Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 191 of 193)
|
Gangster as fuck…. Attached File |
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.
~John Adams
~John Adams
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: No. There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By FRT: So next month SBR/SBS will be open to everyone outside of the plaintiff groups? There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. Or the gov't enters into a Consent Decree, or settlement agreement saying they agree with the ruling then it can apply universally. It doesn't have to be the court that does that. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1273
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Or the gov't enters into a Consent Decree, or settlement agreement saying they agree with the ruling then it can apply universally. It doesn't have to be the court that does that. Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By FRT: So next month SBR/SBS will be open to everyone outside of the plaintiff groups? There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. Or the gov't enters into a Consent Decree, or settlement agreement saying they agree with the ruling then it can apply universally. It doesn't have to be the court that does that. Consent degree as a way of legislating seems like a cheat code. It might work (worked for Rare Greed) for awhile but I question if it will weather scrutiny. If it were that easy the executive could just consent to strike any sort of law they like, which violates the separation of powers. I realize that in this case the law is actually unconstitutional but only one tiny district court decided that for this particular case. |
|
Originally Posted By dcs12345: Just noticed https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/82036/IMG_5512_jpeg-3828732.JPG https://media2.giphy.com/media/5uuRWk7fiXeM0/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cs9pa8r8mm03ebsdz2f4cffhjs8jk1w8ou26t8akl&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Mine finally showed up at the FFL today after UPS did it's best to fuck it up |
|
Originally Posted By Falcon09: I got my first freedom suppressor today at Riflegear in The Colony, TX. Took about 30 minutes start to finish. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/137193/IMG_2253-3828841.jpg I just bought a 22 and 5.56 suppressor. In and out under 45 minutes! I'm still in shock. 
|
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Or the gov't enters into a Consent Decree, or settlement agreement saying they agree with the ruling then it can apply universally. It doesn't have to be the court that does that. This. “We will no longer consider certain items as illegal due to the recent court ruling!” |
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
|
Originally Posted By Coati: Consent degree as a way of legislating seems like a cheat code. It might work (worked for Rare Greed) for awhile but I question if it will weather scrutiny. If it were that easy the executive could just consent to strike any sort of law they like, which violates the separation of powers. I realize that in this case the law is actually unconstitutional but only one tiny district court decided that for this particular case. That’s exactly what the Biden administration did. |
|
Originally Posted By Action45: I’m not sure it even matters any more. There are FRTs available for almost everything more at 1/100th the cost, less in some instances Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By DarkLordVader: What about machine guns? I’m not sure it even matters any more. There are FRTs available for almost everything more at 1/100th the cost, less in some instances We just need the ATF to rescind the "we're deeming open-bolt firearms to be too easily-convertible to machineguns" ruling. |
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: We just need the ATF to rescind the "we're deeming open-bolt firearms to be too easily-convertible to machineguns" ruling. Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By DarkLordVader: What about machine guns? I’m not sure it even matters any more. There are FRTs available for almost everything more at 1/100th the cost, less in some instances We just need the ATF to rescind the "we're deeming open-bolt firearms to be too easily-convertible to machineguns" ruling. 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr…semi-auto FRTs) we could have |
|
Originally Posted By Action45: 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr…semi-auto FRTs) we could have Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By DarkLordVader: What about machine guns? I’m not sure it even matters any more. There are FRTs available for almost everything more at 1/100th the cost, less in some instances We just need the ATF to rescind the "we're deeming open-bolt firearms to be too easily-convertible to machineguns" ruling. 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr…semi-auto FRTs) we could have I put one in my Nodak Spud limited fence lower with all original 1964 era XM16E1 upper and BCG. It deserved it. It was so satisfying letting it speak its natural language finally. |
"Circular probability, zero. Have a nice day..."
|
Originally Posted By mancow: I put one in my Nodak Spud limited fence lower with all original 1964 era XM16E1 upper and BCG. It deserved it. It was so satisfying letting it speak its natural language finally. Originally Posted By mancow: Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By DarkLordVader: What about machine guns? I’m not sure it even matters any more. There are FRTs available for almost everything more at 1/100th the cost, less in some instances We just need the ATF to rescind the "we're deeming open-bolt firearms to be too easily-convertible to machineguns" ruling. 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr…semi-auto FRTs) we could have I put one in my Nodak Spud limited fence lower with all original 1964 era XM16E1 upper and BCG. It deserved it. It was so satisfying letting it speak its natural language finally. Noice! |
|
The DOJ published an opinion today saying 18 USC 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) can't be enforced against FFLs. That's the law that makes it illegal for an FFL to transfer a firearm to an 18-20 year-old if it's not a non-NFA rifle or shotgun. Since that's now not being enforced, that means an FFL can transfer any type of firearm to anyone over 18 (state firearms laws notwithstanding). Who's going to be the first 18-20 year-old to get a silencer on a 4473? |
|
Originally Posted By Action45: Noice! Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By mancow: Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By Action45: Originally Posted By DarkLordVader: What about machine guns? I’m not sure it even matters any more. There are FRTs available for almost everything more at 1/100th the cost, less in some instances We just need the ATF to rescind the "we're deeming open-bolt firearms to be too easily-convertible to machineguns" ruling. 100% man. Imagine how many badass retro SMGs (errr…semi-auto FRTs) we could have I put one in my Nodak Spud limited fence lower with all original 1964 era XM16E1 upper and BCG. It deserved it. It was so satisfying letting it speak its natural language finally. Noice! It sure was. : ). I took a video and had AI extract an RPM count and it was almost exactly 800 RPM. It's surprising how consisting those devices are. |
"Circular probability, zero. Have a nice day..."
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: The DOJ published an opinion today saying 18 USC 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) can't be enforced against FFLs. That's the law that makes it illegal for an FFL to transfer a firearm to an 18-20 year-old if it's not a non-NFA rifle or shotgun. Who's going to be the first 18-20 year-old to get a silencer on a 4473? Oh to be 18 again, would be so nice. |
|
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls: FFL's are being little pricks about this here. Saying they will not change unless the gov clarifies. They'll come around. |
CBS News (9/17/26): Trump ordered DOJ not to appeal ruling that loosened limits on "gangster weapons".
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: The DOJ published an opinion today saying 18 USC 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) can't be enforced against FFLs. That's the law that makes it illegal for an FFL to transfer a firearm to an 18-20 year-old if it's not a non-NFA rifle or shotgun. Since that's now not being enforced, that means an FFL can transfer any type of firearm to anyone over 18 (state firearms laws notwithstanding). Who's going to be the first 18-20 year-old to get a silencer on a 4473? Not really. They only said they won’t criminally prosecute. |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I literally used the same wording that they did. That said, I think "won't criminally prosecute" vs. "may not be enforced" is a distinction without a difference. Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By StevenH: Not really. They only said they won’t criminally prosecute. I literally used the same wording that they did. That said, I think "won't criminally prosecute" vs. "may not be enforced" is a distinction without a difference. From the actual opinion “Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of law-abiding adults who in nearly every other domain are full members of the political community.” What they’re saying is if a dealer sells a handgun to someone under 21 years old in violation of the law, the DOJ will not criminally prosecute him. All other consequences, including administrative actions against his FFL are still on the table. |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
I did this 20 gauge today. the barrels aren't brazed together like my coach gun, so I ordered a barrel clamp for it. It should fit with the rib but I'm wondering if I should put something in between the barrels to keep it from squeezing them together.  The clamp should be in tomorrow.  Has anyone else done one of these? I'm open to suggestions for keeping the barrels secure. |
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: From the actual opinion “Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of law-abiding adults who in nearly every other domain are full members of the political community.” What they’re saying is if a dealer sells a handgun to someone under 21 years old in violation of the law, the DOJ will not criminally prosecute him. All other consequences, including administrative actions against his FFL are still on the table. Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By StevenH: Not really. They only said they won’t criminally prosecute. I literally used the same wording that they did. That said, I think "won't criminally prosecute" vs. "may not be enforced" is a distinction without a difference. From the actual opinion “Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of law-abiding adults who in nearly every other domain are full members of the political community.” What they’re saying is if a dealer sells a handgun to someone under 21 years old in violation of the law, the DOJ will not criminally prosecute him. All other consequences, including administrative actions against his FFL are still on the table. I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? |
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: From the actual opinion “Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of law-abiding adults who in nearly every other domain are full members of the political community.” What they’re saying is if a dealer sells a handgun to someone under 21 years old in violation of the law, the DOJ will not criminally prosecute him. All other consequences, including administrative actions against his FFL are still on the table. OFFS they said it’s unconstitutional and the aren’t enforcing it. Scared of your own damn shadow. That’s the way this whole thing has been. Our forefathers would be ashamed. |
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By StevenH: Not really. They only said they won’t criminally prosecute. I literally used the same wording that they did. That said, I think "won't criminally prosecute" vs. "may not be enforced" is a distinction without a difference. From the actual opinion “Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of law-abiding adults who in nearly every other domain are full members of the political community.” What they’re saying is if a dealer sells a handgun to someone under 21 years old in violation of the law, the DOJ will not criminally prosecute him. All other consequences, including administrative actions against his FFL are still on the table. I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? Yes. Because they did not say they are not going to enforce the law. They said they will not criminally prosecute. |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: Yes. Because they did not say they are not going to enforce the law. They said they will not criminally prosecute. Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By StevenH: Not really. They only said they won’t criminally prosecute. I literally used the same wording that they did. That said, I think "won't criminally prosecute" vs. "may not be enforced" is a distinction without a difference. From the actual opinion “Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of law-abiding adults who in nearly every other domain are full members of the political community.” What they’re saying is if a dealer sells a handgun to someone under 21 years old in violation of the law, the DOJ will not criminally prosecute him. All other consequences, including administrative actions against his FFL are still on the table. I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? Yes. Because they did not say they are not going to enforce the law. They said they will not criminally prosecute. It's one thing to be forced by a court decision to not enforce a law and then try to weasel a way around it, but it'd an utterly retarded and unforced error to make a decision to not enforce the law and then use your own decision as an excuse to try to trip people up when they follow it. Who do you think would gain anything from that happening? The Trump DOJ obviously doesn't want it enforced, whether criminally or civilly. If the ATF tried to enforce any civil penalties, they're under the DOJ and so would get told to knock that shit off by the Attorney General. The Bradys and the demanding moms would like it, but do you really think this is some 4-dimensional chess move by the Trump DOJ to curry a small amount of favor with antigunners by fucking with some FFLs, while also royally pissing off Trump's base? Because that's the only reasoning I could come up with. Do you have something better? |
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
934
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: Yes. Because they did not say they are not going to enforce the law. They said they will not criminally prosecute. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By NachoDip: Always have. The last part only mattered by who saw it. Originally Posted By NachoDip: Originally Posted By ERNURSE: Does this mean I can finally put a HK foregrip on my PTR9CT without going to jail.???? Always have. The last part only mattered by who saw it. Indeed, took the words right out of my mind, brother. Some of you guys act like you have a Federal Marshall living inside your fucking gun safe. Go forth, and live. |
|
Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Indeed, took the words right out of my mind, brother. Some of you guys act like you have a Federal Marshall living inside your fucking gun safe. Go forth, and live. Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By NachoDip: Originally Posted By ERNURSE: Does this mean I can finally put a HK foregrip on my PTR9CT without going to jail.???? Always have. The last part only mattered by who saw it. Indeed, took the words right out of my mind, brother. Some of you guys act like you have a Federal Marshall living inside your fucking gun safe. Go forth, and live. Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: A lot of this thread can be summed up as: Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By NachoDip: Originally Posted By ERNURSE: Does this mean I can finally put a HK foregrip on my PTR9CT without going to jail.???? Always have. The last part only mattered by who saw it. Indeed, took the words right out of my mind, brother. Some of you guys act like you have a Federal Marshall living inside your fucking gun safe. Go forth, and live. Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. Attached File |
SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
|
Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls: For all the gunshine state talk...FFL's are being little pricks about this here. Saying they will not change unless the gov clarifies. Even with the GOA membership.  There are a couple at least who are doing it. FL HTF has some useful info for you on that front. I made the trip to Shark Coast in Sarasota for both of my 4473 cans. |
|
If I'm flaunting my ignorance here, surely someone will let me know. How are the limitations of this ruling not a violation of the equal protection clause? |
valheru21:"The argument, "this gun won't go down in value," is used to convince the wife that you are not making a bad financial decision when purchasing a firearm. You're not ACTUALLY supposed to ever sell the gun."
Matt
Matt
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: No. There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By FRT: So next month SBR/SBS will be open to everyone outside of the plaintiff groups? There's only two ways that happens. 1. is Congress repeals the NFA '34 and GCA '68 as it applies too suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs. That will not happen by next month or ever. 2. SCOTUS decision that the enjoined parts of the NFA '34 and the associated but not enjoined bits of the GCA '68 are unconstitutional. To have (2) the case has to be appealed to the 5th Circuit. Then if the government (or the plaintiffs) loses the appeal the government (or the plaintiffs) has to ask SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari and SCOTUS has to agree to hear the case.* So we want the government to appeal or this stays in this gray limbo of sort-of-and-sort-of-not where it applies to the plaintiffs and no one else - until another judge does something else. Hypothetically, if the Brown v ATF judge issues an exact opposite mirror decision and that doesn't get appealed? *A circuit split could do the same thing. SCOTUS is far mor likely to hear the case if it's the government appealing. There are a couple more options. 3. Like the Thompson/Center case, DoJ/ATF ends up issuing an order recognizing and implementing the court decision, applying it equally across the board. (I think this is the most likely outcome) 4. One or more large-membership groups file an equal protection suit demanding that civil rights be available in a non-discriminatory fashion. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
Originally Posted By 1811GNR: If I'm flaunting my ignorance here, surely someone will let me know. How are the limitations of this ruling not a violation of the equal protection clause? As usual, thank leftists. Can't extend relief nationwide following the SCOTUS decision in Trump vs CASA after Hawaii judge or whichever asshole it was blocked his immigration EO nationwide and they took it to court. |
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: A lot of this thread can be summed up as: Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By NachoDip: Originally Posted By ERNURSE: Does this mean I can finally put a HK foregrip on my PTR9CT without going to jail.???? Always have. The last part only mattered by who saw it. Indeed, took the words right out of my mind, brother. Some of you guys act like you have a Federal Marshall living inside your fucking gun safe. Go forth, and live. Everybody wants to be a patriot until it's time to do patriot shit. IIRC, about 3% were patriots when the USA was born. |
I love a good double entendre.
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: Even before the NFA silencers were heavily regulated / banned at the local and state level as "silent killers" and "assassins' weapons". As early as 1915. And Maxim quit making them in 1930 due to the stigma. Here's a good article I've posted before. The New York Times, Feb 1 1915 - the Auerbach murders https://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Picture1-copy-Enhanced.jpg 😆 They even used the “DumDum” bullet boogie man trope |
We are living in a Tom Clancy novel
Over 50 and reputed to be a formidable brigand
Over 50 and reputed to be a formidable brigand
|
Originally Posted By mancow: I put one in my Nodak Spud limited fence lower with all original 1964 era XM16E1 upper and BCG. It deserved it. It was so satisfying letting it speak its natural language finally. Monica |
We are living in a Tom Clancy novel
Over 50 and reputed to be a formidable brigand
Over 50 and reputed to be a formidable brigand
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: As usual, thank leftists. Can't extend relief nationwide following the SCOTUS decision in Trump vs CASA after Hawaii judge or whichever asshole it was blocked his immigration EO nationwide and they took it to court. Except they can, if the gov't agrees the court is correct and enters into an agreement with the plaintiffs. How do you think we got FRTs? |
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I think you're reading more into their statement than is actually there. Do you really think the Trump DOJ is going to say "We're not going to enforce the law against transferring pistols to 18-20 year-olds" and then also let the ATF twirl their mustaches and yell "MUAHAHAHAA, GOTCHA! YOU LOSE YOUR FFL BECAUSE YOU TRANSFERRED A PISTOL TO AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!" when they do an audit? The Trump DOJ wouldn’t. What happens in 2028 if a Democrat wins? “Hey, we changed our minds. That provision was never enjoined or repealed, and we’re going after every FFL that transferred a handgun to someone under 21.” Until those provisions are enjoined by a judge or repealed, the DOJ memo means precisely… dick. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: There are a couple at least who are doing it. FL HTF has some useful info for you on that front. I made the trip to Shark Coast in Sarasota for both of my 4473 cans. Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By fuzzy03cls: For all the gunshine state talk...FFL's are being little pricks about this here. Saying they will not change unless the gov clarifies. Even with the GOA membership. There are a couple at least who are doing it. FL HTF has some useful info for you on that front. I made the trip to Shark Coast in Sarasota for both of my 4473 cans. @CZRider I was on their website and it states all silencers require a tax stamp. I was going to make the drive until I saw this. Are you saying they'll do a 4473 only? |