User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2018 11:41:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Thanks for posting. Stuff like that is why I do not make any modifications to my braces whatsoever and have been hesitant use braces with ATF approval letters.
Reading between the lines, I'm guessing the defendant had a Maxim Defense PDW that he had done something to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2018 11:45:05 PM EDT
[#2]
your welcome, i was kind of surprised and thought the hive should know about this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 1:15:52 AM EDT
[#3]
The stark industries foregrip and maxim brace mentioned in the court documents both do not have ATF letters that i can find on the internet. Anyone using them, or other items without ATF letters on AR pistols, are rolling the dice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 2:25:12 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stark industries foregrip and maxim brace mentioned in the court documents both do not have ATF letters that i can find on the internet. Anyone using them, or other items without ATF letters on AR pistols, are rolling the dice. This case would seem to illustrate the ATF disagrees, and that their prior inaction doesn't equal endorsement. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the government is contending that the unmodified Maxim Defense CQB brace is, in itself, a stock. That doesn't bode well for the legality of many other similar products on the market, nor for those who invested a sizable chunk of money purchasing a Maxim brace. While the jury disagreed in this particular case, that certainly doesn't prevent the ATF from trying again (and succeeding). As well, you can be assured the defendant spent a good deal of money getting to that point. Couple the ATF's position in this case with its long history of actively attempting to block exonerating evidence from being presented at trial, and it leaves many brace users in a very uncertain legal position. Not good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 3:05:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Uh oh
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 3:31:19 AM EDT
[#6]
According to that article, those ATF approval letters may not mean jack either should you get charged. The ATF tried to have their own approval letters suppressed during this trial, although it appears they weren’t successful in this case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 7:19:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh oh Thank you for posting this, @13maddog |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 7:22:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to that article, those ATF approval letters may not mean jack either should you get charged. The ATF tried to have their own approval letters suppressed during this trial, although it appears they weren't successful in this case. Perhaps one day the political climate will be such that we can follow ATF recommendations to remove SBRs from NFA, but I'm not holding my breath. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 7:29:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. I've said in this forum previously that AR pistols are problematic in that the ATF can argue they are at least, a workaround to creating an SBR or worse, an attempt to create an unregistered SBR. This ignores the fact that there are easier ways to create an unregistered SBR, of course. It doesn't help that many AR pistol owners are not thoroughly familiar with the NFA, judging by the posts in this sub-forum. When one registers an SBR, that at least is an affirmative defense that one seeks to comply with the law. Perhaps one day the political climate will be such that we can follow ATF recommendations to remove SBRs from NFA, but I'm not holding my breath. This is such BS. Trying to suppress a letter from your own agency because it helps exonerate the peon you’re trying to wrongfully imprison? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 7:33:13 AM EDT
[#10]
Thank god he was found not guilty. Thought if you win or found not guilty, the other side pays the fees, or something to that effect. By trying to stop those letters from ATF approving the brace goes to show you how sneaky they are. Would bet the brace industries are contemplating law suits. They have the money, together, to go after ATF. I have a pistol over 26 inches, with a sba3, that AFAIK is considered a AOW, since I put a VFG on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 7:35:24 AM EDT
[#11]
I predicted a few years back that this was coming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:13:31 AM EDT
[#12]
I have the maxim brace. I still think it's the best available. I've been considering SBR'ing my lower since e-forms are back but really haven't seen the need. A few more instances of this and I may just do it.
I think the grip mentioned in the article is the same one in the letter that been touted by the "it's not 90* so it's good" crowd. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:29:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stark industries foregrip and maxim brace mentioned in the court documents both do not have ATF letters that i can find on the internet. Anyone using them, or other items without ATF letters on AR pistols, are rolling the dice. I think the Prosecutor was going rogue and was instrumental in blocking the existing ATF letters (jmo). Recognize the fact that the government can bring you to trial for any reason at all. Letter or no letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:39:57 AM EDT
[#14]
The Certification of Exhibits lists as evidence: "Trial-023 Photo of Maxim Defense Brand Extension w Rubber pad"
Did the defendant put a butt pad on a pistol brace? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:42:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No kidding... Thank you for posting this, @13maddog it has me worried i have four pistols. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:51:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryThe Court should preclude Wright from introducing ATF FATD classification letters at trial. None of the letters was addressed to Wright. None of the letters relate to the specific firearm at issue in this case. The letters are not precedential. Rather, each letter relates to specific firearm design specifications and prototypes that have nothing to do with this case. Because of this, the letters are not relevant to this case. Introducing the ATF FATD letters at trial creates a grave risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. On the other hand, that is complete BS. If the govt tells citizen #1 that doing something is legal, it is completely unreasonable for them to say that it is illegal for citizen #2 without justifiable extenuating circumstance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:52:34 AM EDT
[#17]
I'm not sure why the ATF picked this guy out? Was he in trouble for something else and this was an addition to other charges? Either way, it's still crap.
This is why I say the ATF has far to much power. I wouldn't even consider it to much power, it's power combined with no guidelines that make it barbaric. If the United states citizens are expected to follow certain rules, the rules need to be clear and easily accessible. The ATF has continued to operate and create ''rules'' without any expectation to provide their new ''rules'' to the public. If the ATF has made ''rules'' that are unclear or that contradict their previous stance it should be public knowledge. Until the ATF is forced to publicly list a clear and extensive list of all their views and opinions of the law, we are left in a continuous fog of legality. I have every intention of following the law and be an upstanding citizen but the ATF does their best to make legality into a mysterious concept. Cheek rest= shoulder fired  ?
86 degree foregrip= AFG or vertical? Permanent brace installation= shoulder fired? 13.6'' or greater LOP= shoulder fired only? OAL folded or unfolded???? Things like this and many others should never have a question mark after them. The difference in a citizen being a normal guy next door or a dangerous threat to society that is only safe behind bars should not be decided by the guesswork of his firearm configuration!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:53:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Certification of Exhibits lists as evidence: "Trial-023 Photo of Maxim Defense Brand Extension w Rubber pad" Did the defendant put a butt pad on a pistol brace? Wright’s expert, Richard Vasquez, is expected to testify that the extension piece functions as a cheek rest.  Attached FileDON'T MODIFY YOUR SHIT! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 8:59:27 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I couldn't find any pictures. Perhaps the Maxim Extension in question truly is the little known Extension, not the more commonly seen brace. If the guy did indeed put a rubber pad on the end of this thing, a charge due to altering for shoulder use isn't too far of a reach. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 9:10:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since the individual was found not guilty, it would appear the SI foregrip and Maxxim brace is now good to go. I think the Prosecutor was going rogue and was instrumental in blocking the existing ATF letters (jmo). Recognize the fact that the government can bring you to trial for any reason at all. Letter or no letter. This is now case law right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 9:16:15 AM EDT
[#21]
After the first reversal, I went ahead and SBR'ed my pistol. Not that I'm terribly afraid of prosecution by the ATF, it's range NAZIs and uniformed or gun hating LEOs that might cause me to need to enrich more lawyers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 11:07:26 AM EDT
[#22]
It was the Maxim extension, and it looks like the cane tip not only modified it, but also pushed it over the 13.5" LOP into magical stock territory.
https://www.scribd.com/document/391881746/Vasquez-Expert-Report  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 11:30:53 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point. A district court has now ruled that a pistol with a brace and AFG are legal. This is now case law right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Since the individual was found not guilty, it would appear the SI foregrip and Maxxim brace is now good to go. I think the Prosecutor was going rogue and was instrumental in blocking the existing ATF letters (jmo). Recognize the fact that the government can bring you to trial for any reason at all. Letter or no letter. This is now case law right? To me, this whole episode says think long and hard about making any modifications to braces, using any kind of foregrip, extending length of pull beyond 13" with a brace, and even using braces without approval letters specific to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 11:40:37 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank god he was found not guilty. Thought if you win or found not guilty, the other side pays the fees, or something to that effect. By trying to stop those letters from ATF approving the brace goes to show you how sneaky they are. Would bet the brace industries are contemplating law suits. They have the money, together, to go after ATF. I have a pistol over 26 inches, with a sba3, that AFAIK is considered a AOW, since I put a VFG on it.  If you win a civil lawsuit, the other side pays your legal fees IF you can collect from them. If the gov't wants to get you, IF you win @ trial, they just charge you w/ some other violation and bleed you dry until you can no longer afford to pay for your defense. Then you get a court-ordered attorney who tells you to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 12:20:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was the Maxim extension, and it looks like the cane tip not only modified it, but also pushed it over the 13.5" LOP into magical stock territory. https://www.scribd.com/document/391881746/Vasquez-Expert-Report https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66797/maximpdw_PNG-721064_png-721090.JPG The govt actually said that the cane tip "...provides a pad for shouldering, and in a manner which creates a length of pull that has no other purpose that to facilitate its use as a stock." The defense witness argued that "The assumption that the addition of a cane tip is for the intent of shooting from a shoulder makes no sense. Having a loose object that rotates like a marble between the stock and shoulder would be a detriment to shooting like a rifle." The defense witness also makes an excellent point in that "The quantity of ATF letters, which are not statutes or regulations, that have established different standards for arm brace/cheek rest devices, do not clarify for the public what is the complete standard. It should be incumbent on the ATF to prepare a regulation in the CFR to set a standard for their approval process of arm brace/cheek rests. ... Due to the confusing and inconsistent opinions written by the ATF a citizen does not have the knowledge of the ATF to purchase an item that would place them in violation of a "made up" violation." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 1:00:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"It should be incumbent on the ATF to prepare a regulation in the CFR to set a standard for their approval process of arm brace/cheek rests." There's a good 5-page thread in GD on this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 1:38:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to that article, those ATF approval letters may not mean jack either should you get charged. The ATF tried to have their own approval letters suppressed during this trial, although it appears they weren’t successful in this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 2:36:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was the Maxim extension, and it looks like the cane tip not only modified it, but also pushed it over the 13.5" LOP into magical stock territory. https://www.scribd.com/document/391881746/Vasquez-Expert-Report https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66797/maximpdw_PNG-721064_png-721090.JPG On the other hand, this guy was using exactly the same logic that SBT has used to justify the legality of the SBA3 (i.e. "previously approved technology"). I think this proves the contention that the SBA3 uses "previously approved 'technology'" - and is thus legal - to be total nonsense. This guy was using a cane tip (that has been determined to be legal by itself) along with a cheek rest (that has been determined to be legal by itself). Still, he found himself being prosecuted. Clearly, the ATF doesn't hold that "previously approved" pieces make a currently approved whole. This also might serve as a warning to those who use a cheek rest in combination with a Blade or similarly modified braces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 5:35:00 PM EDT
[#29]
I went through the pile of steaming garbage that is navigating the inner workings of ATF FTB for a year+ to get my approval letter for my brace. Yes it is a pain in the ass (especially as a lone individual) but i cannot imagine taking a product to market without getting a letter for it. You owe it to your customers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2018 7:41:31 PM EDT
[#30]
The ATF approved the newer Maxim arm brace that is equipped with a big ass fin that is easily shouldered but complains about a puny cane tip? This is one of the stupidest cases I have heard of. The defendant should have said, ''look at the big as fin on this Maxim brace you guys are fine with vs. my puny cane tip, I'f I wanted to shoulder fire my pistol I would use the big ass fin version you guys care less about !!!!!!''
The ATF must be full of agents with no clue about firearms or the various ATF opinions floating around. I'm mad that my tax dollars are wasted on such nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 3:35:44 AM EDT
[#31]
This whole story is kinda sketchy. Why did he come onto ATFs radar? The court records are sealed.
 The person who wrote this couldn't reach the defendant for interview?
I've heard similar stories where it turns out the guy was first arrested for alledgedly pulling said gun in a road rage incident or another case where it was a home invasion. Before I go around screaming "the sky is falling!" I think I'll wait to hear all the details, but so far the details are (1) the guy did make questionable modifications to the device and (2) even with the full weight of the federal government a jury found him innocent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 10:13:28 AM EDT
[#32]
These type cases alway are a result of an act that brings attention toward the individual.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 12:47:07 PM EDT
[#33]
And the upshot is that Tech Branch will be deluged in individual letter requests:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Brace-install-illegal-without-personal-letter-from-ATF/122-732783/ It's like the ATF Field offices hate their own Tech Branch... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 1:39:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure why the ATF picked this guy out? Was he in trouble for something else and this was an addition to other charges? Either way, it's still crap. I love how arfcom's takeaway is "oh noes they gonna confiscate muh bracez!" instead of just "don't beat your wife." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 3:14:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Maxim Brace 2017 ATF Letter
How many thousands of pistol brace equipped ARs are now out there? There's no changing their mind after the fact, that just won't work without legislation. Nor can they claim that each brace requires specific permission -that ship has sailed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 3:37:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to the thread in GD, and someone who said he's LE in Ohio and got contacted for his opinion on the firearm while the case was originally being investigated, it was tacked on to a Domestic Violence charge that was later pled down to Disorderly Conduct. I love how arfcom's takeaway is "oh noes they gonna confiscate muh bracez!" instead of just "don't beat your wife."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 3:49:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the thread in GD, and someone who said he's LE in Ohio and got contacted for his opinion on the firearm while the case was originally being investigated, it was tacked on to a Domestic Violence charge that was later pled down to Disorderly Conduct. I love how arfcom's takeaway is "oh noes they gonna confiscate muh bracez!" instead of just "don't beat your wife." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure why the ATF picked this guy out? Was he in trouble for something else and this was an addition to other charges? Either way, it's still crap. I love how arfcom's takeaway is "oh noes they gonna confiscate muh bracez!" instead of just "don't beat your wife." If you didn’t do anything wrong ....... What if it were a add on for a speeding ticket? Or for a busybody at the range? The laws are absurd. Almost as absurd as how much power we’ve given ATF They tried to suppress guidance their own tech branch had given. That’s too far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 6:59:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you have nothing to hide ........ If you didn’t do anything wrong ....... What if it were a add on for a speeding ticket? Or for a busybody at the range? Every story I've seen posted about someone being charged with an illegal SBR/SBS/AOW included them first being arrested for domestic violence, stalking, robbery, assault, drugs, etc. Or for being a complete dumdum and very publicly selling numerous illegal weapons and then selling additional illegal weapons to undercover agents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 10:35:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bottom line...ATF agents are most certainly not staking out gun ranges or searching through random social media profiles or going door-to-door looking for miniscule gray area violations like whether or not your AFG is A[ngled] enough...even though that's every Arfcom tin foiler's favorite wet dream. Every story I've seen posted about someone being charged with an illegal SBR/SBS/AOW included them first being arrested for domestic violence, stalking, robbery, assault, drugs, etc. Or for being a complete dumdum and very publicly selling numerous illegal weapons and then selling additional illegal weapons to undercover agents. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you have nothing to hide ........ If you didn’t do anything wrong ....... What if it were a add on for a speeding ticket? Or for a busybody at the range? Every story I've seen posted about someone being charged with an illegal SBR/SBS/AOW included them first being arrested for domestic violence, stalking, robbery, assault, drugs, etc. Or for being a complete dumdum and very publicly selling numerous illegal weapons and then selling additional illegal weapons to undercover agents. I think what most people worry about is an ignorant game warden or traffic stop by officer not-friendly. Nobody thinks the ATF is creeping around the range. Regardless, there's no legal basis to say "if you're not committing other crimes, the ATF won't prosecute you." True, it has been the ATF's past pattern, but "Hey, I wasn't doing anything else illegal," isn't a defense to NFA violations. Look at the defendant's expert report from the trial to see the "rifle" in question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 10:56:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's the bottom line: A man was just tried on felony charges for possession of what every single member of this forum would identify as a legal pistol. That's a fact, and there's no getting around it. I think what most people worry about is an ignorant game warden or traffic stop by officer not-friendly. Nobody thinks the ATF is creeping around the range. Regardless, there's no legal basis to say "if you're not committing other crimes, the ATF won't prosecute you." True, it has been the ATF's past pattern, but "Hey, I wasn't doing anything else illegal," isn't a defense to NFA violations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 11:04:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honest question here because I have no experience but is it common for a game warden to know or care about barrel length laws? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Here's the bottom line: A man was just tried on felony charges for possession of what every single member of this forum would identify as a legal pistol. That's a fact, and there's no getting around it. I think what most people worry about is an ignorant game warden or traffic stop by officer not-friendly. Nobody thinks the ATF is creeping around the range. Regardless, there's no legal basis to say "if you're not committing other crimes, the ATF won't prosecute you." True, it has been the ATF's past pattern, but "Hey, I wasn't doing anything else illegal," isn't a defense to NFA violations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 11:13:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's the bottom line: A man was just tried on felony charges for possession of what every single member of this forum would identify as a legal pistol. That's a fact, and there's no getting around it. Look at the defendant's expert report from the trial to see the "rifle" in question. You can play the "what if" game if you want to, but I've got better shit to do with my time. "What if" you smile at a woman and then get falsely arrested for rape? "What if" you walk by someone's house and then get falsely arrested for burglary? "What if" you put an arm brace on a pistol and then get falsely arrested for having an illegal SBR? All of those could happen, but they also 99.9% probably won't happen. You complain about the ATF's power, but it's mostly just perceived power given to them by worry warts like you. Hell of a way to live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 12:03:24 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yes, I've read that report. I've also read the information that shows he was a dummy who committed Domestic Violence...which if convicted, would prevent him from being able to own any weapons anyway. And he was found not guilty on the weapons charge, yet people here are still wringing their hands and looking over their shoulders because they have a braced pistol? lol You ca play the "what if" game if you want to, but I've got better shit to do with my time. "What if" you smile at a woman and then get falsely arrested for rape? "What if" you walk by someone's house and then get falsely arrested for burglary? "What if" you put an arm brace on a pistol and then get falsely arrested for having an illegal SBR? All of those could happen, but they also 99.9% probably won't happen. You complain about the ATF's power, but it's mostly just perceived power given to them by worry warts like you. Hell of a way to live. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Here's the bottom line: A man was just tried on felony charges for possession of what every single member of this forum would identify as a legal pistol. That's a fact, and there's no getting around it. Look at the defendant's expert report from the trial to see the "rifle" in question. You ca play the "what if" game if you want to, but I've got better shit to do with my time. "What if" you smile at a woman and then get falsely arrested for rape? "What if" you walk by someone's house and then get falsely arrested for burglary? "What if" you put an arm brace on a pistol and then get falsely arrested for having an illegal SBR? All of those could happen, but they also 99.9% probably won't happen. You complain about the ATF's power, but it's mostly just perceived power given to them by worry warts like you. Hell of a way to live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 1:08:00 AM EDT
[#44]
Is the term "whole cloth" the same as the term "thin air"?
aka: "He made that law up out of thin air!!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 10:49:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the term "whole cloth" the same as the term "thin air"? aka: "He made that law up out of thin air!!" Often done for add on charges when arrested for another, the primary, offense. Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:25:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Well, here is a little more clarification, at least for me. Certainly is an interesting pistol setup
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 10:03:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yes, I've read that report. I've also read the information that shows he was a dummy who committed Domestic Violence...which if convicted, would prevent him from being able to own any weapons anyway. And he was found not guilty on the weapons charge, yet people here are still wringing their hands and looking over their shoulders because they have a braced pistol? lol You can play the "what if" game if you want to, but I've got better shit to do with my time. "What if" you smile at a woman and then get falsely arrested for rape? "What if" you walk by someone's house and then get falsely arrested for burglary? "What if" you put an arm brace on a pistol and then get falsely arrested for having an illegal SBR? All of those could happen, but they also 99.9% probably won't happen. You complain about the ATF's power, but it's mostly just perceived power given to them by worry warts like you. Hell of a way to live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 10:29:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, here is a little more clarification, at least for me. Certainly is an interesting pistol setup I don't see how Dan Zimmerman spins that as a positive for AR pistol owners. If anything, it says DOJ is very aggressive about construing pistols as SBRs because that's exactly what they did. Whether this case puts DOJ off that position remains to be seen. The only positive is that the jury basically called bullshit on .gov. Also, Zimmerman is wrong about length of pull being the central issue. The central issue was whether the gun was modified to be fired from the shoulder. The defense's expert report is clear about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 10:50:55 PM EDT
[#49]
"The only positive is that the jury basically called bullshit on .gov."
I think that this is the take away point, nullifies subjective and objective basis for prosecution not guilty |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 10:56:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Also, ATF may have been actively looking for a LOP test case and Intent to shoulder test case- bingo
oh well, no bingo |
|
|
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.
