The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[Cubo de Sangre]

Thanks dudes. A shortage of guns in the military sounded ridiculous.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Hey guys, I had a question about NFA stamps.

I was thinking about getting an NFA stamp for a Benelli M1 Super 90 with the 14 inch barrel.

But my co-worker cautioned me against it, he claims that if you do manage to get an NFA stamp, the ATF can come knocking on your door anytime they want and examine your guns/home.

Anybody know if that's true?

 

[Greoric]

Thanks dudes. A shortage of guns in the military sounded ridiculous.

Marines are the ones that have it rough in my opinion. They get the shit end of the stick when it comes to equipment from what I saw, whereas with the SOs the money and resources are FLOODING in. Dropped that ceramic plate? Don't even bother xraying it. Just get a new one. Lost those gators in the surf? Just go to supply and tell that guy behind the desk you need a new $150 pair of sun glasses.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Hey guys, I had a question about NFA stamps.

I was thinking about getting an NFA stamp for a Benelli M1 Super 90 with the 14 inch barrel.

But my co-worker cautioned me against it, he claims that if you do manage to get an NFA stamp, the ATF can come knocking on your door anytime they want and examine your guns/home.

Anybody know if that's true?

Not true. Unless they changed the law recently. I wouldn't have bought NFA items otherwise. And if you apply for the stamp you'll get it if you meet the prerequisites. Maybe in the past the CLEO might not sign, but the need for that approval is going away (and was easy to get around with a Trust anyway).

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Not true. Unless they changed the law recently. I wouldn't have bought NFA items otherwise. And if you apply for the stamp you'll get it if you meet the prerequisites. Maybe in the past the CLEO might not sign, but the need for that approval is going away (and was easy to get around with a Trust anyway).

Cool, thanks.

 

[SMEAC]

Marines are the ones that have it rough in my opinion. They get the shit end of the stick when it comes to equipment from what I saw, whereas with the SOs the money and resources are FLOODING in. Dropped that ceramic plate? Don't even bother xraying it. Just get a new one. Lost those gators in the surf? Just go to supply and tell that guy behind the desk you need a new $150 pair of sun glasses.

While the Marines having old or no gucci kit is the cliche; in many cases do to a better tooth to tail ratio and less concern over pogues feelings the Corps gives the gunslingers nice shit.

 

[Greoric]

While the Marines having old or no gucci kit is the cliche; in many cases do to a better tooth to tail ratio and less concern over pogues feelings the Corps gives the gunslingers nice shit.

That's good to read. They deserve it.

 

[Moneymma]

They took our gunnnns

 

[Lord Coke]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...sor-legislation-advances-in-the-general-court
Passed out of committee unanimously. Two republicans and NINE democrats voted yea.

On Wednesday, March 9, the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security unanimously passed Senate Bill 1271. SB 1271 would legalize private ownership of firearm suppressors.

Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called "silencers" in federal law) are an additional tool available to help protect a shooter’s hearing, reduce range noise complaints by surrounding residents, as well as increase accuracy and safety. While suppressors/silencers do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of a firearm much in the same way a muffler reduces exhaust noise from a car or truck.

 

[Dolomite]

WHY WHY WHY do Democrats want to live in a world where cars and trucks have no mufflers???

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stun-gun-rights-backed-unanimous-134130410.html

The U.S. Supreme Court backed the rights of individuals to carry stun guns for self-defense, unanimously siding with a woman convicted of carrying an electrical weapon in a Massachusetts parking lot.

In a five-paragraph ruling that to some degree glossed over disagreements on the scope of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the justices said a Massachusetts court used faulty reasoning in upholding the state’s ban on possession of stun guns.

The justices said the state court’s reasoning was inconsistent with the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling that said the Constitution protects individual rights to possess guns.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stun-gun-rights-backed-unanimous-134130410.html

This is actually a big ruling. It smacks down the argument of "the 2nd Amendment only protects arms available at the time of its adoption". It shows the only restrictions to the 2nd Amendment are the ones we allow or tolerate.

However, correct me if I'm wrong (I think we're all looking at you alanb lol), since Scalia is dead and no one has filled his seat, this decision DOES NOT create legal precedent.

 

[My Spot]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...sor-legislation-advances-in-the-general-court
Passed out of committee unanimously. Two republicans and NINE democrats voted yea.

On Wednesday, March 9, the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security unanimously passed Senate Bill 1271. SB 1271 would legalize private ownership of firearm suppressors.

Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called "silencers" in federal law) are an additional tool available to help protect a shooter’s hearing, reduce range noise complaints by surrounding residents, as well as increase accuracy and safety. While suppressors/silencers do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of a firearm much in the same way a muffler reduces exhaust noise from a car or truck.

What's the chance the governor signs it though? He's probably an idiot who thinks suppressors literally silence guns instead of lowering their level just enough to where it won't cause long term hearing damage.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I honestly think if lawyers can spell it out in the simplest terms possible we could see suppressors legalized without nfa.

Reducing a sound from 140-170db to 115-140db is all about hearing safety and being friendly to surrounding areas/people. It sure as hell isn't silent.

 

[SMEAC]

What's the chance the governor signs it though? He's probably an idiot who thinks suppressors literally silence guns instead of lowering their level just enough to where it won't cause long term hearing damage.

As someone that just got declared very hearing impaired, fuck you DoD 55db isn't that bad at 4k...

Gel muffs and in ear, due to eye pro, are pretty much needed no matter to legitimately shoot a shitload. I could try and find a link, but that combo still only gets like 30db in good cases.

The key with suppression, is you can actually get low enough for no damage.

 

[Lord Coke]

This is actually a big ruling. It smacks down the argument of "the 2nd Amendment only protects arms available at the time of its adoption". It shows the only restrictions to the 2nd Amendment are the ones we allow or tolerate.

However, correct me if I'm wrong (I think we're all looking at you alanb lol), since Scalia is dead and no one has filled his seat, this decision DOES NOT create legal precedent.

It actually is precedent. This is a 8-0 opinion from the Court. The Supreme Court has issued several opinions since Scalia died. You are thinking of what happens if the Court is split 4-4. There the lower court decision stands but it is not considered Supreme Court precedent.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

It actually is precedent. This is a 8-0 opinion from the Court. The Supreme Court has issued several opinions since Scalia died. You are thinking of what happens if the Court is split 4-4. There the lower court decision stands but it is not considered Supreme Court precedent.

Thanks for the clarification!

I'm glad this sets precedent, it makes the job of the civilian disarmament lobby that much harder, and it cements individual liberty a bit more.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is exactly why there's legislation preventing frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...892e2a-ebbb-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

There case seems to be made far more on emotion than Remington doing anything wrong. This part is especially ignorant.

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.

First, the 2nd isn't about hunting, it's about assembling a fighting force. Second, handguns are far more responsible for crime so this is obviously a personal vendetta on the part of these families more than it is an attempt to drastically decrease firearms deaths. Third, that AR-15 is just a semi-auto like any other and not a select-fire like cops and soldiers enjoy. And lol at it being compared to a tank.

Then there's this.

We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.

So it was perfectly legal to make and sell these guns that have been around for over 50 years? Interesting.

 

[SMEAC]

"Speeds of 3000fps...to puncture body armor"

Gtfo
Now this specific ar is responsible for .223, nevermind that its 5.56 in the fallujah they bring up or that nearly any hunting round defeats body armor

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And the fact that there was an AWB that did nothing to impact crime rates so that pretty much kills the argument dead that the presence of AR's creates some unusual/unacceptable risk to the public. These people just can't accept that it was the shooter who was particularly dangerous and not the inanimate object he used in the crime.