User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:22:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Who is John Galt?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:23:43 AM EDT
[#2]
Wow.....and Im sure they will whine and cry when no bank ever offers anyone inside their city limits a mortgage ever again.
Contracts must be honored. If we let governments start ignoring them on a whim, they stop being worth the paper they are printed on, and the level of uncertainty that introduces into a financial system is incredibly destructive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:25:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Wow.....and Im sure they will whine and cry when no bank ever offers anyone inside their city limits a mortgage ever again. Contracts must be honored. If we let governments start ignoring them on a whim, they stop being worth the paper they are printed on, and the level of uncertainty that introduces into a financial system is incredibly destructive. CA government doing something incredibly financially destructive? The hell you say .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:26:13 AM EDT
[#4]
A mortgage is a contract. How the hell do you seize a contract
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:28:10 AM EDT
[#5]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/
There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:37:48 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. Eminent domain allows a city to take private property and give it to a developer. Why wouldn't it let them do this? (Please note, I think this is retarded...but with all of the past court decisions I don't think there is anything legally to stop the city from doing this.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:38:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Who is John Galt? That about sums it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:40:52 AM EDT
[#8]
First post and all... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:44:33 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. Eminent domain allows a city to take private property and give it to a developer. Why wouldn't it let them do this? (Please note, I think this is retarded...but with all of the past court decisions I don't think there is anything legally to stop the city from doing this.) Yep. Unless the CA constitution provides otherwise, the Federal Constitution is meaningless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:45:45 AM EDT
[#10]
Can't argue they are in the wrong since the courts expanded eminent domain. Just taking property does benefit the public. Why deal with budgets and whiney taxpayers and all that jazz?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:46:22 AM EDT
[#11]
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/local_california_officials_consider_using_eminent_domain_to_restructure_und/
Okay the .gov has cut a deal with some finance vo where the.gov forces the owner to sell the propery for "fair market value" to the finance company, not the higher balance of the mortgage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:47:21 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Can't argue they are in the wrong since the courts expanded eminent domain. Just taking property does benefit the public. Why deal with budgets and whiney taxpayers and all that jazz? Actually it is kind of brilliant for a progressive. They will seize the mortgage, re-size it, and then sell it. I mean they are legally trafficking in stolen merchandise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:49:03 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/local_california_officials_consider_using_eminent_domain_to_restructure_und/ Okay the .gov has cut a deal with some finance vo where the.gov forces the owner to sell the propery for "fair market value" to the finance company, not the higher balance of the mortgage. Not an outright seizure, but it is still forcing them to accept less then they are contracted for then marking it up and reselling it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:50:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Epic fail. If anyone needs me, I'll be preparing torches and sharpening my pitchfork.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:52:27 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. Eminent domain allows a city to take private property and give it to a developer. Why wouldn't it let them do this? (Please note, I think this is retarded...but with all of the past court decisions I don't think there is anything legally to stop the city from doing this.) Yep. Unless the CA constitution provides otherwise, the Federal Constitution is meaningless. In the Kelo decision, I don't think they let the governing body out of paying just compensation.... If the city invokes eminent domain on the property...say the house is worth $100k, but the Mortgage is for $150k....what is just compensation in that case? The value of the property is $100k....but the bank valued it at $150k, and is receiving mortgage payments based on the $150k value. Give them $100k...and that's not what you would consider just compensation for the amount they loaned on it (i.e....if the government seizes your bank account with $150 in it...and wants to give you back $100 would you consider that 'just compensation'? Not to mention that in some cases the Bank holding the Mortgage has 'deep pockets' and can afford to fight it through the Courts. In other cases, the Bank may be willing to take the lesser figure just to get rid of the hassles..... AFARR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:53:48 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. Eminent domain allows a city to take private property and give it to a developer. Why wouldn't it let them do this? (Please note, I think this is retarded...but with all of the past court decisions I don't think there is anything legally to stop the city from doing this.) Yep. Unless the CA constitution provides otherwise, the Federal Constitution is meaningless. In the Kelo decision, I don't think they let the governing body out of paying just compensation.... If the city invokes eminent domain on the property...say the house is worth $100k, but the Mortgage is for $150k....what is just compensation in that case? The value of the property is $100k....but the bank valued it at $150k, and is receiving mortgage payments based on the $150k value. Give them $100k...and that's not what you would consider just compensation for the amount they loaned on it (i.e....if the government seizes your bank account with $150 in it...and wants to give you back $100 would you consider that 'just compensation'? AFARR That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:55:47 AM EDT
[#17]
Wow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:56:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:57:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR Perhaps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 6:59:20 AM EDT
[#20]
From the linked article:
"A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth." Can't read the whole article. Does it mention what cities? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:00:14 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR Perhaps. Not a lawyer, but in Kelo, the idea was 'we can better our community by seizing houses, selling the land to a developer who will put a mall in it's place and generate more tax revenue for the town'....not "I'm taking your house (or more correctly the Mortgage on the house) and giving it to someone else without making any changes to the house or occupants". AFARR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:02:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Eminent domain abuse continues.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:04:53 AM EDT
[#23]
The Solution to OUR Problems:
Current 'Estimates'  US Debt 16,000,000,000,000.00 Mortgages 160,000.00 Other Debt 16,000.00 All WE have to do is remove a 'Strategically' Placed Zero: After The Solution is fully implemented  US Debt 1,600,000,000,000.00 Mortgages 16,000.00 Other Debt 1,600.00 WE are all 'Millionaires' Now  I know, I know...My Genius is Sickening  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:05:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Just because they remove the lien rights to the propery, it doesn't remove the borrower's obligation on the note. The loan is just no longer secured and the borrower would stil have to pay the remaining unsecured portion
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:08:13 AM EDT
[#25]
In Kalifornia .........anything is possible.
GD |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:09:20 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Who is John Galt? ... a fictitious creator, philosopher, and inventor who symbolizes the power and glory of the human mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:10:44 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Who is John Galt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:10:46 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR Yes, I'm sure most home owners will be able/willing to go to court and fight for the just compensation for the house they were just kicked out of. It's not like they'll be spending any time or money on finding a new place to live, moving, etc. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:11:10 AM EDT
[#29]
I have serious issues with using eminent domain for anything. And by that I mean I have been involved in such actions. It is not something to be done lightly, nor is it something one should do just because it's easy. Taking property and then handing it over to a developer or investor is nothing but theft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:17:17 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Wow.....and Im sure they will whine and cry when no bank ever offers anyone inside their city limits a mortgage ever again. Contracts must be honored. If we let governments start ignoring them on a whim, they stop being worth the paper they are printed on, and the level of uncertainty that introduces into a financial system is incredibly destructive. The banks will be forced to keep giving mortgages if they want to operate in the state. Wouldn't put it past them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:19:07 AM EDT
[#31]
Ah good. Materialize the banks losses and cause them to beg .gov for another bailout.
Us taxpayers would be happy to oblige. Wait... who was this plan designed to help in the first place? The proposal is to take the burden off underwater homeowners and transfer it to the banks, who will likely recover from the government who receives it's operating capital from the people. So in order to ease financial troubles the plan is ultimately to raise taxes?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:24:32 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR Perhaps. Not a lawyer, but in Kelo, the idea was 'we can better our community by seizing houses, selling the land to a developer who will put a mall in it's place and generate more tax revenue for the town'....not "I'm taking your house (or more correctly the Mortgage on the house) and giving it to someone else without making any changes to the house or occupants". AFARR I've given up trying to figure out what courts are going to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:25:51 AM EDT
[#33]
CA huh?
OK. Start raising Spotted Owls then velcro them to your trees. Demand an environmental impact study. That should slow things down a few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:28:16 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. and even if it did, there's that "just compensation" thingamajib. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:30:50 AM EDT
[#35]
This is a terrible thing for the country.
To all the people under water on their mortgage I'm sorry. I really am. YOU not the bank made a bad decision to buy something. YOU knew the market conditions just as well as I did. YOU convinced someone to loan YOU money. It's YOUR fault. What's next? I lost money in the stock market so the government should pay me. My car depreciated so the government should pay me. Grow a pair. Say "this sucks". Move on. Had I been in your market I would have rented. I wasn't in your market and I turned down a job in your market BECAUSE of your market. Man up or walk away or whatever decision you want to make. Politicians buying votes by stealing from banks to give to voters is not right. You know many of these underwater mortgages are probably backed with federal money. Hell they can just screw Uncle Sam and spread the loss across all states tax payers instead of CA having to pay the money. After the recovery these same fuckers that got an adjustment will be bragging about how brilliant they were and how much they made when they sell their house. This shit pisses me off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:31:02 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR Yes, I'm sure most home owners will be able/willing to go to court and fight for the just compensation for the house they were just kicked out of. It's not like they'll be spending any time or money on finding a new place to live, moving, etc. I got from the article (admittedly, I just skimmed it)...that the Owners aren't being kicked out...their bank/mortgage holder is......basically taking the owner of an 'upside down' mortgage and giving him a mortgage at current market value....i.e...a bail out. AFARR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:32:34 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. and even if it did, there's that "just compensation" thingamajib. "just compensation" is not pay off a mortgage that is higher than property value. Once they pay the lender the property value the borrower would still be on the hook for the unsecured balance. What is gonna be done about that chunk of change? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:33:18 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip.... That's exactly what the article says. Investors decide that your house is worth $5, gets a judge to agree, forces you to take that, then marks it up to $6 and sells it. Then the mortgage holder should be able to get an appellate court to agree that $6 was the just compensation (fair market value), not the $5 the local judge said was the value. AFARR Yes, I'm sure most home owners will be able/willing to go to court and fight for the just compensation for the house they were just kicked out of. It's not like they'll be spending any time or money on finding a new place to live, moving, etc. I got from the article (admittedly, I just skimmed it)...that the Owners aren't being kicked out...their bank/mortgage holder is......basically taking the owner of an 'upside down' mortgage and giving him a mortgage at current market value....i.e...a bail out. AFARR Just wait until the IRS hits them up for the written down amount from the bank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:33:37 AM EDT
[#39]
From the WSJ article:
For a home with an existing $300,000 mortgage that now has a market value of $150,000, Mortgage Resolution Partners might argue the loan is worth only $120,000. If a judge agreed, the program's private financiers would fund the city's seizure of the loan, paying the current loan investors that reduced amount. Then, they could offer to help the homeowner refinance into a new $145,000 30-year mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has a program allowing borrowers to have as little as 2.25% in equity. That would leave $25,000 in profit, minus the origination costs, to be divided between the city, Mortgage Resolution Partners and its investors. ... The seizure of home-mortgage liens, but not the underlying homes, hasn't ever been conducted through eminent domain, as far as the group's principals can tell. And while they believe they have a strong legal case, they expect loan owners to sue. "California legal precedent and political posture favor the program and constitute an ideal proving ground," Mortgage Resolution Partners said in a presentation to investors reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. In other words, they think California is the best place to rip off businesses. They're probably right about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:33:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. Eminent domain allows a city to take private property and give it to a developer, for the purpose of increasing revenue to the city in the form of higher taxes. Why wouldn't it let them do this? (Please note, I think this is retarded...but with all of the past court decisions I don't think there is anything legally to stop the city from doing this.) Fixed. I see no difference. The way Kelo reads, as long as their is financial benefit for the city anything goes. Everyone involved in Kelo should have been hung for treason in the public square. Might as well have used the constitution for TP. Same result. I.C. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:34:14 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Just because they remove the lien rights to the propery, it doesn't remove the borrower's obligation on the note. The loan is just no longer secured and the borrower would stil have to pay the remaining unsecured portion That is a very good point. There is also the tax imprecation since under normal rules the reduction in principal would be a taxable event. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:36:55 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. and even if it did, there's that "just compensation" thingamajib. "just compensation" is not pay off a mortgage that is higher than property value. Once they pay the lender the property value the borrower would still be on the hook for the unsecured balance. What is gonna be done about that chunk of change? I'm not sure that's what they want to do... The plan is take the property from the lender. Once they have done that there is magically no mortgage contract due to unicorn fart. (I can't believe you forgot the unicorn fart portion.) They give the homeowner a new mortgage at the current market value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:39:52 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. and even if it did, there's that "just compensation" thingamajib. "just compensation" is not pay off a mortgage that is higher than property value. Once they pay the lender the property value the borrower would still be on the hook for the unsecured balance. What is gonna be done about that chunk of change? I'm not sure that's what they want to do... The plan is take the property from the lender. Once they have done that there is magically no mortgage contract due to unicorn fart. (I can't believe you forgot the unicorn fart portion.) They give the homeowner a new mortgage at the current market value. after a lender takes a property in foreclosure, and after the property is sold, the the borrow is still on the hook for the remaining balance. No different than being upside down in a car. But i guess in the land of unicorn farts basic contract law doesn't apply.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:41:04 AM EDT
[#44]
imagine that Ca stripping away something from a citizen....rights or freedom. Cali people seem to like the ride so far......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:44:43 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. and even if it did, there's that "just compensation" thingamajib. "just compensation" is not pay off a mortgage that is higher than property value. Once they pay the lender the property value the borrower would still be on the hook for the unsecured balance. What is gonna be done about that chunk of change? I'm not sure that's what they want to do... The plan is take the property from the lender. Once they have done that there is magically no mortgage contract due to unicorn fart. (I can't believe you forgot the unicorn fart portion.) They give the homeowner a new mortgage at the current market value. after a lender takes a property in foreclosure, and after the property is sold, the the borrow is still on the hook for the remaining balance. No different than being upside down in a car. But i guess in the land of unicorn farts basic contract law doesn't apply.
I'm sure the mortgage has language about what happens in the case of eminent domain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:45:53 AM EDT
[#46]
Why do we even pay our bills anymore?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:46:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Who is John Galt? A fictional character set in a novel where the author controlled the situations, conversations and outcomes. Not quite real life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:47:59 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/05/california-cities-consider-seizing-mortgages/ There is a little more of the article. I don't think eminent domain allows you to strip a mortgage off a property and take title with the intent to resell it. and even if it did, there's that "just compensation" thingamajib. "just compensation" is not pay off a mortgage that is higher than property value. Once they pay the lender the property value the borrower would still be on the hook for the unsecured balance. What is gonna be done about that chunk of change? I'm not sure that's what they want to do... The plan is take the property from the lender. Once they have done that there is magically no mortgage contract due to unicorn fart. (I can't believe you forgot the unicorn fart portion.) They give the homeowner a new mortgage at the current market value. after a lender takes a property in foreclosure, and after the property is sold, the the borrow is still on the hook for the remaining balance. No different than being upside down in a car. But i guess in the land of unicorn farts basic contract law doesn't apply.
The land of unicorn fart called California. Let me make this simple for everyone. This is politicians buying votes. People are pissed that they made a shitty deal on their purchase and politicians invent new shit to buy their votes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:49:19 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Really? Don't know what you've been reading/watching/observing, but it seems rather prophetic to me. In addition it was based on what she observed during the Bolshevik Revolution so I think Rand has a good perspective on how shit like this plays out. Quoted: Who is John Galt? A fictional character set in a novel where the author controlled the situations, conversations and outcomes. Not quite real life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 7:56:16 AM EDT
[#50]
I hope California Cities loves being mortgage brokers. Because if this comes to pass, there are a ton of banks that won't touch California real estate.
I lived in the Bay Area during the boom. Every asshat and his brother was buying houses to sell. My Co-worker sold his paid off house worth $350,000 to buy a $650,000. His plan was to live in it and sell it for $800,000. He called it "his retirement plan." I told him it was a bad idea and he LAUGHED at me. Well, he gambled and fucking lost EVERYTHING. He got pissed last year when I called him out of the blue to LAUGH at him. Why should the city try to save his stupid ass? |
|
|
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.
