Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/10/2008 11:56:37 AM EDT
| Are they planning on having this weapon system available to civilians? |
HAHA, I'm glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read that.  They'll never live that one down. That guy is either someone very valuable or he's out-of-work right now. |
That was the same date I received at the FNH booth. December 08 for LE, Q109 for civvie. |
Man, that's gonna be close with the elections......gives me time to save
|
I agree very close. Presidential Inauguration is on January 20, 2009. 111th Congress starts session on January 03, 2009. The President couldn't even sign an AWB into law until January 21st, 2009 and I seriously doubt any President would want to make that their first signed law. We'll probably get a good month or two after the inauguration. The hope is that other things will take priority like confirmations and Iraq along with quick "give me" legislation for the new President and Congress to brag about for their first 100 days. If production is seriously delayed than I will be losing sleep if we have to hold out until second quarter 2009. |
My thoughts exactly........although I wouldnt put it past a new president with left leanings , if that's what we get........in any case, there is a nice SP-1 and if the FN 2000 Standard comes out before, I may buy one of them to hedge my bets.......hopefully these new toys will not be threatened by the election
|
I think we'll be ok. Probably see them pass an AWB as a part of some larger bill like they did the first time to give it more support and try to slip it by. In that case it will take longer to pass it through both houses. As long as they don't make possession illegal once we get them we'll be ok. But then there could be a lock on spare parts that would suck big time. I wonder if they could still service them and honor their warranty with folks? The barrel is suppose to have a crazy long life span and the parts are made for heavy abuse so they shouldn't wear out too fast. |
excuse ME??? 
|
That depends one two things: 1. Whether they set a legal standard under which governmental regulation on firearms will be reviewed under. 2. How strict the legal standard of review will be. In other words, they can hold "yeah, it's an individual right, BUT the government can regulate as long as the regulation has some rational basis for it." That would allow for pretty much an open season as we have now on the Second Amendment. Or they could say "not only is it an individual right, BUT any action by the government against it should be reviewed under strict scrutiny and unless it is both narrowly tailored and based on a specific government interest it will be in violtion of the Constitution." I am hoping that we get the strict review, but I am not certain we'll see that. 
|
"Gov't interest" is highly subjective. I don't put confidence in fair-game phrases. Legitimate (as in, based on the context from the framers' writings & not on some ellusive "living document"-type interpretation modality), strict defines are what is needed, or else the climate will continue to be the usual congressional interstate commerce regulation trumps-all cluster-f_ _k w/ ATF-based legal interpretation chinanigans we already have now. A little bit of truth on the matter would be nice, if even just this once. |
Armory Sponsor