the 1930s stuck us with these dogshit tax schemes. I'm afraid in unprecedented times we'll all have to consider stepping a little outside the rigid comfort and familiarity of life under the boot and figure one or two things out for ourselves. Maybe start by pushing back if your insurer says they won't cover 4473 transfer related claims, and (gasp!) coordinate with other FFLs who might be customers of theirs to put some pressure on them over it. Or check with other insurers to see if anyone is more willing to do it and use that as leverage. Or really just do anything other than sit and shrug. Or don't. Ohio can just stay under Jim Crow's thumb thanks to those arcane state laws and a general unwillingness to figure it out. I might go get another 4473 can to celebrate post 4473 actually... |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Send me the name of your insurance carrier, your agents name and contact info. If I can get guaranteed coverage in writing for this, I'll switch to your dude and go back to 4473 suppressor sales. Two thumbs up, Bigbore. I have to agree with your position. You have a business and a livelihood to think about. That other dealers choose to do otherwise, that's up to them. I don't know why people these days are so black/white. Good for you for standing your ground! Whether I agree or not is immaterial, that isn't the issue. The issue is being a realist, looking down the road and weighing the risks. Insurance carriers don't make money bucking the tiger. They make money by making conservative low-risk decisions. I do not blame them or you for making a smart business decision based on what will be a changing environment the next election if everything goes back to right-side-upsidedown. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Maybe start by pushing back if your insurer says they won't cover 4473 transfer related claims, and (gasp!) coordinate with other FFLs who might be customers of theirs to put some pressure on them over it. Or check with other insurers to see if anyone is more willing to do it and use that as leverage. Or really just do anything other than sit and shrug.. I'm working on it, I spent an hour on my phone this morning with my attorney. As I said, the insurance I use is the largest insurer of FFLs. Once I get something in writing from them(depending on what it says) I'll move on to plan B. I posted this in the FFL section. More FFLs need to ask their insurance these questions, so it can be dealt with up front. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: I'm not talking about criminal law, or case law. I'm talking about what my insurance told me regarding my coverage. If an insurance company can find an excuse to deny a claim, they are going to do it. I don't think this is a situation any FFL insurance company has dealt with before, so they are sticking to their definition of "the law". In this case the law is the 1934 NFA Act. Which is still a law on the books stating I must sell silencers on a Form 4. And the government is still enforcing this law. Which I can do today and have done. At the same time, there is a Judges injunction saying that is unconstitutional and I don't have to sell silencers using the Form 4 process. Which I can do today and have done. The Judge has enjoined the government for prosecuting me. Both those statements are true, and are in effect at the same time. I can do one, or the other or both. My insurance company apparently sees that as conflicting. I'm contacting my agent again today asking for something from one of their legal dudes to confirm they understand the situation and will put in writing that my coverage will or will not be effected whether or not I transfer a silencer on a Form 4 or not. My insurance company is Lockton Affinity - that largest insurer of FFLs in the country. Taking this time to getting this settled in writing is going to benefit a lot of people. ETA: Speaking of case law. Is there any regarding a law that was ruled unconstitutional for some, but still actively enforced by the government as a valid standing law for others? You definitely need to raise that up within the company and get a letter from their legal department. Your agent panicked you with bad advice. Violating an enjoined law will not trigger the illegal acts clause, as the law is blocked while under injunction even if it is still on the books. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: Honestly I wish I could get rid of most of mine now just so my wife or daughter doesn't have to fool with them all when I'm no longer here. That day will come. I went crazy buying in the 90s! Main reason I stayed away from any NFA stuff. Originally Posted By tnriverluver: Honestly I wish I could get rid of most of mine now just so my wife or daughter doesn't have to fool with them all when I'm no longer here. That day will come. I went crazy buying in the 90s! Main reason I stayed away from any NFA stuff. |
Tom Sawyer.
"If The Rules brought us to this, what use are they?"
"If The Rules brought us to this, what use are they?"
|
Originally Posted By broken_reticle: I am printing PA6-CF on an Elegoo Centauri Carbon. The only upgrades are a hardened nozzle and filament dryer. I was very skeptical, but this stuff really is strong and tough. I machined a bit off of the end of my cap to clean it up a bit. I tried to see if I could smooth off the ends with a flame and it didn't touch it. I do a lot of composite work and I have my doubts about how much short strands really help, but it is pretty strong. I am tempted to do a kevlar wrap. Mine survived 22lr firing just fine. Damn, kind of want. I got an Ender 3 S1 a few years ago for the all metal hot-end but it's not enclosed so I need to solve that before I get into anything fancier than PLA. Guess I need a new nozzle too. Any experience with glass fiber vs carbon fiber? |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: That is not what the judge said. The provisions/NFA laws are still there. The judge did not say the NFA law was illegal, he just said the government can't enforce it. That is how lawyers and my insurance company - The largest insurer of FFLs reads it. Fucking politicians and lawyers. Should've just repealed the law when they had the chance, rather than leaving behind this soup sandwich. |
Tom Sawyer.
"If The Rules brought us to this, what use are they?"
"If The Rules brought us to this, what use are they?"
|
Originally Posted By Kobolowsky_Tires: Two thumbs up, Bigbore. I have to agree with your position. You have a business and a livelihood to think about. That other dealers choose to do otherwise, that's up to them. I don't know why people these days are so black/white. Good for you for standing your ground! Whether I agree or not is immaterial, that isn't the issue. The issue is being a realist, looking down the road and weighing the risks. Insurance carriers don't make money bucking the tiger. They make money by making conservative low-risk decisions. I do not blame them or you for making a smart business decision based on what will be a changing environment the next election if everything goes back to right-side-upsidedown. I'll stick with the same thing I've been saying for the last 194 pages... Do what your conscience demands and your tolerance for risk allows. If you're risk-averse, fair enough. All I ask is you let others do the same and don't undermine or drag anyone else down for electing to go out on a further limb than you are. We'll keep pushing, and I hope we'll see you pushing with us in whatever way you're able to, because the goal here benefits us all at the end of the day. I'm less charitable to the professional cowards known as insurers. Racketeers, all of them 
|
|
Originally Posted By tortilla-flats: I'm 100% on your side on this, but the Judge declared the law(s) as Unconstitional. Hence why he enjoined them from enforcement. Agree, but I think the insurance company issue is that those unconstitutional laws ARE still being enforced. This shit with it's enforceable against Jack but not Mark is an issue that needs addresses and I'm hoping to force my insurance companies hand here. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By tortilla-flats: That's also my read but that's not how federal laws and courts work, especially at the district level. It's also why I'm peeved that the ruling is not being appealed; that decision by DoJ/Trump sucks for gun owners. The ruling only applies to the covered plaintiffs. The Washington DC mayor made a huge mistake when he made the decision to appeal Heller before speaking with the city's attorneys. When the decision was announced he ran to the press and ran his mouth "WE'RE GONNA FIGHT THIS" so politically he was stuck. If the city hadn't appealed we wouldn't have the USSC ruling, and we wouldn't have the McDonald and Bruen wins. If the mayor's attorneys had gotten to him first and taped his mouth shut, the ruling would only have applied to Dick Heller. |
Heller II - Challenging DC's bans on semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and its onerous and expensive handgun registration process. http://www.HellerFoundation.org/
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: That's also my read but that's not how federal laws and courts work, especially at the district level. It's also why I'm peeved that the ruling is not being appealed; that decision by DoJ/Trump sucks for gun owners. The ruling only applies to the covered plaintiffs. The Washington DC mayor made a huge mistake when he made the decision to appeal Heller before speaking with the city's attorneys. When the decision was announced he ran to the press and ran his mouth "WE'RE GONNA FIGHT THIS" so politically he was stuck. If the city hadn't appealed we wouldn't have the USSC ruling, and we wouldn't have the McDonald and Bruen wins. If the mayor's attorneys had gotten to him first and taped his mouth shut, the ruling would only have applied to Dick Heller. I'm hopeful that there's a quiet strategy to keep this initial victory as a "secure" win that still has potential to open up plaintiff status to basically everyone for the low low price of $25/year while they make similar and perhaps more risky efforts through other districts. You can put lawyer next to FFL on the list of things I'm not, but this approach seems to set up a win-win of either gradually racking up favorable rulings district by district or holding an avenue to 4473 cans open while they push an unfavorable ruling all the way up the totem pole to USSC and go for the big win. Either we gradually spread freedom or we build an argument for a circuit split that USSC must resolve, but all along we maintain the baseline of "join GOA (and help fund this while process in so doing) and you're covered" so that we can't lose it all unless something goes catastrophically wrong in a higher court or the Democratic Shitheads and Assholes get into power and screw us all. |
|
Originally Posted By tortilla-flats: I'm in the exact same boat. I'd like to get rid of all but one or two, so my wife doesn't have to deal with them after I pass. Thought this was going to be an opportunity to do that, but the Magic 8 Ball says "Reply hazy, try again". Originally Posted By tortilla-flats: Originally Posted By tnriverluver: Honestly I wish I could get rid of most of mine now just so my wife or daughter doesn't have to fool with them all when I'm no longer here. That day will come. I went crazy buying in the 90s! Main reason I stayed away from any NFA stuff. No children? |
I love a good double entendre.
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: That's also my read but that's not how federal laws and courts work, especially at the district level. It's also why I'm peeved that the ruling is not being appealed; that decision by DoJ/Trump sucks for gun owners. The ruling only applies to the covered plaintiffs. The Washington DC mayor made a huge mistake when he made the decision to appeal Heller before speaking with the city's attorneys. When the decision was announced he ran to the press and ran his mouth "WE'RE GONNA FIGHT THIS" so politically he was stuck. If the city hadn't appealed we wouldn't have the USSC ruling, and we wouldn't have the McDonald and Bruen wins. If the mayor's attorneys had gotten to him first and taped his mouth shut, the ruling would only have applied to Dick Heller. Originally Posted By Bubbles: Originally Posted By tortilla-flats: That's also my read but that's not how federal laws and courts work, especially at the district level. It's also why I'm peeved that the ruling is not being appealed; that decision by DoJ/Trump sucks for gun owners. The ruling only applies to the covered plaintiffs. The Washington DC mayor made a huge mistake when he made the decision to appeal Heller before speaking with the city's attorneys. When the decision was announced he ran to the press and ran his mouth "WE'RE GONNA FIGHT THIS" so politically he was stuck. If the city hadn't appealed we wouldn't have the USSC ruling, and we wouldn't have the McDonald and Bruen wins. If the mayor's attorneys had gotten to him first and taped his mouth shut, the ruling would only have applied to Dick Heller. Trump is not pro-gun in the sense that he has some personal love for firearms and the 2nd Amendment. He's pro-gun in the sense that he's transactional. Gun owners are more likely to support him, so he has the executive branch do pro-gun things. When the pro-gun side gets a win in court, appealing that decision would make him look bad (on the surface) even if it would be the better long-run strategic choice. Since it's not an issue where he appears to have strong personal opinions, he only cares about what it gets him in the near term, not what happens five or ten years from now when he's out of office. If the DOJ did appeal, water-brained supposedly pro-gun internet commentators would start posting dumb takes like "TRUMP DOJ TURNS ANTI-GUN, TRUMP TURNS HIS BACK ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOMMM!!!11", and that would affect his approval rating. Since there's a potential downside for him if the DOJ appealed and no immediate upside, I can see why the political calculus would say not to appeal the decision. |
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Trump is not pro-gun in the sense that he has some personal love for firearms and the 2nd Amendment. He's pro-gun in the sense that he's transactional. Gun owners are more likely to support him, so he has the executive branch do pro-gun things. When the pro-gun side gets a win in court, appealing that decision would make him look bad (on the surface) even if it would be the better long-run strategic choice. Since it's not an issue where he appears to have strong personal opinions, he only cares about what it gets him in the near term, not what happens five or ten years from now when he's out of office. If the DOJ did appeal, water-brained supposedly pro-gun internet commentators would start posting dumb takes like "TRUMP DOJ TURNS ANTI-GUN, TRUMP TURNS HIS BACK ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOMMM!!!11", and that would affect his approval rating. Since there's a potential downside for him if the DOJ appealed and no immediate upside, I can see why the political calculus would say not to appeal the decision. Truth #1 Anti-Trumpers are all anti-gun, so The Don will take every f-them opportunity that becomes available. |
"People, Ideas, Technology - IN THAT ORDER! Col. John '40 Second' Boyd"
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Trump is not pro-gun in the sense that he has some personal love for firearms and the 2nd Amendment. He's pro-gun in the sense that he's transactional. Gun owners are more likely to support him, so he has the executive branch do pro-gun things. When the pro-gun side gets a win in court, appealing that decision would make him look bad (on the surface) even if it would be the better long-run strategic choice. Since it's not an issue where he appears to have strong personal opinions, he only cares about what it gets him in the near term, not what happens five or ten years from now when he's out of office. If the DOJ did appeal, water-brained supposedly pro-gun internet commentators would start posting dumb takes like "TRUMP DOJ TURNS ANTI-GUN, TRUMP TURNS HIS BACK ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOMMM!!!11", and that would affect his approval rating. Since there's a potential downside for him if the DOJ appealed and no immediate upside, I can see why the political calculus would say not to appeal the decision. Absolutely, right now all he wants is to not lose votes for the midterms. Wouldn’t be surprised if this would have played out differently if the injunction had come out after the election. Originally Posted By doc540: Truth #1 Anti-Trumpers are all anti-gun, so The Don will take every f-them opportunity that becomes available. Completely wrong about the first part of the sentence. Not anywhere close to “all”. |
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Absolutely, right now all he wants is to not lose votes for the midterms. Wouldn’t be surprised if this would have played out differently if the injunction had come out after the election. Completely wrong about the first part of the sentence. Not anywhere close to “all”. Originally Posted By willi3d: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Trump is not pro-gun in the sense that he has some personal love for firearms and the 2nd Amendment. He's pro-gun in the sense that he's transactional. Gun owners are more likely to support him, so he has the executive branch do pro-gun things. When the pro-gun side gets a win in court, appealing that decision would make him look bad (on the surface) even if it would be the better long-run strategic choice. Since it's not an issue where he appears to have strong personal opinions, he only cares about what it gets him in the near term, not what happens five or ten years from now when he's out of office. If the DOJ did appeal, water-brained supposedly pro-gun internet commentators would start posting dumb takes like "TRUMP DOJ TURNS ANTI-GUN, TRUMP TURNS HIS BACK ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT, DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOMMM!!!11", and that would affect his approval rating. Since there's a potential downside for him if the DOJ appealed and no immediate upside, I can see why the political calculus would say not to appeal the decision. Absolutely, right now all he wants is to not lose votes for the midterms. Wouldn’t be surprised if this would have played out differently if the injunction had come out after the election. Originally Posted By doc540: Truth #1 Anti-Trumpers are all anti-gun, so The Don will take every f-them opportunity that becomes available. Completely wrong about the first part of the sentence. Not anywhere close to “all”. Yet another thread devolving into Trump bashing. You fucking guys need help. |
|
Originally Posted By tac556: I take it that you are not familiar with how criminal cases work, or how case law affects things…. I can point out a veritable shitload of state laws that are not able to be applied as written due to actual case law. Still on the books, but you had better not do it without engaging your brain first. Criminal law updates are a part of LE work for good reason. For my whole career, we literally would tell each group of new LE recruits “state laws that are currently on the books say you can shoot people for X, Y, and Z. But case law says you can’t actually shoot people for Y, so pay attention to case law!”. And no joke- that was true for decades. They finally updated it with namby pamby language as part of “police reform” bullshit a few years ago, as though we had been going around shooting people right and left under the old law…. I can also point to a number of state criminal laws that DA’s are unwilling to use due to questionable constitutionality. Best example on that is WA state- Gator Arms was sued by the state to stop selling magazines…..the state did not however even attempt to use the criminal code, the same law that they had pushed for. Hmmmm. So what you are thinking, that “if it is in writing, it applies”, is completely wrong on its face. Laws often are not applied as written due to case laws affecting them, or unconstitutional decisions against that law (as is the situation we are discussing). Bruh, if you only knew about the civil lawsuit he just endured. |
"I do believe that some gun laws are needed and yes, I am a Republican" ~ tc556guy - NRA Member
|
Originally Posted By tac556: He certainly is not the only person here to have been sued. Hell- his case never even went to an actual trial. That's pretty much my point why dealers need to be cautious and do their due diligence. They knew they had no case. They knew they would never win in court. They wanted a quick settlement of my max coverage from my insurance. They did it anyhow, because they can and they have no fear of repercussions. I called their bluff and was ready to take it to trial. It would have been a huge victory to beat Spotlight Brady Campaign Donor lawyers in court. It would have be an amazing 2A victory had the judge ruled in my favor on the PLCAA MSJ. They knew they would lose at trial, they know if they waited for the judge to rule on my MSJ it would have been damaging to their cause. Just before the trial, 2 years later they dismissed. Washed their hands of it all as if it never happened and went about their day. It's that easy for an FFL to get FUCKED, and there is nothing you can do about it. All you can do is your best to not give them anything to start with. If my insurance says I'm not covered for 4473 silencers, I'm going to repeat what they tell me. They are still thinking about it after I asked for more clarification and will be releasing a statement soon. I'll go from there. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Damn, kind of want. I got an Ender 3 S1 a few years ago for the all metal hot-end but it's not enclosed so I need to solve that before I get into anything fancier than PLA. Guess I need a new nozzle too. Any experience with glass fiber vs carbon fiber? Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By broken_reticle: I am printing PA6-CF on an Elegoo Centauri Carbon. The only upgrades are a hardened nozzle and filament dryer. I was very skeptical, but this stuff really is strong and tough. I machined a bit off of the end of my cap to clean it up a bit. I tried to see if I could smooth off the ends with a flame and it didn't touch it. I do a lot of composite work and I have my doubts about how much short strands really help, but it is pretty strong. I am tempted to do a kevlar wrap. Mine survived 22lr firing just fine. Damn, kind of want. I got an Ender 3 S1 a few years ago for the all metal hot-end but it's not enclosed so I need to solve that before I get into anything fancier than PLA. Guess I need a new nozzle too. Any experience with glass fiber vs carbon fiber? I came from an Ender 3 V2. My only regret is not jumping over sooner. The speed alone changes how you print stuff. I haven't tried the glass fiber filaments. I don't think it would make a ton of difference, maybe. |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: That's pretty much my point why dealers need to be cautious and do their due diligence. They knew they had no case. They knew they would never win in court. They wanted a quick settlement of my max coverage from my insurance. They did it anyhow, because they can and they have no fear of repercussions. I called their bluff and was ready to take it to trial. It would have been a huge victory to beat Spotlight Brady Campaign Donor lawyers in court. It would have be an amazing 2A victory had the judge ruled in my favor on the PLCAA MSJ. They knew they would lose at trial, they know if they waited for the judge to rule on my MSJ it would have been damaging to their cause. Just before the trial, they dismissed. Washed their hands of it all as if it never happened and went about their day. It's that easy for an FFL to get FUCKED, and there is nothing you can do about it. All you can do is your best to not give them anything to start with. If my insurance says I'm not covered for 4473 silencers, I'm going to repeat what they tell me. They are still thinking about it after I asked for more clarification and will be releasing a statement soon. I'll go from there. If they knew they had no case and it was a slam dunk in your favor and all they were after was to intimidate you into an insurance settlement then what amount of due diligence or "not giving them anything" is going to stop them from trying that same scam on someone else? There's nothing you can unilaterally do in the moment, I guess. Sounds like there's lobbying that could be done to remove the avenues for mugging through litigation that these scummy assholes love to use. Maybe it doesn't change things in your lifetime, but the seeds sown by Handgun Control Inc in the 70s have blossomed into the rotten fruit you're dealing with today if I have my history right. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: If they knew they had no case and it was a slam dunk in your favor and all they were after was to intimidate you into an insurance settlement then what amount of due diligence or "not giving them anything" is going to stop them from trying that same scam on someone else? You're missing my entire point. FFLs need general liability insurance. The anti 2A lawyers will sue dealers for anything. Dealers need to make sure what they are doing is covered by their insurance. If a dealer gets jammed up and for whatever weasely reason the insurance can come up with to deny the claim, they are in extreme financial trouble. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)