fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

General silencer discussion. If you want to talk about a specific silenced rifle or pistol, it is best to do that in the rifle or pistol section for that brand.

All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, renegade, bakerjw

User avatar
Libertarian_Geek
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3116
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:52 am
Location: Snarkeville, MS

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Libertarian_Geek » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:50 am

You've just witnessed entitlement seedlings.

If a company decides to buck the market and maintain a low price (while watching supply go down and demand go up), then they've done their customers a favor. Do a favor too much or too long and you set expectations. Stop doing that favor and it becomes expected because people have grown to feel entitled to it.

Some will say that it's because you're taking advantage of a bad situation. But you're only acting on 2 factors. Supply and demand. The "bad situation" drove the demand up and the supply down. It's so direct and simple that it may as well be a mechanical linkage.

If you want to bitch about $50 Pmags, then consider at what price you will you sell me yours? I'll buy 100s of them at last month's prices if you're willing to sell.

Rockman96, intelligent people buy low and sell high. They manage risks and brace for impacts in the market. If prices drop again, I'll buy more. If prices go up, I may sell some. The market will change my behavior and our behavior changes the market.

You're welcome to tool up and start making your own mags to sell. Nothing is stopping you. The only thing that you're entitled to are your basic rights and that includes the right to make good (or bad) decisions. You don't have the right to set someone else's prices. You can bitch and moan about it, or you can put that energy to work.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

User avatar
ick
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4617
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:17 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by ick » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:06 am

LG, are you are one of those evil capitalists that is asking for more than $40 a share for your RGR stock instead of the $20 you paid in 2011? What a jerk. That just ain't fair.
-----
Ick

User avatar
Libertarian_Geek
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3116
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:52 am
Location: Snarkeville, MS

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Libertarian_Geek » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:15 am

ick wrote:LG, are you are one of those evil capitalists that is asking for more than $40 a share for your RGR stock instead of the $20 you paid in 2011? What a jerk. That just ain't fair.
That's me. :wink:

I also invest my own money for my retirement instead of expecting society to do it for me.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

rockman96
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:49 am

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by rockman96 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:21 pm

ick wrote: 1) I can't believe the emotional garbage I am reading on here lately. Is this not a site where liberty rules? Apparently not.

2) The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the constitution, we have inalienable rights recognized by the constitution and these kinds of principles are the foundation of our society. Surely these principles should also be the foundation of ST.

3) This includes the right to be secure in our persons and property, Amendment IV. CTD has the liberty to do as they will.

4) Exercise your liberty and choose to shun CTD, but cut out the emotional "they shouldn't be allowed to charge X" crap. That is behavior unbecoming a ST member.
1) Up until the point individuals are shut down.

2) I agree

3) I agree

4) ick, I think we probably agree on the vast majority of things. I never said "they shouldn't be allowed to charge x"... they can do whatever they want to do, just like I can. Emotional? This whole chain of events is so messed up to the nth degree... children and firemen getting shot up, facts and logic being blown out of proportion, blame being placed upon inanimate objects by idiots (guns = tools, nothing more, 90% of politicians = self-serving liars, and 95% of the media = idiots, nothing less), people panicking...

Fact, as I see it: CTD and Dick's are both sell-out companies ran by chickenshit assholes, simple as that. It is what it is, and I was simply blowing off steam.

Libertarian_Geek wrote: Rockman96, intelligent people buy low and sell high. They manage risks and brace for impacts in the market. If prices drop again, I'll buy more. If prices go up, I may sell some. The market will change my behavior and our behavior changes the market.

You're welcome to tool up and start making your own mags to sell. Nothing is stopping you. The only thing that you're entitled to are your basic rights and that includes the right to make good (or bad) decisions. You don't have the right to set someone else's prices. You can bitch and moan about it, or you can put that energy to work.
You are absolutely correct LG. But damn, what a night/day difference in the approach of your responses. :lol: Maybe both of us are in a different state of mind this morning. No, I'm not going to tool up *or* pay $50 - $100 for mags...I don't need to. I've worked my whole life, and planned my own retirement too, so at the end of the day I think we're probably not so different, at least on a fundamental level.

Liver
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:20 pm

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Liver » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:31 pm

Finally just got my NRA lifetime membership. Was getting a month here and there. All this talk, price increases just made sense to get my NRA lifetime today.

User avatar
dj_fatstyles
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:14 pm
Location: washington

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by dj_fatstyles » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:09 am

im wondering what would happen if no one in america complied with the new "ban" they cant arrest everyone it would be an absolute nightmare for the police/prisons.
SWR Spectre
SWR H.E.M.S. 2
Gemtech SOS-45
Silencerco SS Sparrow
Gemtech Outback IID

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:23 am

dj_fatstyles wrote:im wondering what would happen if no one in america complied with the new "ban" they cant arrest everyone it would be an absolute nightmare for the police/prisons.
Sadly, the great majority of Americans will do nothing and simply comply, most on this board will follow suit as well.

Everyone talks but very very few people act.

User avatar
Emilio
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2339
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:38 pm

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Emilio » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:57 am

dj_fatstyles wrote:im wondering what would happen if no one in america complied with the new "ban" they cant arrest everyone it would be an absolute nightmare for the police/prisons.
Or warn of civil war before hand. Should be up to states anyway and these states should stand up.

I think more not gun people should see things like this. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KKWNTdTRQuE
Member of the LSU, SWR, and RUGGED underground. Shame Silencerco!

User avatar
sopootto
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by sopootto » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:03 am

Libertarian_Geek wrote:You've just witnessed entitlement seedlings.

If a company decides to buck the market and maintain a low price (while watching supply go down and demand go up), then they've done their customers a favor. Do a favor too much or too long and you set expectations. Stop doing that favor and it becomes expected because people have grown to feel entitled to it.

Some will say that it's because you're taking advantage of a bad situation. But you're only acting on 2 factors. Supply and demand. The "bad situation" drove the demand up and the supply down. It's so direct and simple that it may as well be a mechanical linkage.

If you want to bitch about $50 Pmags, then consider at what price you will you sell me yours? I'll buy 100s of them at last month's prices if you're willing to sell.

Rockman96, intelligent people buy low and sell high. They manage risks and brace for impacts in the market. If prices drop again, I'll buy more. If prices go up, I may sell some. The market will change my behavior and our behavior changes the market.

You're welcome to tool up and start making your own mags to sell. Nothing is stopping you. The only thing that you're entitled to are your basic rights and that includes the right to make good (or bad) decisions. You don't have the right to set someone else's prices. You can bitch and moan about it, or you can put that energy to work.
As a business owner I cannot agree more. You have to think, if I run out of inventory and cant replenish it I need to make all the money I can to float me through the next hard months of mass panic buying up of Pmags. Even though I sold a lot of my stock in a few days, as a small shop I only have so much inventory. I still have mortgage, pge, phone, payroll, etc. Without retail sales I am up s--t creek. I still would not go the $99 route. If I had Pmags I would be more of the $40 range.

That being said CTD and Dicks should be ashamed that they make most of their money via 2A lawfully possessed items and civilian sales, so when you turn your nose to the one thing that has kept you in business, that's just plain commie-asshole-ism. Plus shows the media that hey even this gun retail Company agrees with our idiotic "common sense regulations".
-Otto

DarkPhoenix
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 pm
Location: Sc

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by DarkPhoenix » Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:56 pm

+1 for states rights.
This article makes me glad i live in SC.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /121229399

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:07 pm

DarkPhoenix wrote:+1 for states rights.
This article makes me glad i live in SC.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /121229399
All your non-SC manufactured guns would be subject though.

I don't know of any manufacturers that fabricate in SC though, so there would be some new manufacturers needing to pop up.

Some bills also state "manufactured in entirety with no interstate commerce". Does your states bill say this?

If not you can't have MagPul or rails or anything on it.

There is always a catch.

User avatar
2manygunz
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by 2manygunz » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:07 am

Speaking of big money, I'd be very interested to see the CBO score the AWB as it will be proposed. For instance, every "grandfathered" firearm would become an NFA item. That's, what, about 300 million guns?? We can't get a suppressor through in 6 months and there's only about 50K annually, give or take. The NFA division would have to become the size of the IRS just to administer. The 2011 IRS budget was $12B.

Next, consider the tax abatement and financial injury law suits that would stem from this legislation. Firearms legally owned are considered an investment. The bill would ban the sale of registered items. Again, 300m firearms at, say $1,000 each on average. That's $300B in economic harm to citizens.

Then there's the tax. Take someone with 10 firearms. They have to pay $2,000 just to comply with registration. Writ large, that's a $60B tax increase unfairly levied on one class of people: firearms owners. The very people the bill harms economically. All together, this program would cost American citizens $360B. The government would not be able to simply pass that cost on to citizens. They'd have to at least propose a fair market value buy-back -- something not contemplated in the AWB Feinstein is releasing.

Then there's jobs and economic contribution. The firearms industry employs about 200,000 people in the US, with a total economic impact of about $30B. The industry, itself, pays government about $5B in taxes annually. This bill would gut the industry.

Then there's enforcement. Gun ownership is far more pervasive than drug usage. (Estimates are that 22m Americans use illegal drugs in one form or another.) This bill would criminalize most aspects of gun ownership and make enforcement a nightmare. Further, it enhances an underground economy for firearms, driving their trafficking and sale into the hands of organized crime. Ask Mexico how that's working out for them.

Then there's the legal issues. The bill does not contemplate what happens to trusts, estates and corporate ownership. What about FFLs? The bill impacts individuals, but would have to go much farther to explain how, exactly, enterprise ownership is unwound.

Then there's the cost of R&D. A lack of civilian market for "military style" firearms means that the cost (and incentive) for firearms development will be relegated to direct government funding. Million dollar toilet seats come to mind...

The points above are just the tip of the iceberg. The economic impact of this ban would be massive, striking our economy at one of its weakest moments in our history. Contemplating this bill seriously is a horrendous waste of government resources.

DarkPhoenix
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 pm
Location: Sc

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by DarkPhoenix » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:56 am

Bendersquint wrote:
DarkPhoenix wrote:+1 for states rights.
This article makes me glad i live in SC.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /121229399
All your non-SC manufactured guns would be subject though.

I don't know of any manufacturers that fabricate in SC though, so there would be some new manufacturers needing to pop up.

Some bills also state "manufactured in entirety with no interstate commerce". Does your states bill say this?

If not you can't have MagPul or rails or anything on it.

There is always a catch.
Very true. I would like to think it is the first step in trying to protect our rights. Think about this... Washington state has pot legal for recreational use, however, it is still illegal according to federal law. In theory the Justice dept should file suit against the state as it did Arizona over their immigration law, but it did not. Nobama said he would not go after Washington, setting a powerful legal precedent. So if/when a new ban gets passed all we need is for states to essentially repeal a ban by making all of the banned items legal for manufacture, transfer and sale. Obviously holder and the injustice dept would file suit against the states and the legal battle would begin. The states would be able to argue that the justice dept's inaction against Washington makes it ok for states to follow their own laws even when there is a stricter federal law on file.

Clearly I am not a legal scholar, but it seems like a logical plan of attack in the event of a new ban. We could use some more manufacturers in SC. At least we have FNH in Columbia.

User avatar
Libertarian_Geek
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3116
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:52 am
Location: Snarkeville, MS

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Libertarian_Geek » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:52 am

Bendersquint wrote:
DarkPhoenix wrote:+1 for states rights.
This article makes me glad i live in SC.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /121229399
All your non-SC manufactured guns would be subject though.

I don't know of any manufacturers that fabricate in SC though, so there would be some new manufacturers needing to pop up.

Some bills also state "manufactured in entirety with no interstate commerce". Does your states bill say this?

If not you can't have MagPul or rails or anything on it.


There is always a catch.
You're implying that to fall under SC's law, a weapon has to have every single part made in SC including the rails, sight, sling, etc? That doesn't sound correct.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:38 am

DarkPhoenix wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
DarkPhoenix wrote:+1 for states rights.
This article makes me glad i live in SC.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /121229399
All your non-SC manufactured guns would be subject though.

I don't know of any manufacturers that fabricate in SC though, so there would be some new manufacturers needing to pop up.

Some bills also state "manufactured in entirety with no interstate commerce". Does your states bill say this?

If not you can't have MagPul or rails or anything on it.

There is always a catch.
Very true. I would like to think it is the first step in trying to protect our rights. Think about this... Washington state has pot legal for recreational use, however, it is still illegal according to federal law. In theory the Justice dept should file suit against the state as it did Arizona over their immigration law, but it did not. Nobama said he would not go after Washington, setting a powerful legal precedent. So if/when a new ban gets passed all we need is for states to essentially repeal a ban by making all of the banned items legal for manufacture, transfer and sale. Obviously holder and the injustice dept would file suit against the states and the legal battle would begin. The states would be able to argue that the justice dept's inaction against Washington makes it ok for states to follow their own laws even when there is a stricter federal law on file.

Clearly I am not a legal scholar, but it seems like a logical plan of attack in the event of a new ban. We could use some more manufacturers in SC. At least we have FNH in Columbia.
Too bad FNH doesn't sell to civilians!

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:41 am

Libertarian_Geek wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
DarkPhoenix wrote:+1 for states rights.
This article makes me glad i live in SC.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... /121229399
All your non-SC manufactured guns would be subject though.

I don't know of any manufacturers that fabricate in SC though, so there would be some new manufacturers needing to pop up.

Some bills also state "manufactured in entirety with no interstate commerce". Does your states bill say this?

If not you can't have MagPul or rails or anything on it.


There is always a catch.
You're implying that to fall under SC's law, a weapon has to have every single part made in SC including the rails, sight, sling, etc? That doesn't sound correct.
No, I said it COULD require that it be completely made in SC to be exempt from Federal oversight. The point of the whole thing and the reason WHY the .gov couldn't touch it is the lack of INTERSTATE COMMERCE. If in making that product you use 100% SC goods then no interstate commerce has happened and it can't be governed by Federal regulations.

That could mean that EVERY part would have to be made in SC to be immune to Federal oversight of that "AW".

I think it was Montana that ran into a situation like this with their "Made in Montana" trump of federal law.

User avatar
Libertarian_Geek
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3116
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:52 am
Location: Snarkeville, MS

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Libertarian_Geek » Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:41 pm

I would say that you're speculation stacking again if it weren't for the already ridiculous precedent of Wickard v Filburn. Following that precedent's logic, it's not a far stretch to say that if a cartridge consumes O2 which may have originated in another state, then it can be considered interstate commerce.

But the Wickard vs Filburn ruling is fucking absurd. It would be likewise crazy to consider a firearm to not built in-state because its red-dot used a battery made in another state. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, just that it would be bat-s--t crazy and obviously overstepping the constitution for political agenda.
https://www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:12 pm

Libertarian_Geek wrote:I would say that you're speculation stacking again if it weren't for the already ridiculous precedent of Wickard v Filburn. Following that precedent's logic, it's not a far stretch to say that if a cartridge consumes O2 which may have originated in another state, then it can be considered interstate commerce.

But the Wickard vs Filburn ruling is fucking absurd. It would be likewise crazy to consider a firearm to not built in-state because its red-dot used a battery made in another state. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, just that it would be bat-s--t crazy and obviously overstepping the constitution for political agenda.
Not speculation stacking its an entire possibility. If the .gov is banning them and a state subverts them by making them in state, its entirely reasonable that the .gov would verify that all components are made in the state and if they were not it could allow the .gov to step in and classify it as an AW.

Precedents like W v F are how the justice system works and I think it could be used in this scenario. End of the day big government does not like being trumped by local governments.

Can't compare a firing pin made in another state to a battery that goes on a non firearm part. We are talking about firearms not accessories.

What part of this debacle we are in is NOT overstepping the constitution for political agenda to begin with?

Broken11B
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:34 am
Location: South Carolina

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Broken11B » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:25 pm

Bendersquint wrote:

Too bad FNH doesn't sell to civilians!
They do. I know several people who have bought pistols directly from FNH in Columbia.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:36 pm

Broken11B wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:

Too bad FNH doesn't sell to civilians!
They do. I know several people who have bought pistols directly from FNH in Columbia.
I thought we were talking about what the media calls AW's? AR-15's. I did forget about the FN2000.

Broken11B
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:34 am
Location: South Carolina

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Broken11B » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:39 pm

I didn't mean to sound nitpicky. I guess I'm hopeful if the need arose they'd sell AR-15s to the civilian market...it wouldn't take much change on the assembly line.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:48 pm

Broken11B wrote:I didn't mean to sound nitpicky. I guess I'm hopeful if the need arose they'd sell AR-15s to the civilian market...it wouldn't take much change on the assembly line.
No it wouldn't take anything more than stopping the mill from making the sear hole.

FN would have to care about the AR civilian market for it to happen. Why aren't they selling AR lowers now? My guess is stipulations in their .gov contracts.

jackson
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:56 pm

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by jackson » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:28 pm

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... es-in-2013 and geek i know you are still looking at my post,s. you just cant help your self.

jfk
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 4:26 am
Location: West

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by jfk » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:24 am

Feinstein had a CCW when she was the mayor of SF. As long as she has hers, she could care less what everyone else has.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: fienstein wants ar,s under nfa

Post by Bendersquint » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:33 am

jfk wrote:Feinstein had a CCW when she was the mayor of SF. As long as she has hers, she could care less what everyone else has.
She still does maintain it.

Post Reply