Skip to comments.
Petition to Reform the National Firearms Act
Gun Watch ^
| 13 July, 2014
| Dean Weingarten
Posted on 07/14/2014 9:20:30 AM PDT by marktwain
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: Disambiguator
So you don't consider jumping through hoops legally a hassle? How much are you paying for your trust? Just remember, you're buying a MUFFLER.
I paid in total about $1,500 for mine. Trust, $200 tax stamp and SilencerCo Osprey combined price.
21
posted on
07/14/2014 11:13:31 AM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
(Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
To: marktwain
Like the bill to end the BATF and fold it into the FBI, I am looking for the angle here.
I am all for it, but look at what the word “reform” means in “Immigration Reform”. “Reform” could mean the end of all private firearms.
22
posted on
07/14/2014 11:15:51 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: 353FMG
23
posted on
07/14/2014 11:23:23 AM PDT
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: marktwain
Any petition that doesn’t call for the complete repeal of 922 in its entirety seems a little...
Underwhelming.
24
posted on
07/14/2014 11:23:33 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
To: RandallFlagg
$1500 for something that costs about $30 to produce.
I’m in the wrong business.
25
posted on
07/14/2014 11:24:32 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
To: Dead Corpse
It is all symbolic. We have to keep the pressure up.
26
posted on
07/14/2014 11:24:52 AM PDT
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: Dead Corpse
I hear ya, FRiend.
I was sitting here at my computer desk putting together the lower parts for my AR build saying, “People actually get PAID to do this?!”
27
posted on
07/14/2014 11:26:26 AM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
(Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
To: marktwain
"We have to keep the pressure up."
I'd still prefer a JDAM. This seems like far too little...
28
posted on
07/14/2014 11:28:14 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
To: 353FMG
Mistook your device for another that Sig Sauer is contending with the ATF on. Thanks for the tip.
29
posted on
07/14/2014 11:29:24 AM PDT
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: marktwain
If by reform
you mean repeal
I'm all for it…
30
posted on
07/14/2014 12:02:39 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: marktwain
Thanks for your report, but did you ever write one on SIG’s “Adaptive Carbine Platform”?
Would very much like to read your opinion on it.
31
posted on
07/14/2014 12:20:58 PM PDT
by
353FMG
To: Dead Corpse
Why does a brand-new “AR-15” cost about $1000, but a clapped-out 40 year old “M-16” cost $15,000?
Federal law. Specifically NFA & FOPA.
That is all.
Bushmaster, Colt, DPMS, Remington, SIG-Sauer et al. are cranking out “AR-15s” at a record pace. Semi-auto only. There is absolutely no engineering or manufacturing reason why they could not crank out select-fire rifles of otherwise the exact same design, at the same price.
The entire market is warped by ridiculous and unconstitutional “laws”.
To: NorthMountain
Yep.
I’ve built my last couple of AR’s. My next one will be a 7.62x51.
33
posted on
07/14/2014 12:51:59 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
To: DCBryan1
Indeed. Forget arguing the Left’s points, go way past them and make new MGs legal.
34
posted on
07/14/2014 2:51:44 PM PDT
by
ctdonath2
("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Obama, setting RoE with his opposition)
To: Pollster1
The ONLY gun laws we should have are felony laws against the use of a firearm in a violent crime. Certain regulations requiring that e.g. ammunition bearing certain headstamps and no markings that would contradict them must have certain characteristics would IMHO be a perfectly reasonable and appropriate use of the interstate commerce powers, provided that
- The plausible intention of such regulations was to allow people to arm themselves more effectively than would be possible otherwise, and
- The government could convince a jury that somebody who violated the regulations that allowing the defendant's actions would materially impede a bona fide effort to achieve legitimate aims (a defendant would likewise be entitled to convince the jury that the real purpose of the regulation was to discourage effective armament, or that his actions were in no way impeded any legitimate government interest).
One major problem with the idea that judges should be solely responsible for "judging the law" is that judges are generally required to act under a presumption that laws are passed by people acting in good faith, and defendants are generally afforded little opportunity to challenge such a presumption. While having defendants' fates hinge on the luck of what jurors they get would be far from ideal, a recognition bad faith is a basis for illegitimacy would help undo the kinds of incremental encroachments politicians have been pushing for decades.
35
posted on
07/14/2014 3:54:49 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Renounce Covetousness.)
To: supercat
Certain regulations requiring that e.g. ammunition bearing certain headstamps and no markings that would contradict them must have certain characteristics would IMHO be a perfectly reasonable and appropriate use of the interstate commerce powers, provided that I approve of those markings, of course, but exactly because of the bad faith of the far left I'd rather give up the few good gun laws/regulations if that would allow us to get rid of many the bad ones. Gun laws are in most cases presented as equivalent to prior restraint. That is not acceptable in the case of speech, and there is no reason we should tolerate prior restraint in the case of RKBA.
36
posted on
07/14/2014 4:41:41 PM PDT
by
Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
To: Disambiguator; All
37
posted on
07/14/2014 6:08:05 PM PDT
by
marktwain
(The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: Pollster1
The ONLY gun laws we should have are felony laws against the use of a firearm in a violent crime.And even those laws, if any, should be state rather than federal. I'm actually not convinced those enhancement type laws are necessary anyway. If you have a law against murder, why does it need to be MORE illegal to kill someone with a firearm? If assault's illegal, why does it need to be MORE illegal with a gun than with a shovel?
38
posted on
07/14/2014 8:38:46 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Amendment10
Years ago, when I was a younger Freeper, there was a thread about the evolution of the Trading With The Enemy Act. It was changed greatly under FDR. That, coupled with FDR declaring a National Emergency, allowed FDR and all future Presidents to ignore law.
In a nutshell,
It allowed for the ‘licensing’ of occupations or activities.
It declared all Presidential actions to be ‘pre approved’ by Congress.
It removed wording that specifically excluded Citizens from the class of ‘enemy’.
Oh how I wish I could find that thread again.
39
posted on
07/15/2014 3:53:28 AM PDT
by
RoadGumby
(This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson