User Panel
[#1]
I have friends that just bought their first AR's. They both bought one 20 rd. box of 556 at $20.00 ??
|
|
[#2]
|
|
[#3]
Quoted: Snip... You do not have a right to "keep and bear ammo." View Quote False, idiots might try to argue that but ammo are apart of the arms. It would be like arguing you can have a bow but not arrows or have a printing press but no ink. The left might try to take that avenue but you so easily conceded to that false narative. |
|
[#4]
The 2nd basically covers ammo.
2014 ruling on Jackson v. City of San Francisco. https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-city-of-sf The Second Amendment protects "arms," "weapons," and "firearms"; it does not explicitly protect ammunition. Nevertheless, without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless. A regulation eliminating a person's ability to obtain or use ammunition could thereby make it impossible to use firearms for their core purpose. Cf. Heller….(holding that "the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times … makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"). Thus "the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right" to obtain the bullets necessary to use them. Cf. Ezell…(holding that the right to possess firearms implied a corresponding right to have access to firing ranges in order to train to be proficient with such firearms). Indeed, Heller did not differentiate between regulations governing ammunition and regulations governing the firearms themselves…..Rather, the Court considered the burden certain gunpowder-storage laws imposed on the Second Amendment right, and determined that they did not burden "the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns." This observation would make little sense if regulations on gunpowder and ammunition fell outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment. ….we conclude that prohibitions on the sale of ammunition do not fall outside "the historical understanding of the scope of the [Second Amendment] right."….Heller does not include ammunition regulations in the list of "presumptively lawful" regulations. View Quote |
|
[#5]
Quoted:The problem is that very quietly and behind the scenes, the manufacturers of other products will support the gun industry. The potential of opening up a can of worms that they don't want to deal with is too great. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:The problem is that very quietly and behind the scenes, the manufacturers of other products will support the gun industry. The potential of opening up a can of worms that they don't want to deal with is too great. This. There was a lot of support from non-firearm manufacturers for the PLCAA before it was signed into law. They understand the legal precedent that would result if firearms manufacturers are sued out of business. Drunk driver in an F150 kills your spouse? Sue Ford. Someone beaten to death with a baseball bat? Sue Hillrich & Bradbury. And so on... Quoted: Quoted: I got my wakeup call after Sandy Hook. Everyone has had more than enough time to prepare for this Not everyone was old enough to purchase at the time Or had the money to prepare. Obama and his fellow travellers killed my family finances in 2013. We didn't recover until this past September. Money to buy ammo was pretty scarce for many years. |
|
[#6]
Quoted: I got my wakeup call after Sandy Hook. Everyone has had more than enough time to prepare for this View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: I got my wakeup call after Sandy Hook. Everyone has had more than enough time to prepare for this Quoted: What are you talking about, the current shortage is because of asshats who keep hoarding all the ammo for themselves. This is an interesting contrast between those who took heed and prepared, vs those who sat on their duff, find themselves empty handed and are now angry at others for their own failings. A classic tale of the cricket and the ant, except in the real life version, the cricket freezes to death. |
|
[#7]
Alcohol was prohibited during Prohibition.
The Drug Enforcement Administration was formed (from its predecessors) to prosecute illicit narcotics production, smuggling, and trafficking. Opioids are killing lots of Americans. The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 were supposed to end violent crime in the United States. Can't you see how Congress is effectively protecting us? |
|
[#8]
A three judge panel at the 9th circuit should be issuing their ruling on California’s ammo background check soon. I’m not optimistic
|
|
[#9]
Quoted: The 2nd basically covers ammo. 2014 ruling on Jackson v. City of San Francisco. https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-city-of-sf View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: The 2nd basically covers ammo. 2014 ruling on Jackson v. City of San Francisco. https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-city-of-sf The Second Amendment protects "arms," "weapons," and "firearms"; it does not explicitly protect ammunition. Nevertheless, without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless. A regulation eliminating a person's ability to obtain or use ammunition could thereby make it impossible to use firearms for their core purpose. Cf. Heller….(holding that "the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times … makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"). Thus "the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right" to obtain the bullets necessary to use them. Cf. Ezell…(holding that the right to possess firearms implied a corresponding right to have access to firing ranges in order to train to be proficient with such firearms). Indeed, Heller did not differentiate between regulations governing ammunition and regulations governing the firearms themselves…..Rather, the Court considered the burden certain gunpowder-storage laws imposed on the Second Amendment right, and determined that they did not burden "the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns." This observation would make little sense if regulations on gunpowder and ammunition fell outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment. ….we conclude that prohibitions on the sale of ammunition do not fall outside "the historical understanding of the scope of the [Second Amendment] right."….Heller does not include ammunition regulations in the list of "presumptively lawful" regulations. i / we dont need the supreme court to rule we have the " right" to own ammo. its something we already knew in our hearts and something anyone with a working brain understood from the beginning and as a result i / we dont give a shit what the supreme court / gov says about it. the only people who think like that, and believe ammo is not protected, are the usual lying weasels. that scotus ruling is useless btw, and like always its so narrow as to be worthless at blocking 100 other sideways attacks, as just like everything else they rule on, while its a " right", and cant be banned, its also perfectly ok for "reasonable restrictions " to be placed / piled on it a mile high... they can limit how much you can buy, how much you can own, how much you can store, require a expensive ammo safe / cabinet, require fire department ammo inspections you must pay for, require ammo back ground checks you must pay for, add high ammo taxes, ban lead ammo,,, rule copper ammo is ap, block sales of ammo for " states of emergencies" with no end date, that lasts for days, weeks, months, or even years and 100 other things big and small... they just cant " ban ammo" totally. but those 1000 restrictions basically mean its banned for people that dont have a decent amount of money to jump thru all the hoops, or didnt already have some on hand before a " emergency" popped up.. |
|
[#10]
This has happened over and over again.
It wont stop happening The shortage is people buying 50,000 rounds so they have them. A ten dollar box of .22 is going for 200 right now. I havent bought ammo since 2006 |
|
[#11]
Wait until they try to shut down online purchases of ammo and institute a 1 box of 20 or 50 per month limit. Heard Biden mention those.
|
|
[#12]
|
|
[#13]
Quoted: This has happened over and over again. It wont stop happening The shortage is people buying 50,000 rounds so they have them. A ten dollar box of .22 is going for 200 right now. I havent bought ammo since 2006 View Quote IMHO for every 1 guy buying a box for his new rifle and home defense purposes, theres another guy buying everything he can find purely to resell. hell, we have guys popping up on here all the time showing their ammo haul from the local store where they didnt find any 9mm, or 5.56.. but they bought 500 rounds of some random other caliber they dont even own a gun for, mumbling about possibly reselling it, etc. thats the shit that results in totally stripped shelves, of even fudd calibers. when things go full retard like they are now, putting on a limit per customer, seems to work best, and helps more people get ammo at a decent price vs one neckbeard buying it all up as soon as it hits the shelf, purely to flip for 3x as much at the next gunshow. the proper plan is to learn from this shit, and load up when its cheaper and easier to find. |
|
[#14]
Quoted: Monthly limit on ammo? I had heard that for guns but not for ammo. Great. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Wait until they try to shut down online purchases of ammo and institute a 1 box of 20 or 50 per month limit. Heard Biden mention those. Monthly limit on ammo? I had heard that for guns but not for ammo. Great. scotus already ruled many times that while a total ban is unconstitutional, a " reasonable restriction", on a constitutionally protected right is perfectly fine.... even 50 " reasonable restrictions", or 100, are perfectly fine. its obviously 100% bullshit though, and how we lose more rights every day, and enough little annoying, burdonsome, expensive restrictions add up to being the same thing as a total ban to most people.. |
|
[#15]
Quoted: i / we dont need the supreme court to rule we have the " right" to own ammo. its something we already knew in our hearts and something anyone with a working brain understood from the beginning and as a result i / we dont give a shit what the supreme court / gov says about it. the only people who think like that, and believe ammo is not protected, are the usual lying weasels. that scotus ruling is useless btw, and like always its so narrow as to be worthless at blocking 100 other sideways attacks, as just like everything else they rule on, while its a " right", and cant be banned, its also perfectly ok for "reasonable restrictions " to be placed / piled on it a mile high... they can limit how much you can buy, how much you can own, how much you can store, require a expensive ammo safe / cabinet, require fire department ammo inspections you must pay for, require ammo back ground checks you must pay for, add high ammo taxes, ban lead ammo,,, rule copper ammo is ap, block sales of ammo for " states of emergencies" with no end date, that lasts for days, weeks, months, or even years and 100 other things big and small... they just cant " ban ammo" totally. but those 1000 restrictions basically mean its banned for people that dont have a decent amount of money to jump thru all the hoops, or didnt already have some on hand before a " emergency" popped up.. View Quote I get what you are saying, but just to clarify, the key reason why I keep that particular ruling on tap is because it usually puts a quick end to the online gun grabber argument about banning ammo. Technically, that ruling kinda sucked as it showed just how little non-gun people know about firearms. Someone wanted hollow points for their home defense handgun, and were not allowed to have them in the city, that part was upheld due to "safety"....which was bass-ackwards. No self respecting gun owner uses FMJ over HP's in their handgun for self-defense. |
|
[#16]
ammo mfg's say they are running wide open....so who is getting all this ammo?
|
|
[#17]
Quoted:scotus already ruled many times that while a ban is unconstitutional, a " reasonable restriction", is perfectly fine.... even 50 " reasonable restrictions", or 100, are perfectly fine. its obviously 100% bullshit though, and how we lose more rights every day. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:scotus already ruled many times that while a ban is unconstitutional, a " reasonable restriction", is perfectly fine.... even 50 " reasonable restrictions", or 100, are perfectly fine. its obviously 100% bullshit though, and how we lose more rights every day. Yeah the really crazy thing is that the BoR as a component of the Constitution places limits on the government's authority; i.e. it is outside the scope of their authority to enact bans, restrictions, etc... It isn't a state issue either per the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Yet ~140 years later the government decides that well...the words don't really mean what they say, the government can apply an arbitrary standard of what they deem "reasonable," so the limit to their authority doesn't really limit their authority Your plebeian mind just can't wrap itself around the idea that the words don't mean what they say, you need a bench of black robe clad oracles to decipher it and translate it for you. |
|
[#18]
Quoted: Titles: H.R.127 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information (Except Text) Official Titles Official Titles - House of Representatives Official Title as Introduced To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition. View Quote Standard bull shit that gets filed every new congress. Genuine morons like Shela Jackson Lee are kepot around to rake in the idiot vote. Perennial retards like Lee and Feinstein aren't allowed to make any big legilative moves, the real attck on guns will come from someone else. |
|
[#19]
Quoted: I get what you are saying, but just to clarify, the key reason why I keep that particular ruling on tap is because it usually puts a quick end to the online gun grabber argument about banning ammo. Technically, that ruling kinda sucked as it showed just how little non-gun people know about firearms. Someone wanted hollow points for their home defense handgun, and were not allowed to have them in the city, that part was upheld due to "safety"....which was bass-ackwards. No self respecting gun owner uses FMJ over HP's in their handgun for self-defense. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: i / we dont need the supreme court to rule we have the " right" to own ammo. its something we already knew in our hearts and something anyone with a working brain understood from the beginning and as a result i / we dont give a shit what the supreme court / gov says about it. the only people who think like that, and believe ammo is not protected, are the usual lying weasels. that scotus ruling is useless btw, and like always its so narrow as to be worthless at blocking 100 other sideways attacks, as just like everything else they rule on, while its a " right", and cant be banned, its also perfectly ok for "reasonable restrictions " to be placed / piled on it a mile high... they can limit how much you can buy, how much you can own, how much you can store, require a expensive ammo safe / cabinet, require fire department ammo inspections you must pay for, require ammo back ground checks you must pay for, add high ammo taxes, ban lead ammo,,, rule copper ammo is ap, block sales of ammo for " states of emergencies" with no end date, that lasts for days, weeks, months, or even years and 100 other things big and small... they just cant " ban ammo" totally. but those 1000 restrictions basically mean its banned for people that dont have a decent amount of money to jump thru all the hoops, or didnt already have some on hand before a " emergency" popped up.. I get what you are saying, but just to clarify, the key reason why I keep that particular ruling on tap is because it usually puts a quick end to the online gun grabber argument about banning ammo. Technically, that ruling kinda sucked as it showed just how little non-gun people know about firearms. Someone wanted hollow points for their home defense handgun, and were not allowed to have them in the city, that part was upheld due to "safety"....which was bass-ackwards. No self respecting gun owner uses FMJ over HP's in their handgun for self-defense. i agree 100%. the supreme court has basically become worthless at protecting rights IMHO, as they make their rulings so narrow they only result in protecting that one specific case / infringement, while leaving it perfectly open to any other city / state etc to make the exact same infringements with only minor tweaking, resulting in a new years long scotus fight for each new one.. ( if the worthless fucks even agree to hear the case, which 99% of the time they wont. then theres no punishments for city / states who ignore their rulings and do the same exact shit again anyway. |
|
[#20]
Hillary Clinton and other democrats worked on this in the 1970s .
What we are experiencing is the result of her handy work . gd |
|
[#21]
Quoted: Standard bull shit that gets filed every new congress. Genuine morons like Shela Jackson Lee are kepot around to rake in the idiot vote. Perennial retards like Lee and Feinstein aren't allowed to make any big legilative moves, the real attck on guns will come from someone else. View Quote Could be in that bill's text and/or bills attached to it. That is probably why it is taking so long to submit the finished text. They will MOST definitely go after ammo. Consider it an automatic add on to any anti gun bill. |
|
[#22]
Quoted: Yeah the really crazy thing is that the BoR as a component of the Constitution places limits on the government's authority; i.e. it is outside the scope of their authority to enact bans, restrictions, etc... It isn't a state issue either per the 10th Amendment: Yet ~140 years later the government decides that well...the words don't really mean what they say, the government can apply an arbitrary standard of what they deem "reasonable," so the limit to their authority doesn't really limit their authority Your plebeian mind just can't wrap itself around the idea that the words don't mean what they say, you need a bench of black robe clad oracles to decipher it and translate it for you. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted:scotus already ruled many times that while a ban is unconstitutional, a " reasonable restriction", is perfectly fine.... even 50 " reasonable restrictions", or 100, are perfectly fine. its obviously 100% bullshit though, and how we lose more rights every day. Yeah the really crazy thing is that the BoR as a component of the Constitution places limits on the government's authority; i.e. it is outside the scope of their authority to enact bans, restrictions, etc... It isn't a state issue either per the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Yet ~140 years later the government decides that well...the words don't really mean what they say, the government can apply an arbitrary standard of what they deem "reasonable," so the limit to their authority doesn't really limit their authority Your plebeian mind just can't wrap itself around the idea that the words don't mean what they say, you need a bench of black robe clad oracles to decipher it and translate it for you. yup.. the only way were protecting our rights and liberties from death by 10,000 gov cuts is to force them to roll back everything and be too nervous about the consequences to make new ones, and new proposed " infringements" should immediately get a ton of heavy push back in every form possible. anything less will result in waking up with less rights everyday, due to these mental gymnastics type judges and politician weasels. its not just about guns either, the same shit applies to speech, protests, religion, taxes, property, business, and 100 other areas big and small. |
|
[#23]
Quoted: The 2nd basically covers ammo. 2014 ruling on Jackson v. City of San Francisco. https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-city-of-sf View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: The 2nd basically covers ammo. 2014 ruling on Jackson v. City of San Francisco. https://casetext.com/case/jackson-v-city-of-sf The Second Amendment protects "arms," "weapons," and "firearms"; it does not explicitly protect ammunition. Nevertheless, without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless. A regulation eliminating a person's ability to obtain or use ammunition could thereby make it impossible to use firearms for their core purpose. Cf. Heller….(holding that "the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times … makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"). Thus "the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right" to obtain the bullets necessary to use them. Cf. Ezell…(holding that the right to possess firearms implied a corresponding right to have access to firing ranges in order to train to be proficient with such firearms). Indeed, Heller did not differentiate between regulations governing ammunition and regulations governing the firearms themselves…..Rather, the Court considered the burden certain gunpowder-storage laws imposed on the Second Amendment right, and determined that they did not burden "the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on handguns." This observation would make little sense if regulations on gunpowder and ammunition fell outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment. ….we conclude that prohibitions on the sale of ammunition do not fall outside "the historical understanding of the scope of the [Second Amendment] right."….Heller does not include ammunition regulations in the list of "presumptively lawful" regulations. Corporations can shut down the 2A in the same way they just did the 1A. In before - "Don't like it ? Set up your own ammo manufacturing, shipping and retail operation." |
|
[#25]
Quoted: i agree 100%. the supreme court has basically become worthless at protecting rights IMHO, as they make their rulings so narrow they only result in protecting that one specific case / infringement, while leaving it perfectly open to any other city / state etc to make the exact same infringements with only minor tweaking, resulting in a new years long scotus fight for each new one.. ( if the worthless fucks even agree to hear the case, which 99% of the time they wont. then theres no punishments for city / states who ignore their rulings and do the same exact shit again anyway. View Quote Correct. |
|
[#27]
Better that the ammo be taken out of centralized locations (like distribution centers and stores), and into the hands of individual private citizens spread out everywhere across the nation.
I hope it continues to be bought up as fast as it's being made. Same goes for guns. |
|
[#28]
At least 21,000,000 guns sold last year. With a purchase of 100 rounds per gun, that's 2,100,000,000 (over TWO BILLION) additional ammo purchases. Assuming the roughly 350,000,000 guns already in circulation had 50 rounds bought for them last year, that's an additional 17,500,000,000 rounds sold. So with production already stretched to capacity for the preexisting guns, why are you surprised that it's hard to find ammo when demand has gone up at least 12% more? (With neckbearding considered, demand is MUCH HIGHER)
|
|
[#29]
|
|
[#30]
|
|
[#31]
Quoted: I got my wakeup call after Sandy Hook. Everyone has had more than enough time to prepare for this View Quote |
|
[#32]
Sooner or later the Chinese and the drug networks south of the border will start flooding the US with all kinds of guns and ammo just to add to the destabilization and line their pockets. Between battlefield pickups and smuggling once thigs go hot there won't be a shortage.
|
|
[#33]
I tried to stock up as much as I could but with being new in firearms I havent had any experience with panics before so I didnt stock up as much
Been slowly adding where I can |
|
[#34]
Quoted: Could be in that bill's text and/or bills attached to it. That is probably why it is taking so long to submit the finished text. They will MOST definitely go after ammo. Consider it an automatic add on to any anti gun bill. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Standard bull shit that gets filed every new congress. Genuine morons like Shela Jackson Lee are kepot around to rake in the idiot vote. Perennial retards like Lee and Feinstein aren't allowed to make any big legilative moves, the real attck on guns will come from someone else. Could be in that bill's text and/or bills attached to it. That is probably why it is taking so long to submit the finished text. They will MOST definitely go after ammo. Consider it an automatic add on to any anti gun bill. They've already announced their primary tactic, bankrupting manufactures through lawsuits. The anti-gun lobby sets the agenda, not elected officials. The antis started shopping their proposals around right after the election. We'll know shortly who will sign on when they roll out a new task force or the illegitimate president will appoint an equally illegitimate Tsar |
|
[#36]
|
|
[#37]
Quoted: I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I'm fairly sure that ammunition falls under "bearing arms". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ah, the defeatist . there are so many now that have just given up. keep the defeatism to yourself. stop trying to drag others down. get some Prozac. everyone else, stand by but don't stand down. this isn't the first time and wont be the last. you should have prepped and have what you need. if not, well, sorry 'bout that. well get past it. I have enough stashed that even my grandkids won't need to buy any. Yet, the fact remains that you Dom not have the right to buy ammo. They can take it away with the stroke of a pen. Fact. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I'm fairly sure that ammunition falls under "bearing arms". Yes. |
|
[#38]
No mail order sales of ammo is a thing. So are ammo taxes.
The Marxist want us disarmed. They're coming soon. |
|
[#40]
Quoted: This. There was a lot of support from non-firearm manufacturers for the PLCAA before it was signed into law. They understand the legal precedent that would result if firearms manufacturers are sued out of business. Drunk driver in an F150 kills your spouse? Sue Ford. Someone beaten to death with a baseball bat? Sue Hillrich & Bradbury. And so on... Or had the money to prepare. Obama and his fellow travellers killed my family finances in 2013. We didn't recover until this past September. Money to buy ammo was pretty scarce for many years. View Quote This is why I liquidated my 401(k) years ago-beans and bullets. |
|
[#41]
There's a shortage because of dumbass neckbeards who think having tens of thousands of rounds is actually useful. In an actually shtf scenario how many rounds are you expecting to carry and realistically shoot? Are you gonna be holed up at home fending off the zombie hoards with your 50k rounds? IMO having something like 1000 of each caliber you shoot is practical.
|
|
[#43]
Quoted: What the hell are you talking about? How can you be this gullible? No business will ever help another business unless it's in it's direct personal interests to do so. The gun industry is famously unsupportive of the struggles of its brothers. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that very quietly and behind the scenes, the manufacturers of other products will support the gun industry. The potential of opening up a can of worms that they don't want to deal with is too great. What the hell are you talking about? How can you be this gullible? No business will ever help another business unless it's in it's direct personal interests to do so. The gun industry is famously unsupportive of the struggles of its brothers. Referencing the PLCAA was the direct business interest that all companies have. If the PLCAA is struck down then there's legal standing to go after all industry protections. |
|
[#44]
Rights and laws are words on paper without enforcement.
Last I checked election fraud is illegal. Any day now....... |
|
[#45]
|
|
[#46]
|
|
[#47]
Quoted: There's a shortage because of dumbass neckbeards who think having tens of thousands of rounds is actually useful. In an actually shtf scenario how many rounds are you expecting to carry and realistically shoot? Are you gonna be holed up at home fending off the zombie hoards with your 50k rounds? IMO having something like 1000 of each caliber you shoot is practical. View Quote Having 10 rolls of tp is excessive if you never take a shit. Dumbass neckbeards wanting tp so they can actually use it and have some when you can't find any....... |
|
[#48]
Quoted: Having 10 rolls of tp is excessive if you never take a shit. Dumbass neckbeards wanting tp so they can actually use it and have some when you can't find any....... View Quote We'd be ABLE TO FIND IT if people would stop panic buying everything. There's plenty of ammo production to meet the needs of recreational shooting if people stopped hoarding. |
|
[#49]
I don't think the key to this is hoarding, never has been really. If they tax ammo more, ban internet sales, registerer purchases, etc. what makes us think there won't be limits to amounts that can be possessed ? Stock piling only signals to them that our reaction is to comply eventually if not immediately.
|
|
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.