Polymer 80

No more jigs from them directly.

View attachment 824124
This happened about 6(??) months ago when ATF came out with their “rule”. They were no longer allowed to sell jigs and frames together. So many companies split them up and established separate businesses: one for selling frames and one for selling jigs.
Since then, the rule was challenged in court and a judge issues a nationwide block on the rule. Vendors that were part of the lawsuit have already started selling frames and jigs together again. Looks like theseg guys did not join the lawsuit or the website is out of date.
 
This happened about 6(??) months ago when ATF came out with their “rule”. They were no longer allowed to sell jigs and frames together. So many companies split them up and established separate businesses: one for selling frames and one for selling jigs.
Since then, the rule was challenged in court and a judge issues a nationwide block on the rule. Vendors that were part of the lawsuit have already started selling frames and jigs together again. Looks like theseg guys did not join the lawsuit or the website is out of date.

You’re speculating and making assumptions that are wrong.

80% Arms WERE one of the vendors that were part of the lawsuit. And for a long while they were one of the only places able to sell frames and jigs together. What happened is the Supreme Court issued a stay after the 5th circuit’s decision and has kept the rule in place while litigation continues.
 
Last edited:
This happened about 6(??) months ago when ATF came out with their “rule”. They were no longer allowed to sell jigs and frames together. So many companies split them up and established separate businesses: one for selling frames and one for selling jigs.
Since then, the rule was challenged in court and a judge issues a nationwide block on the rule. Vendors that were part of the lawsuit have already started selling frames and jigs together again. Looks like theseg guys did not join the lawsuit or the website is out of date.
That’s an email boss. Not the website.
 
That’s an email boss. Not the website.

And if he did check the website for 30 seconds before posting, he’d have been able to check his assumptions before posting:

 
Well, none of you clowns respond with info unless you get to dunk on Sammy. So.. you’re welcome for my service to the community!
 
Well, none of you clowns respond with info unless you get to dunk on Sammy. So.. you’re welcome for my service to the community!
you're kidding, right?

They literally posted the email that the vendor in question just sent to their customers. Then you came in, throwing incorrect assumptions around, and they provided the correct answers you could've as quickly searched for yourself.

Tell us again, what service did you provide?
 
you're kidding, right?

They literally posted the email that the vendor in question just sent to their customers. Then you came in, throwing incorrect assumptions around, and they provided the correct answers you could've as quickly searched for yourself.

Tell us again, what service did you provide?
How about ACTUAL information. You just parrot what other have incorrectly stated. Me? I slap those who are too lazy to google shit:


WAIT!!!! Someone said you can’t order frame and jig together and you just tried to pile on without basic research.
 
How about ACTUAL information. You just parrot what other have incorrectly stated. Me? I slap those who are too lazy to google shit:


WAIT!!!! Someone said you can’t order frame and jig together and you just tried to pile on without basic research.
Aug 08 2023Application (23A82) for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The June 30, 2023 order and July 5, 2023 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, insofar as they vacate the final rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (April 26, 2022), are stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application for stay.

You realize that 80% Arms is actually one of the members in the VanDerStok case, 80-lower is not. That someone is continuing to sell in contravention of the current state of the case doesn't change the information provided by an actual party to the case.
Attorneys for Respondents
Charles Randall Flores
Counsel of Record
Flores Law PLLC
917 Franklin Street
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77002

[email protected]
713-893-9444
Party name: Defense Distributed
Charles Randall FloresFlores Law PLLC
917 Franklin Street
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77002

[email protected]
713-893-9444
Party name: Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.
Michael James Sullivan
Counsel of Record
Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC
200 State Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02109

[email protected]
6175739400
Party name: BlackHawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms
David H. Thompson
Counsel of Record
Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

[email protected]
202-220-9600
Party name: Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael G. Andren, Tactical Machining, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.
Charles Randall Flores
Counsel of Record
Flores Law PLLC
917 Franklin Street
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77002

[email protected]
713-893-9444
Party name: Defense Distributed; Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; Not An LLC, LLC, doing business as JSD Supply
 
How about ACTUAL information. You just parrot what other have incorrectly stated. Me? I slap those who are too lazy to google shit:


WAIT!!!! Someone said you can’t order frame and jig together and you just tried to pile on without basic research.

You realize that link says out of stock, right? As in, they marked it as out of stock because they can’t sell it. These companies leave the products up so they can turn sales back on easily if litigation comes back in our favor.

Again, you’re posting incorrect crap.
 


You realize that 80% Arms is actually one of the members in the VanDerStok case, 80-lower is not. That someone is continuing to sell in contravention of the current state of the case doesn't change the information provided by an actual party to the case.

But they’re not even selling anything. He’s again spouting garbage.
 
You realize that link says out of stock, right? As in, they marked it as out of stock because they can’t sell it. These companies leave the products up so they can turn sales back on easily if litigation comes back in our favor.

Again, you’re posting incorrect crap.
Eh, are you really that lazy? Click on the FDE color, you dummy!
 


You realize that 80% Arms is actually one of the members in the VanDerStok case, 80-lower is not. That someone is continuing to sell in contravention of the current state of the case doesn't change the information provided by an actual party to the case.
You really ought to google more! You are pointing to the old order which indeed stayed the blocking of the rule. What you didn't do is actually READ the order. It basically stayed the order and remanded to 5th District Court of appeals for a proper decision! Which 5th district court HAD ISSUED on November 9th!

why don't read to the end, for once:

 
Again, you're too lazy to even click on other frame colors on the page or look at other offerings from the store.

Then they missed turning off FDE or they’re testing their luck.

You really ought to google more! You are pointing to the old order which indeed stayed the blocking of the rule. What you didn't do is actually READ the order. It basically stayed the order and remanded to 5th District Court of appeals for a proper decision! Which 5th district court HAD ISSUED on November 9th!

why don't read to the end, for once:


🤦‍♂️

The SCOTUS stay continues.

“November 9th, 2023: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision in VanDerStok v. Garland, overturning the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule and marking another significant victory for 80 Percent Arms. …

However, it's important to note that despite the court's ruling, the "frame or receiver" rule remains active due to a stay by the Supreme Court from August 8th. The Supreme Court's intervention means that the Final Rule will remain in effect until the legal proceedings are concluded.

As long as the government continues to appeal and unless SCOTUS denies cert, stay continues.
 
Back
Top Bottom