To rule that an AR-15 lower receiver was not a receiver would be "manifestly incompatible" with Congress' intent, they argued. [More]And to rule that they are is manifestly incompatible with Founders' intent.
Any bets on our "beautiful Second Amendment" president issuing an EO directing ATF to make another rule change?
[Via DDS]
3 comments:
In light of his last one, let’s not push it.
ATF is also trying to tell outfits like Serbu and Safety hArbor, that a bolt action UPPER is a firearm, when it is an accessory to a "firearm" under their own interpretation. That would also make every AR upper also a firearm.
Logic simply doesn't apply when dealing with "control" laws, and the men to impose them.
""[BATFE retiree] O'Kelly brings an intrinsic understanding of the agency, the agency's arrogance, and its willingness to be deceptive," [defense attorney] Nicolaysen said."
The truth hurts sometimes.
Post a Comment