This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
Those appear to be 80% lowers, so not technically lower receivers. The article (not surprisingly) doesn't mention much about this. They say, "Federal law classifies AR-15 lower receivers as firearms and, thus, requires that they must be manufactured with serial numbers by a licensed manufacturer, and that they can only be sold by a licensed firearms dealer." but that's not applicable to 80% lowers. They're a hunk of plastic.
Farther down they say "Cook’s lower receivers were made of polymer and contained cavities with different color polymer, making it easier for purchasers to mill out the cavities and convert the lower receiver to an operational firearm." which means they know they're not real firearms.
Any idea what gives? There's a lot of talk attacking the ability to sell 80% lowers. Is it just that?
Quote from the piece: “Targeting the illegal manufacturing and distribution of unfinished lower receivers continues to be a priority for ATF. Keeping these untraceable firearms out of the hands of criminals is paramount to protecting the public,” said ATF Special Agent in Charge Jill A. Snyder.
That statement is full of nonsense. How, where and when did it become "illegal" to make or sell an unfinished lower receiver? And it is a contributor to crime? Hobbyists are a major crime problem now?
They settled with stealing his property, probably because they knew they wouldn't be able to win in court, if the case went to trial. As per usual, they would bankrupt a man just to prove they could.
5 comments:
Those appear to be 80% lowers, so not technically lower receivers. The article (not surprisingly) doesn't mention much about this. They say, "Federal law classifies AR-15 lower receivers as firearms and, thus, requires that they must be manufactured with serial numbers by a licensed manufacturer, and that they can only be sold by a licensed firearms dealer." but that's not applicable to 80% lowers. They're a hunk of plastic.
Farther down they say "Cook’s lower receivers were made of polymer and contained cavities with different color polymer, making it easier for purchasers to mill out the cavities and convert the lower receiver to an operational firearm." which means they know they're not real firearms.
Any idea what gives? There's a lot of talk attacking the ability to sell 80% lowers. Is it just that?
Yeah, I read this that these are precursors.
Quote from the piece:
“Targeting the illegal manufacturing and distribution of unfinished lower receivers continues to be a priority for ATF. Keeping these untraceable firearms out of the hands of criminals is paramount to protecting the public,” said ATF Special Agent in Charge Jill A. Snyder.
That statement is full of nonsense. How, where and when did it become "illegal" to make or sell an unfinished lower receiver? And it is a contributor to crime? Hobbyists are a major crime problem now?
They settled with stealing his property, probably because they knew they wouldn't be able to win in court, if the case went to trial. As per usual, they would bankrupt a man just to prove they could.
" I read this that these are precursors."
More goodness to come, David?
Yep, and from all directions, whenever they think they can nudge things "forward."
Post a Comment