National Biden bans 80% receivers

[spookshack]

Sorry if I missed it, but does anyone have the exact rules they are alluding to? By the way it reads, one could simply buy the frame and jig seperately... as they simply state kits, and not parts. Although I doubt that loophole is so unmolested, and the grammar is merely purposefully inept.

The video I posted above (#51), touches on it I believe.

 

[69IzhmashAK]

Considering it's 364 pages, who else believes this was already written, just waiting for the opportunity?

Many of the pages are public comments made prior to the final rule and the ATF response.

 

[Rkangel]

But that ignores the simple fact that in many states firearms can be transferred without the involvement of a FFL, which essentially makes them untraceable.

That's why he also said that he is pushing congress to enact universal background checks, and laws that prohibit the sale and possession of all unregistered firearms. He no longer has the mental acuity to keep the previously quiet parts of their goals quiet, i.e. registration and eventual confiscation. Pretty soon the party is going to hang him out to dry due to his lapses. He's always been a blow hard and braggart. Add to that the loss of the brain-mouth filter that comes with dementia, and you have a weak and feckless man who will flap his gums at any opportunity if he thinks it makes him look strong.

 

[Alexx1401]

Sorry if I missed it, but does anyone have the exact rules they are alluding to? By the way it reads, one could simply buy the frame and jig seperately... as they simply state kits, and not parts. Although I doubt that loophole is so unmolested, and the grammar is merely purposefully inept.

I have not bothered to read this crap. If I did I doubt I would be able to make real sense of it. Bottom line there will be some "work around" most likely. Always seems to be. The big rub will be will any of the places that were making these try? The problem will not be the buyer, it will be the seller. If someone continues to try to sell these the Fed's can just swoop in, take all their stuff, freeze their banks accounts, take all their records, then they have unlimited money to give them the middle finger. Seller would have to hire and pay for lawyers to fight. How many are going to be willing to do this? This is not "right" but again who is going to pay to fight it when you are up against people who have unlimited money to fight you and a LOT of black robes who will side with them no matter what they do?

 

[bionic knees]

my messa ge to the potato in chief

 

[aksu747]

my messaView attachment 1176891ge to the potato in chief

I'd extend that also to atf, and anyone else who has been infringing on our constitutional rights.

 

[nammac]

my messaView attachment 1176891ge to the potato in chief

That needs to be extended to the entire Biden Administration, All the Biden appointees, all the anti-constitutionalist, all the gun grabbers and all the socialists…

 

[CamoDeafie]

That needs to be extended to the entire Biden Administration, All the Biden appointees, all the anti-constitutionalist, all the gun grabbers and all the socialists…

The entire D.C. cesspool.

 

[bolus]

Its always interesting to read lawyer-speak. As someone with a science background where there is rigorous controls to reduce bias and get to the truth, lawyers are the exact opposite. They replied to all the comments about the 80% proposal with basically their bias and "here is why you are wrong and why we are right" but without using any other method than basic debate skills to do it.

I'm convinced that lawyers are the equivalent of the bubonic plague in their ability to hold the human race back with a weird self-given self-referred legitimacy that is based only on "precedent."

Bob the lawyer-turned-judge said this so now it is the basis of my argument. How did bob come up with it? well, its his opinion. So the entire basis of legal decisions is based on the biased opinion of lawyers?

If we did rocket science like that we'd have a bunch of tombs at NASA filled with charred bodies and no flags on the moon and no robots on mars.

In summary, F the ATF and the AG, its just your opinion, man.

 

[BAJ475]

Its always interesting to read lawyer-speak. As someone with a science background where there is rigorous controls to reduce bias and get to the truth, lawyers are the exact opposite. They replied to all the comments about the 80% proposal with basically their bias and "here is why you are wrong and why we are right" but without using any other method than basic debate skills to do it.

I'm convinced that lawyers are the equivalent of the bubonic plague in their ability to hold the human race back with a weird self-given self-referred legitimacy that is based only on "precedent."

Bob the lawyer-turned-judge said this so now it is the basis of my argument. How did bob come up with it? well, its his opinion. So the entire basis of legal decisions is based on the biased opinion of lawyers?

If we did rocket science like that we'd have a bunch of tombs at NASA filled with charred bodies and no flags on the moon and no robots on mars.

In summary, F the ATF and the AG, its just your opinion, man.

You paint with too broad of a brush. Does a BS in Civil/Structural engineering and licensing as a CE and SE qualify as a science background? If yes, then how can you say that lawyers are the exact opposite given that I also have a JD. The problem with trying to understand the law, is that you have to understand its history and development, which generally requires a JD. Next you need to understand that it is an adversarial system and that such laws, unlike natural laws, are the result of balancing competing interest, rather than a search for a rule of nature over which we have no control. So I ask, is there a natural law that addresses the issue of carrying a firearm in public? I am not aware of one, but from a legal standpoint, that balancing of competing interest was decided when the 2A was ratified. And if someone wants to dispute our right to do so, they better be able to duck projectiles moving at over 2000 fpm because the laws of nature will not give them extra time and no man made law can change that!

 

[American123]

You paint with too broad of a brush. Does a BS in Civil/Structural engineering and licensing as a CE and SE qualify as a science background? If yes, then how can you say that lawyers are the exact opposite given that I also have a JD. The problem with trying to understand the law, is that you have to understand its history and development, which generally requires a JD. Next you need to understand that it is an adversarial system and that such laws, unlike natural laws, are the result of balancing competing interest, rather than a search for a rule of nature over which we have no control. So I ask, is there a natural law that addresses the issue of carrying a firearm in public? I am not aware of one, but from a legal standpoint, that balancing of competing interest was decided when the 2A was ratified. And if someone wants to dispute our right to do so, they better be able to duck projectiles moving at over 2000 fpm because the laws of nature will not give them extra time and no man made law can change that!

The natural law of defending your life from those/that which may try to take it is about as directly related to carrying a firearm in public as there can be.

 

[Koda]

Its completely a natural law that humans create and use tools to live. Guns are a human invention so they can be regulated but even scotus ruled they cant prohibit whats in common usage. Technically, gun control that limits common use technology for the lawful (ie, mag capacity, prohibitions... Gun free zones, etc.) Is a violation of human rights, The natural right to have the means necessary to defend your life is a human right.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

The problem with trying to understand the law, is that you have to understand its history and development, which generally requires a JD.

This right here proves it is the opposite of science. And shows a certain level of arrogance in the legal profession as a whole. A kind of, ""if you are not in the club, you can't expect to understand what it means."" There is a huge level of obfuscation and denial of what the text of the law actually says, based on judges opinions, which may or may not have any basis in fact or logic.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[bolus]

You paint with too broad of a brush. Does a BS in Civil/Structural engineering and licensing as a CE and SE qualify as a science background? If yes, then how can you say that lawyers are the exact opposite given that I also have a JD. The problem with trying to understand the law, is that you have to understand its history and development, which generally requires a JD. Next you need to understand that it is an adversarial system and that such laws, unlike natural laws, are the result of balancing competing interest, rather than a search for a rule of nature over which we have no control. So I ask, is there a natural law that addresses the issue of carrying a firearm in public? I am not aware of one, but from a legal standpoint, that balancing of competing interest was decided when the 2A was ratified. And if someone wants to dispute our right to do so, they better be able to duck projectiles moving at over 2000 fpm because the laws of nature will not give them extra time and no man made law can change that!

Ah, I see you have initiated a debate! You must be of the lawyerly persuasion.

I am at a disadvantage here but I will make an attempt

Lawyers are allowed and encouraged to lie. That would of course be disastrous as a structural engineer, or any other math or science based profession.

A JD is a human construct and means nothing outside of the humans in its circle. Just an acknowledgement that someone learned all the things that others of the persuasion wanted them to learn. Tell an alien you have a JD and it means nothing. Math though, that those engineers use, is universal and does not lie

I would say if we got rid of all the lawyers or got rid of all the structural engineers we'd be significantly worse without the engineers. This is probably a logical fallacy but I'm too lazy to look up which one.

so the AG arguing that a billet of metal is a firearm once it has started the very first step of the manufacturing process is simply some opinion that is nothing more than an attempt to control someone else using made up titles and degrees based on nothing more than a whim. We might as well debate which color is prettiest. Its all BS

in summary, I will quote the opinion of bolus et al to support my argument since it is now precedent in my made up little world.

 

[Rkangel]

This right here proves it is the opposite of science. And shows a certain level of arrogance in the legal profession as a whole. A kind of, ""if you are not in the club, you can't expect to understand what it means."" There is a huge level of obfuscation and denial of what the text of the law actually says, based on judges opinions, which may or may not have any basis in fact or logic.

And one of the reasons why the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers (not a jury of the elite or aristocracy) is so importantly enshrined in our Constitution. This was clearly displayed during a recent stint as a juror. The prosecutor tried to "big word" the jury to death in an effort to use his education to get a conviction instead of the facts. I believe a jury of laypeople and common folk is the safety valve against elitism's attempt to obfuscate or hijack due process with jargon, word salad, and an arrogant sense of self-aggrandizement.

 

[Ura-Ki]

What about doctors that treat their patients based only on what their bosses or big pharma tells them to do? Here, take this shot, or take this pill, don't worry about all the side effects that are worse then the affliction!

You all WILL take the Rona Jab, because DOCTOR Antony Fauxie says so, damn your proper research, he is a doctor, so he must be the smartest guy in any room!

Nor offence to @bolus here, not lumping all doctors in the same pile ( Just like we shouldn't lump all lawyers ether) but,..........
Just because some one has a title prefix doesn't mean very much, and we have all learned not to trust ether!

 

[BAJ475]

Ah, I see you have initiated a debate! You must be of the lawyerly persuasion.

I am at a disadvantage here but I will make an attempt

Lawyers are allowed and encouraged to lie. That would of course be disastrous as a structural engineer, or any other math or science based profession.

A JD is a human construct and means nothing outside of the humans in its circle. Just an acknowledgement that someone learned all the things that others of the persuasion wanted them to learn. Tell an alien you have a JD and it means nothing. Math though, that those engineers use, is universal and does not lie

I would say if we got rid of all the lawyers or got rid of all the structural engineers we'd be significantly worse without the engineers. This is probably a logical fallacy but I'm too lazy to look up which one.

so the AG arguing that a billet of metal is a firearm once it has started the very first step of the manufacturing process is simply some opinion that is nothing more than an attempt to control someone else using made up titles and degrees based on nothing more than a whim. We might as well debate which color is prettiest. Its all BS

in summary, I will quote the opinion of bolus et al to support my argument since it is now precedent in my made up little world.

Lying is a pretty strong word. To help you gain a better understanding I need to tell you about a little boy who asks an engineer, a mathematician and an attorney what is 2 plus 2. The engineer, being a practical type, says 4. The mathematician says that is not entirely correct. It is an integer halfway between 3 and 5. The little boy looks at the attorney who says what do you want it to be! You are now on your way to understanding what it means to think like a lawyer. Yes, it is quite different than the way engineers and scientists think. So to the AG it is a firearm because that is what he wants it to be. But as engineers or scientists we know that it is not a firearm until the manufacturing process is completed and it becomes functional. When you speak of controlling someone else based on nothing more than a whim you are describing legislators! It would be unfair to leave them out of this debate.

 

[308]

Parody, but still kinda ironic​

 

[Rkangel]

In the mind of today's leftists:
80% receiver is to assault weapon as free thought is to hate crime.

Let that sink in for a bit.