chris_1001
NES Member
I only collect slung shotsBut how many Zoobows do you have?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I only collect slung shotsBut how many Zoobows do you have?
I only collect slung shots
I have legit police nunchucks I got at a police supply store in fl back in the early 90’s.i sell blow guns and shurikens out the trunk of my car.
I'd need to read his opinions more closely to know what I do or do not agree with.So you disagree with @CrackPot's explanation?
I'd need to read his opinions more closely to know what I do or do not agree with.
I do not see the logical argument that would lead to the conclusion that a lower, which was manufactured and serialized in accordance with the law, could be manufactured a second time. Everything not a firearm, that is attached to a firearm is inherently either a part or an accessory. putting on an additional part to what is already recognized as a firearm does not result in another newly manufactured firearm.
If assembling parts onto a completed lower was manufacturing, then when a licensed manufacturer did this they would have to record it, and mark it, with a second manufacturer's name, model, an serial. I know there are FFL holders doing this, yet I've never seen or heard of a double marked AR lower.
The simplest explanation is that the article or the agent was mistaken (Occam's razor)
I was talking with a finance company, the dude I was speaking with, on video, looks just like that guy, minus the muscle.Blow guns? Snowflame is interested.
View attachment 737535
I accept that this is a common view, but I don't see how it gets there. Other than opinions, is there any law or cases on this? Anything actually binding in court?Yet you need to have an FFL07 if you’re assembling stripped lowers into rifles and selling them. Doing so makes you a manufacturer. If I understand correctly, you can’t legally do that on a FFL01
How about this: rent storage space in NH. Move "Assault Weapons" there. Buy time to decide how to react above.
I accept that this is a common view, but I don't see how it gets there. Other than opinions, is there any law or cases on this? Anything actually binding in court?
Not necessarily.I do not see the logical argument that would lead to the conclusion that a lower, which was manufactured and serialized in accordance with the law, could be manufactured a second time. Everything not a firearm, that is attached to a firearm is inherently either a part or an accessory. putting on an additional part to what is already recognized as a firearm does not result in another newly manufactured firearm.
If assembling parts onto a completed lower was manufacturing, then when a licensed manufacturer did this they would have to record it, and mark it, with a second manufacturer's name, model, an serial. I know there are FFL holders doing this, yet I've never seen or heard of a double marked AR lower.
The simplest explanation is that the article or the agent was mistaken (Occam's razor)
Blow guns? Snowflame is interested.
View attachment 737535
technically correct but you are going off on a tangent that is not relevant to the point, nor representative of the scenario.Not necessarily.
The final manufacturer can apply for a variance that allows them to have a subcontractor manufacturer the lower with their name (the final manufacturer) as the only one on the final assembed gun. I know of cases where this is done, and also where the manufacturer used lowers with their own name engraved during prototyping and development.
You can also get a variance to move the serial number - for example, if a scope mount requires drilling through the original serial number and obliterating part of it.
True, but the discussion still contained a factually incorrect statement. Even though the inaccuracy was irrelevant in the context used, it could lead to misunderstanding of the nuances of the manufacturer labelling requirement.technically correct but you are going off on a tangent that is not relevant to the point, nor representative of the scenario.
Just coming here to update, SCOTUS granted cert to Rahimi this morning. When SCOTUS rules in our favor, I don’t want to hear anyone say anything about bad plaintiffs making bad case law again.I think a recent example of not needing the perfect plaintiff to win can actually be found in the case of US v. Rahimi out of CA5. The dude in that case appears to be a total scumbag but he still managed to win in the end on the merits, and if SCOTUS takes the appeal from the DOJ and affirms the inferior court’s ruling then he’ll be responsible for another major 2A victory on the level of Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen.
Let's not count our chickens before they hatch Bad plaintiffs can also make terrible precedent.Just coming here to update, SCOTUS granted cert to Rahimi this morning. When SCOTUS rules in our favor, I don’t want to hear anyone say anything about bad plaintiffs making bad case law again.