Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 20
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:27:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 3:28:52 AM EST by RJeff21]
Figured I'd cross post this here since there are probably a lot in GD who have these and may not go into the tech forums.

This was originally shared by walkingllama in the AR Discussion forum.

Originally Posted By walkingllama:
Just posted tonight in a local gun group. This is the first specific letter I have seen dealing with the sig brace, and an AR15. This is not the same letter that you have all seen, it is new, as in tonight. Or you can wait a couple days or so and I am sure TAG or some other better late than never gun blog will have it in there. I did not write the letter, I have nothing to do with it, just passing along the information.



----------------------------

Edit to add new pics of entire letter that I received from the individual that wrote the inquiry.






View Quote

Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:31:36 AM EST
In other news, water is still wet. Was this really ever a discussion?
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:33:59 AM EST
Fuck 'em.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:34:25 AM EST
#NOTTHISSHITAGAIN.

Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:36:32 AM EST
youdon'tsay.jpeg
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:38:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 3:38:49 AM EST by SouthernPike]
As Andrew Jackson once famously said:

"Let them enforce their ruling."
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:40:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 3:41:46 AM EST by zren]
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15??????
We already had the answer we wanted!
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:41:34 AM EST
However, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon design to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute the making of a "rifle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7).
View Quote


Is this not a policy change?
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:43:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By zren:
I thought we already had a letter from the aft saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the aft about the SB-15??????
We already had the answer we wanted!
View Quote


I'm pretty sure it's because the guy wanting to use it in combination with a Magpul AFG (which, IIRC, was not covered in the original ATF letter about the SB15. Both are kosher on their own, but nothing from them about when used in conjunction).

Also, I'm pretty sure the ATF has clarified that any approval they give in the form of an "opinion letter" is only applicable to the person the letter is addressed to.

All a bunch of bullshit to me, but it is what it is at this point.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:45:03 AM EST
IN

for the hilarity
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:45:12 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By zren:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15??????
We already had the answer we wanted!
View Quote


It was legal at one point. But the fad caught on and everyone started doing it. Then the ATF saw it as a problem.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:47:06 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By zren:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15??????
We already had the answer we wanted!
View Quote


Because people are stupid and just CANT STOP POKING THE BEAR. We could have had many more years, decades even before some over zealous DA tried to prosecute someone and brought the sig brace back to the ATFs attention, but NO, we are our own worst enemy.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:49:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:51:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By para_frame:


Because people are stupid and just CANT STOP POKING THE BEAR. We could have had many more years, decades even before some over zealous DA tried to prosecute someone and brought the sig brace back to the ATFs attention, but NO, we are our own worst enemy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By para_frame:
Originally Posted By zren:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15??????
We already had the answer we wanted!


Because people are stupid and just CANT STOP POKING THE BEAR. We could have had many more years, decades even before some over zealous DA tried to prosecute someone and brought the sig brace back to the ATFs attention, but NO, we are our own worst enemy.


This
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:53:41 AM EST


No shit! Really? Maybe read the OP, where it specifically states this:

Originally Posted By RJeff21:
Figured I'd cross post this here since there are probably a lot in GD who have these and may not go into the tech forums.

This was originally shared by walkingllama in the AR Discussion forum.

Originally Posted By walkingllama:

SNIP




It's also in a different sub-forum, so NOT a dupe. Try again.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 3:59:48 AM EST
Wow, all of those worthless SIG braces are now going to be worthless on the EE.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:03:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 4:11:38 AM EST by Sputnik556]
FBATFE.

I don't own a sig brace and probably never will but they can still suck it.

Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:10:07 AM EST
MEH
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:10:22 AM EST
Not a lawyer, but it looks like they are trying to make the claim that using it as a stock actually "redesigns" the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. So the sig brace is now a transformer. Also, I think it says that you need to intend to use the brace for pistol shooting and not shoulder firing when you mount it, so design intent isn't important, but what you intend with it. Again, not a lawyer, so that could be wrong.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:12:30 AM EST
Figured this was coming some day... more sooner than later. The "in your face" party the arm braces turned into probably had the ATF hoping someone would give them a reason to shut the whole thing down.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:12:53 AM EST
So if I slap a Magpul CTR on a 10" pistol with no intention of shouldering it I'm good right?

Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:14:28 AM EST
Fuck

Glad I was holding off on a pistol build.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:15:31 AM EST
ATF doesn't make rulings.


They apparently don't proof-read their letters, either.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:18:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 4:19:44 AM EST by RJeff21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sputnik556:
So if I slap a Magpul CTR on a 10" pistol with no intention of shouldering it I'm good right?

View Quote


Well, trying to understand their logic here, it appears that there are now two steps of "designed or intended to be used as". Used to be, that as long as the original product wasn't designed by the manufacturer to be used as a shoulder stock, you were good to go no matter what you do with it.

Now it appears they are in effect making the assembler of said "pistol" a "manufacturer" in the sense of the law. So, if you built it with the intent to shoulder it, you have now in effect manufactured an SBR.

Not sure how they'd prove what your intent is, but after the whole doubling and tripling gun putting someone in prison, I wouldn't put it past them to try.

Still not sure how they'd get around this if you purchased a pistol that already comes with an SB15. Somehow, they're trying to say that you are in effect altering the design of the weapon simply by shouldering it.

ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:21:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Lucifer_Sam:
Not a lawyer, but it looks like they are trying to make the claim that using it as a stock actually "redesigns" the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. So the sig brace is now a transformer. Also, I think it says that you need to intend to use the brace for pistol shooting and not shoulder firing when you mount it, so design intent isn't important, but what you intend with it. Again, not a lawyer, so that could be wrong.
View Quote


The ATF has in the past ruled on the use of a product (see the famous shoe sting machine gun) can change its classification.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:24:46 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.
View Quote


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:28:45 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.

Yeah, people give these letters way more credit than they deserve. They are just one persons opinion, and don't apply to the masses.

What these letters say changes constantly over the years while the laws stay the same.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:29:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 4:33:05 AM EST by RJeff21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.


I guess I'm confused here then. It may not have standing, but it may show a change in their intent to prosecute individuals for certain acts. It seems, from the most current letter posted in the OP, they may pursue prosecution of someone who is shouldering an SB15 for being in possession of an illegal SBR.

If this letter or opinion doesn't mean anything, and neither do any of the past ones, then why the hell do they write opinion letters in the first place? Also, if these opinions don't have any meaning, why does Sig include a copy of the original ATF approval letter with the SB15 at the time of purchase?

ETA: Just to clarify, I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I genuinely don't really have a clue what weight these letters have behind them or what they really mean. I was of the understanding that they reflected a general view of the ATF as a whole as to the usage of certain products in certain ways.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:30:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 4:32:19 AM EST by jal777]
The way I'm reading part of this letter it looks like I would also be breaking the law by shooting glocks and 1911's by using two hands instead of one considering that they believe that all handguns were designed to be shot one handed.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:31:32 AM EST
Should I start hoarding sig braces?????
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:31:40 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.


Imperious motherfuckers, aren't they?

Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:33:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 4:36:57 AM EST by 1Andy2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


I guess I'm confused here then. It may not have standing, but it may show a change in their intent to prosecute individuals for certain acts. It seems, from the most current letter posted in the OP, they may pursue prosecution of someone who is shouldering an SB15 for being in possession of an illegal SBR.

If this letter or opinion doesn't mean anything, and neither do any of the past ones, then why the hell do they write opinion letters in the first place? Also, if these opinions don't have any meaning, why does Sig include a copy of the original ATF approval letter with the SB15 at the time of purchase?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.


I guess I'm confused here then. It may not have standing, but it may show a change in their intent to prosecute individuals for certain acts. It seems, from the most current letter posted in the OP, they may pursue prosecution of someone who is shouldering an SB15 for being in possession of an illegal SBR.

If this letter or opinion doesn't mean anything, and neither do any of the past ones, then why the hell do they write opinion letters in the first place? Also, if these opinions don't have any meaning, why does Sig include a copy of the original ATF approval letter with the SB15 at the time of purchase?



Because people ask them to.

Because sig wants to sell more SB15s. Most Americans think everything is illegal unless it has a government stamp of approval. They're only sort of right.


eta: I am not a lawyer, but so far as I can tell, an ATF opinion letter has no legal weight, whatsoever.

As far as an indication of some kind of monolithic "policy" or "will of the collective" goes, I wouldn't give them that much credit.

They had one examiner rubber stamping form 4s that magically transformed from M11//9s into browning 1919s.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:35:06 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


I guess I'm confused here then. It may not have standing, but it may show a change in their intent to prosecute individuals for certain acts. It seems, from the most current letter posted in the OP, they may pursue prosecution of someone who is shouldering an SB15 for being in possession of an illegal SBR.

If this letter or opinion doesn't mean anything, and neither do any of the past ones, then why the hell do they write opinion letters in the first place? Also, if these opinions don't have any meaning, why does Sig include a copy of the original ATF approval letter with the SB15 at the time of purchase?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely.


This letter doesn't have "standing" anywhere. Nor does their previous opinion on similar things amount to a "ruling."

There's absolutely no legal reason why the ATF cannot send out two contradictory opinions on something.


I guess I'm confused here then. It may not have standing, but it may show a change in their intent to prosecute individuals for certain acts. It seems, from the most current letter posted in the OP, they may pursue prosecution of someone who is shouldering an SB15 for being in possession of an illegal SBR.

If this letter or opinion doesn't mean anything, and neither do any of the past ones, then why the hell do they write opinion letters in the first place? Also, if these opinions don't have any meaning, why does Sig include a copy of the original ATF approval letter with the SB15 at the time of purchase?


Here's the problem.

If I take my sig braced AR out and shoot it using the brace as it is intended, and then hand it to a friend, who then shoots it from his shoulder, is the gun now an SBR?

Who committed the crime? Me for owning what is now an unlicensed SBR as though the act of my friend shouldering the gun changed it, or my friend for intentionally misusing something.

There's a lot of gray area there.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:35:15 AM EST
Will they go after the few hundred thousand of the people using these now?
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:36:03 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Because people ask them to.

Because sig wants to sell more SB15s. Most Americans think everything is illegal unless it has a government stamp of approval. They're only sort of right.
View Quote


So, can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you of the opinion that people shouldn't worry about this letter and continue using their Sig braces as a "notastock", or should people be concerned that the winds are changing inside the ATF and that this could reflect an intention to prosecute individuals for doing what they previously said was OK (admittedly this "approval" was in another opinion letter).
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:41:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 4:42:57 AM EST by RJeff21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
eta: I am not a lawyer, but so far as I can tell, an ATF opinion letter has no legal weight, whatsoever.

As far as an indication of some kind of monolithic "policy" or "will of the collective" goes, I wouldn't give them that much credit.

They had one examiner rubber stamping form 4s that magically transformed from M11//9s into browning 1919s.
View Quote


While the rubber stamping of forms may be very indicative that they are grossly incompetent (look at all the approved Form 1s for MG's that got passed how many examiners earlier this year!), I don't think that changes the fact that they don't appear to have any qualms bending people over the barrel for stupid shit.

I guess, in a way, this concerns me, now that even a portion of the ATF may view the shouldering of an SB15 as illegal. Sure it may not hold weight, but that doesn't help a whole lot if I get dragged through the entire legal system, wasting tens of thousands of dollars, just to prove my innocence.

ETA: My concern is that I was planning to purchase one to put on a bedside rifle. I already have SBR's but figured it'd be more smart to avoid any hassles that may arise from having a Form 1'd SBR in evidence storage should I ever need to use it in an HD scenario.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:42:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:


So, can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you of the opinion that people shouldn't worry about this letter and continue using their Sig braces as a "notastock", or should people be concerned that the winds are changing inside the ATF and that this could reflect an intention to prosecute individuals for doing what they previously said was OK (admittedly this "approval" was in another opinion letter).
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RJeff21:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Because people ask them to.

Because sig wants to sell more SB15s. Most Americans think everything is illegal unless it has a government stamp of approval. They're only sort of right.


So, can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you of the opinion that people shouldn't worry about this letter and continue using their Sig braces as a "notastock", or should people be concerned that the winds are changing inside the ATF and that this could reflect an intention to prosecute individuals for doing what they previously said was OK (admittedly this "approval" was in another opinion letter).

Personal opinion? I think most people could build a no-shit outright illegal SBR and have jack diddly chance of getting caught.

If I didn't already have a registered SBR lower, I probably would have done of these gimmicky things.

Anyone who is this worried about it should probably just pay the 200 bucks for a tax stamp. That's pretty cheap peace of mind.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:42:31 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKFF:
Will they go after the few hundred thousand of the people using these now?
View Quote


Probably selectively to make some examples. If I had a YouTube video showing me firing it from the shoulder I would remove that video promptly.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 4:54:19 AM EST
If you're going to line up sights with your eyeball to shootvthe weapon with any degree of safety meaning hitting where you intend to hit and not 100 yards to the left, the buffer tube is gonna be at your shoulder no matter whats on it.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:02:27 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


Probably selectively to make some examples. If I had a YouTube video showing me firing it from the shoulder I would remove that video promptly.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By AKFF:
Will they go after the few hundred thousand of the people using these now?


Probably selectively to make some examples. If I had a YouTube video showing me firing it from the shoulder I would remove that video promptly.


Yep.

Somebody will be made an example...selectively.

One of the many benefits of having a non constitutional Bureaucracy being empowered with the force of law, and unaccountable to the legislature.
They can make criminals out of anyone they wish, any time they wish, seize their assets and deny their freedom at will.

Good thing we have nothing but the most honorable of people at all levels within the BATFE.



Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:04:23 AM EST
Pffffft. Have fun with that ATF
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:06:27 AM EST
Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:12:47 AM EST
Is this the same ATF who tried to fuck us and the US Constitution by running guns to drugs lords in Mexico?

TXL
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:13:19 AM EST
Last paragraph says the AFG and SB15 do not an SBR make, therefore good to go?

The part that starts with "consequently" basically says if you intend to use it as a shoulder stock.. which no one does. They may shoot it off the shoulder, but that doesn't mean it's being used as intended...

therefore.. moot?

Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:14:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2014 5:20:21 AM EST by 9mmstephen]
Anyone notice the letter to Sgt. Bradley is signed by the same guy who wrote this letter?
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:16:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AWDeity:
Last paragraph says the AFG and SB15 do not an SBR make, therefore good to go?

The part that starts with "consequently" basically says if you intend to use it as a shoulder stock.. which no one does. They may shoot it off the shoulder, but that doesn't mean it's being used as intended...

therefore.. moot?

View Quote


I suspect that the ATF will say that as soon you put it to your shoulder that supplies the proof of intent to use it that way. And good luck explaining a contrary position to a jury comprised of sheeple.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:16:21 AM EST
And this is why we cant have nice things.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:18:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AWDeity:
Last paragraph says the AFG and SB15 do not an SBR make, therefore good to go?

The part that starts with "consequently" basically says if you intend to use it as a shoulder stock.. which no one does. They may shoot it off the shoulder, but that doesn't mean it's being used as intended...

therefore.. moot?

View Quote


It says, "if this device, modified or un-modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock" it becomes a rifle. Nothing about intent. Just simply adding it to a pistol and then using it as a stock.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:24:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


I suspect that the ATF will say that as soon you put it to your shoulder that supplies the proof of intent to use it that way. And good luck explaining a contrary position to a jury comprised of sheeple.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By AWDeity:
Last paragraph says the AFG and SB15 do not an SBR make, therefore good to go?

The part that starts with "consequently" basically says if you intend to use it as a shoulder stock.. which no one does. They may shoot it off the shoulder, but that doesn't mean it's being used as intended...

therefore.. moot?



I suspect that the ATF will say that as soon you put it to your shoulder that supplies the proof of intent to use it that way. And good luck explaining a contrary position to a jury comprised of sheeple.


Hmmmm


Well,

I guess my grade school teachers were wrong. There ARE stupid questions.
Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:37:30 AM EST
1. Approve obscure SBR like brace thingy.
2. Wait until everyone is hooked on/invested in one, then yank approval.
3. Watch everyone squeal like a pig and run to buy stamp.
4. ????
5. Profit.


Link Posted: 12/26/2014 5:46:51 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Halberdier:
1. Approve obscure SBR like brace thingy.
2. Wait until everyone is hooked on/invested in one, then yank approval.
3. Watch everyone squeal like a pig and run to buy stamp.
4. ????
5. Profit.


View Quote


As inefficient as fedgov is, it probably cost more than $200 to process.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 20
Top Top