User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:41:04 PM EDT
[#1]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:44:33 PM EDT
[#2]
wow
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:48:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Sooo... what now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:48:51 PM EDT
[#4]
The text of the bill isn't showing up for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:48:55 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:49:55 PM EDT
[#6]
If true, that's pretty fucked up. If there is no rule of law, what's left.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:51:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Sooo... what now? it certainly would seam like it's time to break out the torches and pitchforks, warm up the tar and feathers for a march to the state capital. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:51:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: If true, that's pretty fucked up. If there is no rule of law, what's left. easy, what's left is people simply bitching about it. that's it.........sadly......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:53:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Unless they can show the hard copy of the signed law with wet ink...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:55:52 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 4:05:27 PM EDT
[#11]
foot notes:
AZ house votes on a bill...it passes before it can get to AZ senate someone changes the verbiage to a completely different law? so that the house and senate are looking at a totally different piece of legislation that has the same title and code did I get this right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 4:21:26 PM EDT
[#12]
I just wrote my state senator to what is going on. His kid goes to school with my kid. I will report back if I get something back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 5:27:59 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 5:33:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Did they submit it in crayon like they obviously did with the last few unconstitutional bills?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 10:06:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Got a reply back from my Senator
Hello, AZSavage.
Senator Michele Reagan could not get past the BI Committee Chairwoman and the Speaker of the House, so she asked someone to dump the old bill and "strike" on another. It is quite common in the Legislature. You hit a roadblock with one of your issues, so you pick up another issue with the same bill. After a certain date each year, Legislators cannot introduce any new bills. So, if something comes up, we scrounge for an extra bill. Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 10:26:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: I noticed they did that with something a few years ago and was told the same thing. They couldn't get it through a committee and since they were not allowed to draft new senate bills for that session they replaced the failed bill with something else they wanted to try and pass . Got a reply back from my Senator Hello, AZSavage. Senator Michele Reagan could not get past the BI Committee Chairwoman and the Speaker of the House, so she asked someone to dump the old bill and "strike" on another. It is quite common in the Legislature. You hit a roadblock with one of your issues, so you pick up another issue with the same bill. After a certain date each year, Legislators cannot introduce any new bills. So, if something comes up, we scrounge for an extra bill. Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 10:29:35 PM EDT
[#17]
The problem is McLain. She shot it down and would not let it see light of day.
More info up on market ticker http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184886 She is district 3 - we need to figure out how to get rid of her |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2011 10:35:21 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 7:40:54 AM EDT
[#19]
I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue.
IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:06:44 AM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:08:55 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Unless they can show the hard copy of the signed law with wet ink... Editted since my reading comprehension is a little off today... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:11:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Got a reply back from my Senator Hello, AZSavage.
Senator Michele Reagan could not get past the BI Committee Chairwoman and the Speaker of the House, so she asked someone to dump the old bill and "strike" on another. It is quite common in the Legislature. You hit a roadblock with one of your issues, so you pick up another issue with the same bill. After a certain date each year, Legislators cannot introduce any new bills. So, if something comes up, we scrounge for an extra bill. Jack Thats how the Civil Rights Act of 64(?) got passed |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:17:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." Lemme rephrase this for you: Thousands of years ago it was decided that Real Estate was special, and required special considerations. Every country has hundreds of years of law on this subject. In the US, one of the requirements is a particular chain of evidence, with wet ink signatures, on a mortgage when transferred. This is the conversation, in light of these facts: Bank: "You have not been paying us." Sucker: "Ok, lets go to court, you'll produce the document you are legally required to, and take my home away." Bank: "Well, we can't do that." Sucker: "Wait what?" Bank: "We shredded the original document, and used MERS to avoid the tax paid on each change of owner of a mortgage." Sucker: "Wait, what?" Bank: "Now, bend over and give us the house." Sucker: "But where are the legally required documents?" Bank: "Hey tame senator, go break this guys kneecaps." Bit clearer now? ETA: Let me be clear, the *only* thing this lack of documentation does is remove the link between the loan and the property. It *does not* void the loan in the cases I am aware of. The banks disregard for legal procedure only removes the secured aspect of the loan, rendering it an unsecured loan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:23:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." Lemme rephrase this for you: Thousands of years ago it was decided that Real Estate was special, and required special considerations. Every country has hundreds of years of law on this subject. In the US, one of the requirements is a particular chain of evidence, with wet ink signatures, on a mortgage when transferred. This is the conversation, in light of these facts: Bank: "You have not been paying us." Sucker: "Ok, lets go to court, you'll produce the document you are legally required to, and take my home away." Bank: "Well, we can't do that." Sucker: "Wait what?" Bank: "We shredded the original document, and used MERS to avoid the tax paid on each change of owner of a mortgage." Sucker: "Wait, what?" Bank: "Now, bend over and give us the house." Sucker: "But where are the legally required documents?" Bank: "Hey tame senator, go break this guys kneecaps." Bit clearer now? If Sucker hasn't been paying of the loan, it's not his house, and shouldn't be his house. Go ahead, and slap bank peepees all day long for the tax avoidances, etc, but don't do it by giving shitheads free houses while the responsible borrowers have been paying their obligations. This shit sounds like something right out of an Obama/Union playbook. Glorious Peoples' Paradise where no one has to work or pay debts... except to The State. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:27:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." Lemme rephrase this for you: Thousands of years ago it was decided that Real Estate was special, and required special considerations. Every country has hundreds of years of law on this subject. In the US, one of the requirements is a particular chain of evidence, with wet ink signatures, on a mortgage when transferred. This is the conversation, in light of these facts: Bank: "You have not been paying us." Sucker: "Ok, lets go to court, you'll produce the document you are legally required to, and take my home away." Bank: "Well, we can't do that." Sucker: "Wait what?" Bank: "We shredded the original document, and used MERS to avoid the tax paid on each change of owner of a mortgage." Sucker: "Wait, what?" Bank: "Now, bend over and give us the house." Sucker: "But where are the legally required documents?" Bank: "Hey tame senator, go break this guys kneecaps." Bit clearer now? If Sucker hasn't been paying of the loan, it's not his house, and shouldn't be his house. Go ahead, and slap bank peepees all day long for the tax avoidances, etc, but don't do it by giving shitheads free houses while the responsible borrowers have been paying their obligations. This shit sounds like something right out of an Obama/Union playbook. Glorious Peoples' Paradise where no one has to work or pay debts... except to The State. This is not a game of "good" vs "bad". This is a game of "didn't pay" vs "fraud". The banks are not some innocent good guy who had his lunch money stolen. What's that line? "He uses bad money, so he just can't lose." Banks lost these documents for a variety of reasons, to include reducing overhead and taxes due. They gambled that the loans would be paid off, or they could work around their violations of the law. They lost. Why should I care? Also, read the ETA to my previous post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:31:16 AM EDT
[#26]
pay your bills?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:32:08 AM EDT
[#27]
So, banks can use the court system to throw people out of their homes and seize the property even if they can't provide documentation that they actually own the note.
Meanwhile, gun dealers must keep signed copies of 4473's for 20 years and risk the government using the court system to put them in jail if they don't comply, even if no other crime was committed. Something is really screwed up here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:33:16 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: pay your bills? But the grocery store may have classified a certain kind of 3.2 beer as grocery to avoid a city tax on alcohol, so it's ok to shoplift. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:36:20 AM EDT
[#29]
Hah! Read the New Times and the Arizona Republic. There's so many shenanigans going on in AZ (from MCSO to the BOS to ex MCAO attorneys to Sup. Brock to the LDS to you name it) Makes me miss the sane old days of Ev Mecham.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:39:19 AM EDT
[#30]
Wow!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:52:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." yep. pay your fucking bills or gtfo. If you have half a brain you can prove that the bank cashed your mortgage check and sue the living fuck out of them for a wrongful forclosure. all this " get the evil banks" shit is the same propaganda used by the government that allowed them to force their social engineering on the banks creating this mess in the first place. "evil banks are racist because black and brown people aren't getting as many loans as white people" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 8:57:18 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." yep. pay your fucking bills or gtfo. If you have half a brain you can prove that the bank cashed your mortgage check and sue the living fuck out of them for a wrongful forclosure. all this " get the evil banks" shit is the same propaganda used by the government that allowed them to force their social engineering on the banks creating this mess in the first place. "evil banks are racist because black and brown people aren't getting as many loans as white people" And the explanations reek of making credit card chargebacks on all the purchases under $25 when they don't require a signature. "They cannot show a signature showing I used this card to pay for potato chips *crunchcrunch* and pop *gulp*, so I shouldn't have to pay my bill." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:01:50 AM EDT
[#33]
I'm with you on this.
Quoted:
I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:03:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Isn't the issue more about the banks being above the law and not about the deadbeats squatting in houses they can't afford?
Laws were broken by the banks during the runup that lead to the financial crisis and bailouts. Now they want to sweep their wrongdoings under the rug without penalties. I hate deadbeats getting a free ride as much as anybody, but the banks shouldn't get a free pass after breaking laws. Are we a nation of laws or of men? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:03:37 AM EDT
[#35]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:07:29 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Isn't the issue more about the banks being above the law and not about the deadbeats squatting in houses they can't afford? Laws were broken by the banks during the runup that lead to the financial crisis and bailouts. Now they want to sweep their wrongdoings under the rug without penalties. I hate deadbeats getting a free ride as much as anybody, but the banks shouldn't get a free pass after breaking laws. Are we a nation of laws or of men? And CONTRACTS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:09:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
pay your bills? It is impossible to pay bills with notes. The debt can be discharged, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:13:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Gotta say I'm in the "pay your bills" camp.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:17:30 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Gotta say I'm in the "pay your bills" camp. So if you can't pay your bills you no longer have the right to due process? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:17:48 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a REAL problem with this whole concept of "screw the banks if they can't produce the original signed document" issue. IF (and let's face it, it's a HUGE FUCKING IF), you actually run into a problem where you have been making your payments, and it turns out there's some sort of FUBAR, then yeah, screw the banks. But the reality of the situation is that it's just a ploy used by the deadbeats. "The bank is foreclosing on me! Oh teh noes!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "I asked them to produce the original document, and they can't find it!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "They can't do that! They can't prove they own this property!!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "The embossing on this notary stamp is off-center, and the right edge isn't completely discernible! This foreclosure notice is invalid!" "Have you been making your loan payments?" "You're just a shill for the banks." Lemme rephrase this for you: Thousands of years ago it was decided that Real Estate was special, and required special considerations. Every country has hundreds of years of law on this subject. In the US, one of the requirements is a particular chain of evidence, with wet ink signatures, on a mortgage when transferred. This is the conversation, in light of these facts: Bank: "You have not been paying us." Sucker: "Ok, lets go to court, you'll produce the document you are legally required to, and take my home away." Bank: "Well, we can't do that." Sucker: "Wait what?" Bank: "We shredded the original document, and used MERS to avoid the tax paid on each change of owner of a mortgage." Sucker: "Wait, what?" Bank: "Now, bend over and give us the house." Sucker: "But where are the legally required documents?" Bank: "Hey tame senator, go break this guys kneecaps." Bit clearer now? ETA: Let me be clear, the *only* thing this lack of documentation does is remove the link between the loan and the property. It *does not* void the loan in the cases I am aware of. The banks disregard for legal procedure only removes the secured aspect of the loan, rendering it an unsecured loan. So can you sell a house you have declared doesn't legally belong to the bank or you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:20:36 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gotta say I'm in the "pay your bills" camp. So if you can't pay your bills you no longer have the right to due process? Never said that... I simply think people shouldn't be allowed to skate on their bills, particularly if it's on a technicality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:25:22 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gotta say I'm in the "pay your bills" camp. So if you can't pay your bills you no longer have the right to due process? Apparently.
...at least that's the conclusion GD came to last time this whole "prove it" discussion came up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 9:33:11 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gotta say I'm in the "pay your bills" camp. So if you can't pay your bills you no longer have the right to due process? Never said that... I simply think people shouldn't be allowed to skate on their bills, particularly if it's on a technicality. Is it really just a technicality if the bank can't prove they own the mortgage note as required to proceed in the foreclosure process? Don't get me wrong, all these delays in processing the glut of homes that need to be foreclosed isn't helping anyone, especially not in the real estate market. But in my opinion it's worth it if we can save the concept of property rights and the due process of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 10:46:16 AM EDT
[#44]
I'd get a headache trying to sort that one out. Step 1, read AZ State Constitution. Then find part about how House Bills and Senate Bills are processed, and eventually reconciled (if required by the state constitution) - and eventually passed. All kinds of shenanigans can happen in between that process and behind closed doors ( within both political parties - "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" ) There are all kinds of crazy rules on how long these bills have to sit around for review and then get passed on to the opposite chamber for argument and re-writing and over and over and over. Its like that here in PA. What is initially passed in one house may not be what you get as a final product. Good Luck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 11:59:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gotta say I'm in the "pay your bills" camp. So if you can't pay your bills you no longer have the right to due process? Never said that... I simply think people shouldn't be allowed to skate on their bills, particularly if it's on a technicality. Its not just a technicality. The banks really screwed things up with MERS. Having county recorders record deeds, leins and trusts worked great until banks decided they would do it with MERS. Now there is no telling who actually owns the note. There are cases coming up all the time where people are being foreclosed on and the bank sold the note off and had no ownership whatsoever. To make it worse AZ state statute says in clear language that the notes must be recorded but banks have ignored this by using language like "servicing companies" as if they only process payments when in fact the note was sold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:07:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the issue more about the banks being above the law and not about the deadbeats squatting in houses they can't afford? Laws were broken by the banks during the runup that lead to the financial crisis and bailouts. Now they want to sweep their wrongdoings under the rug without penalties. I hate deadbeats getting a free ride as much as anybody, but the banks shouldn't get a free pass after breaking laws. Are we a nation of laws or of men? And CONTRACTS. That assumes the parties to the Contract can actually produce said contract in legally acceptable form. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:12:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Isn't the issue more about the banks being above the law and not about the deadbeats squatting in houses they can't afford? Laws were broken by the banks during the runup that lead to the financial crisis and bailouts. Now they want to sweep their wrongdoings under the rug without penalties. I hate deadbeats getting a free ride as much as anybody, but the banks shouldn't get a free pass after breaking laws. Are we a nation of laws or of men? I'm all for banks getting the testicle fisticuff from their regulatory agencies if they mishandled paperwork. HOWEVER, that should be between the regulators and the banks. I think it is a far more significant issue that a person borrows $300,000 from a bank to purchase a home on a 30 year term at 5% interest. Does it REALLY matter if they scanned the paperwork in as .pdf's? Does that change any of the material facts between the borrower and the lender? No. People pulling that shit are the same dregs of society who buy shit on ebay, and if it arrives no signature required or without delivery confirmation, will claim it never arrived. "Nyah nyah, you can't prove it." Due process, schmue process. You borrowed that money to buy that fucking house, and you know it, or else you wouldn't be living there. Due process allows you to clear up misunderstandings, not lie through your fucking teeth and try to get free shit at the expense of the rest of society. Those people should be embarrassed of every breath they take. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:25:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
pay your bills? But the grocery store may have classified a certain kind of 3.2 beer as grocery to avoid a city tax on alcohol, so it's ok to shoplift. wut? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:25:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
pay your bills? But the grocery store may have classified a certain kind of 3.2 beer as grocery to avoid a city tax on alcohol, so it's ok to shoplift. wut? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:29:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
pay your bills? But the grocery store may have classified a certain kind of 3.2 beer as grocery to avoid a city tax on alcohol, so it's ok to shoplift. wut? Exactly. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
