InfantryAg said:

---

Congress needs to replace the NFA with pass a law that simply states...

Any weapon, firearm or otherwise, which may be used domestically, or against the American citizenry, is legal for that citizenry to also own. This includes any parts or attachments to those weapons.

---

Outdoors Board F-35 Group Buy?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

A suppressor isn't by itself a firearm.

It is, however, something that falls into the category of arms as it is part of a weapon system that is used to make a weapon functional or more functional in a specific respect. It is a weapon part, just not a critical for function one. That places it squarely in the umbrella of the definition of "arms" as a category of weapons and equipment potentially used for combat or self defense.

---

True.

If they're just saying that since it's just a part, then it's not "arms", then they could just say the TRIGGER is just a part and therefore not "arms".

Then they just ban triggers...and de facto ban guns.

The ATF is getting guidance finally. Let's see how this goes. Again, some interim acting USA filing something consistent with precedent isn't really surprising.

FBI Deputy Director Bongino visited the ATF today to meet the team, discuss priorities, and outline the FBI’s commitment to protecting Americans’ safety and Constitutional rights. @FBIDDBongino pic.twitter.com/nb9CE3DlzX

— Ben Williamson (@_WilliamsonBen) March 21, 2025

txags92 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Congress needs to replace the NFA with pass a law that simply states...

Any weapon, firearm or otherwise, which may be used domestically, or against the American citizenry, is legal for that citizenry to also own. This includes any parts or attachments to those weapons.

---

Outdoors Board F-35 Group Buy?

---

Stick with the F18. Haven't you seen Top Gun Maverick? 5th gen fighters are useless against GPS jamming and low terrain will confuse it's targeting system.

Oddly a problem still shared by the X-Wing

Kash to shrink the ATF by 1/3, moving agents to FBI.

Not terrible news, as the ATF has generally only harassed gun owners/dealers with its manpower. But, strong caveat as this is reported by very fake news CNN, so it could just be something the liars there made up.

Quote:

---

FBI Director Kash Patel, who also serves as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has outlined plans to move as many as 1,000 ATF agents to the FBI, cutting ATF's agents by more than a third, three people briefed on the plan told CNN.

The move represents a major cutback of the ATF, an agency that long has been in the crosshairs of gun rights groups that believe its work infringes on Second Amendment rights. The ATF has about 2,600 agents and more than 5,000 employees, a number that has remained largely unchanged for years.
The move is expected to begin with the reassignment of a couple hundred ATF agents to border-related criminal enforcement duty as FBI agents, one person briefed on the matter said.

After publication of this story and resulting pushback including from Republican allies, FBI officials began to back off aspects of their plan, according to a US official familiar with the matter.

An ATF spokeswoman disputed that the agents were being reassigned to the FBI and said in a statement Saturday that as a part of the ATF and FBI's plans to address issues at the southern border, "the ATF will temporarily assign approximately 150 agents from existing field offices to other ATF field offices, where they will continue serving as ATF agents to support the surge initiative."

---

In any case, moving agents to the border would also be good.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Congress needs to replace the NFA with pass a law that simply states...

Any weapon, firearm or otherwise, which may be used domestically, or against the American citizenry, is legal for that citizenry to also own. This includes any parts or attachments to those weapons.

---

Outdoors Board F-35 Group Buy?

---

Stick with the F18. Haven't you seen Top Gun Maverick? 5th gen fighters are useless against GPS jamming and low terrain will confuse it's targeting system.

Oddly a problem still shared by the X-Wing

---

Not if you stay on target!

So, as others have pointed out, under what authority is the suppressor being regulated? Is a bipod next? What about sight/scope?
One on hand, it seems this has the to potential to open a can of worms.

On the other, if the argument is, if it's not an "Arm", the second amendment doesn't protect it, does this set the precedent that anything that IS and "Arm", is protected by the second amendment?

Catag94 said:

---

On the other, if the argument is, if it's not an "Arm", the second amendment doesn't protect it, does this set the precedent that anything that IS and "Arm", is protected by the second amendment?

---

To go to the other extreme, does this precedent set up a future ammo is not an "arm" threat?

TA-OP said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

On the other, if the argument is, if it's not an "Arm", the second amendment doesn't protect it, does this set the precedent that anything that IS and "Arm", is protected by the second amendment?

---

To go to the other extreme, does this precedent set up a future ammo is not an "arm" threat?

---

Agreed! Seems to me that if Iran not an "Arm" and not tobacco, and not Alcohol, then the ATF can pound sand.


ETA:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the original case here is one of the following nature: Criminal, involving violations of the National Firearms Act (NFA), specifically possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor.

So, is a suppressor is NOT and a firearm, wouldn't that cause this case (if only about the suppressor sale) to be nullified?

It's true that a suppressor is not a gun and the government could have the authority to limit it. It doesn't infringe on the right to use a gun.

But just because it can doesn't mean it should. All this does is cause more hearing damage. People think it sounds like in the movies and people will be shot with no one hearing. It's just ignorance.

Put me down as this being a move to deregulate suppressors. Both of Trumps sons are big gun guys.

Is Trump going to lower the age for purchasing rifles? I thought 18 year olds could already do that.

Some speculation on this laughable hit piece at very fake news CNN with a Lt. General bravely demonstrating how to fire it on 'full semi-auto.'

You cannot make this up… pic.twitter.com/ivfHBMxo5W

— Handleit Grips (@handleitgrips) May 12, 2025

nortex97 said:

---

Is Trump going to lower the age for purchasing rifles? I thought 18 year olds could already do that.

Some speculation on this laughable hit piece at very fake news CNN with a Lt. General bravely demonstrating how to fire it on 'full semi-auto.'

You cannot make this up… pic.twitter.com/ivfHBMxo5W

— Handleit Grips (@handleitgrips) May 12, 2025

---

Impressive amount of lies they were able to squeeze into this 95 second piece.

LOYAL AG said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Is Trump going to lower the age for purchasing rifles? I thought 18 year olds could already do that.

Some speculation on this laughable hit piece at very fake news CNN with a Lt. General bravely demonstrating how to fire it on 'full semi-auto.'

You cannot make this up… pic.twitter.com/ivfHBMxo5W

— Handleit Grips (@handleitgrips) May 12, 2025

---

Impressive amount of lies they were able to squeeze into this 95 second piece.

---

"Full semi-automatic."

And he's a *******ed general.

That's the one that got me. But also his stance/non-use of the sites. And comment that 'I probably won't be able to hit the target when I do this.' One of my favorite clips of the month so far. True greatness.
ETA: General Hertling.

LTG (R) Mark Hertling, my former commander, has blocked me.

For those that don't remember him - he's the CNN expert who went on camera shooting an AR15 saying it was "fully semi automatic" 🤡😂 pic.twitter.com/GtoGLNF6IX

— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) March 24, 2025

Long time gun grabber advocate, Kiev war fan.

answer this final question: what is the need for assault weapons and SA pistols other than "I want it?"

— Mark Hertling (@MarkHertling) June 13, 2016

Nothing in the 2nd amendment has anything to do with 'need.'

nortex97 said:

---

Is Trump going to lower the age for purchasing rifles? I thought 18 year olds could already do that.

Some speculation on this laughable hit piece at very fake news CNN with a Lt. General bravely demonstrating how to fire it on 'full semi-auto.'

You cannot make this up… pic.twitter.com/ivfHBMxo5W

— Handleit Grips (@handleitgrips) May 12, 2025

---

That video is nearly 10 years old.

Doesn't make it any less worse, but it's not some recent development.

I dont know if it's actual "law" or not, I know a lot of pawn shops here have said they will not sell anything with a pistol grip to anyone under 21.

I asked one, he said he wasn't sure if it was the law, but they wouldn't anyway because AR pistols have become a fan for the gangbangers around here, and they can use it as a way to stop the sale of crap that they know will be used in a crime. They know it won't 100% stop it, but at least they're not having to openly support it.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I dont know if it's actual "law" or not, I know a lot of pawn shops here have said they will not sell anything with a pistol grip to anyone under 21.

I asked one, he said he wasn't sure if it was the law, but they wouldn't anyway because AR pistols have become a fan for the gangbangers around here, and they can use it as a way to stop the sale of crap that they know will be used in a crime. They know it won't 100% stop it, but at least they're not having to openly support it.

---

FFLs have tremendous discretion when it comes to selling a gun.

They can decline a sale even if the person passed a background check, but something just seems off with the prospective buyer. The gun store I do most of my business with has to do it a few times, usually because the person is clearly suffering from some kind of mental health issue.

If they don't want to sell a specific type(s) of gun to anyone under 21, the law is on their side to do so.