CNN: AR15 lowers are -not- firearms

[Ringel05]

Tell that to the States that have the laws, I'm not arguing for or against their laws simply stating a fact that the laws exist in some States and that those States aggressively prosecute. Your fight over this is with them not with me.

maybe I'm not trying to fight with you but just clearing the air so some people know they have an ally in fighting these unconstitutional laws,,,

we have allowed this to happen for far to long,,,
its time to stand and fight,,,

I wish you the best of luck, you're gonna need it.

guess I cant count on you to fight for freedom,,,

Easy boys, - we're all on the same side.

as you can see from comments , thats not exactly true,,,

Actually in this instance we are, you just think you can stop a speeding freight train by standing in it's way.

 

[Ringel05]

I wish you the best of luck, you're gonna need it.

guess I cant count on you to fight for freedom,,,

That fight's already lost.

those are the words of a quitter or an enemy,,,

No, a realist. You might want to read Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires.......... It's inevitable. Doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow but it will happen.

so youre a quitter,,,

No I'm an observer, a chronicler. My personal opinions and desires have no bearing on reality.

 

[progressive hunter]

guess I cant count on you to fight for freedom,,,

That fight's already lost.

those are the words of a quitter or an enemy,,,

No, a realist. You might want to read Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires.......... It's inevitable. Doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow but it will happen.

so youre a quitter,,,

No I'm an observer, a chronicler. My personal opinions and desires have no bearing on reality.

so youre also a troll ,,,

 

[Ringel05]

That fight's already lost.

those are the words of a quitter or an enemy,,,

No, a realist. You might want to read Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires.......... It's inevitable. Doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow but it will happen.

so youre a quitter,,,

No I'm an observer, a chronicler. My personal opinions and desires have no bearing on reality.

so youre also a troll ,,,

Well that goes without saying......... To those who wish to think that....... Heck, next you'll be calling me a libtard....... Of course the ultra liberals all call me a Trumptard..... Ain't perspective funny.

 

[progressive hunter]

those are the words of a quitter or an enemy,,,

No, a realist. You might want to read Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires.......... It's inevitable. Doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow but it will happen.

so youre a quitter,,,

No I'm an observer, a chronicler. My personal opinions and desires have no bearing on reality.

so youre also a troll ,,,

Well that goes without saying......... To those who wish to think that....... Heck, next you'll be calling me a libtard....... Of course the ultra liberals all call me a Trumptard..... Ain't perspective funny.

I was talking about the 2nd and dont lower myself to making generalizations like that,,,
and to support the 2nd A in its original intent is a liberal view,,

both libtards and trumptards are also against the 2nd when you pin them down,,,

you would have done better to just say thank you for your opinion after my second comment,,,

 

[Ringel05]

No, a realist. You might want to read Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires.......... It's inevitable. Doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow but it will happen.

so youre a quitter,,,

No I'm an observer, a chronicler. My personal opinions and desires have no bearing on reality.

so youre also a troll ,,,

Well that goes without saying......... To those who wish to think that....... Heck, next you'll be calling me a libtard....... Of course the ultra liberals all call me a Trumptard..... Ain't perspective funny.

I was talking about the 2nd and dont lower myself to making generalizations like that,,,
and to support the 2nd A in its original intent is a liberal view,,

both libtards and trumptards are also against the 2nd when you pin them down,,,

you would have done better to just say thank you for your opinion after my second comment,,,

And what would have been the fun in that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

This is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.

The truth is that the Obama Administration notified Congress that existing Federal firearm laws were lacking and needed to be updated.

From the linked article:

“The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge's decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.”

It was the Republican controlled Congress that failed to address this issue.

Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.

Stripped lower receivers and partially complete receivers are regulated as firearms and that hasn’t changed as a matter of law, legislation, or regulatory policy – hence the ATF’s not pursuing a case against Roh, where Judge Selna's likely ruling would jeopardize how the ATF regulates stripped and partially complete receivers, rendering their purchase not subject to a background check.

The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

This is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.

The truth is that the Obama Administration notified Congress that existing Federal firearm laws were lacking and needed to be updated.

From the linked article:

“The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge's decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.”

It was the Republican controlled Congress that failed to address this issue.

Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.

Stripped lower receivers and partially complete receivers are regulated as firearms and that hasn’t changed as a matter of law, legislation, or regulatory policy – hence the ATF’s not pursuing a case against Roh, where Judge Selna's likely ruling would jeopardize how the ATF regulates stripped and partially complete receivers, rendering their purchase not subject to a background check.

The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.

LOL SMH you are an idiot
When a lower is separated from the upper What exactly makes a lower a firearm and not the upper?
Functionally the upper still can fire a round whereas the lower cannot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

This is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.

Nothing in my post is a lie.
And you know it.

Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.

Pay attention
Lowers, complete or otherwise, do not meet the federal definition or firearm, or receiver.
That, along with The Obama's administration choosing to let criminals go free to protect their agenda, is the entire point of this topic.

The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.

This is another lie, as the BATFE also has the authority to make that determination.

Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL SMH you are an idiot

No.
Like most liberals, he's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Rustic]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

This is a lie; dishonest and misleading – typical of most conservatives.

The truth is that the Obama Administration notified Congress that existing Federal firearm laws were lacking and needed to be updated.

From the linked article:

“The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge's decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.”

It was the Republican controlled Congress that failed to address this issue.

Moreover, complete lower receivers are considered firearms.

Stripped lower receivers and partially complete receivers are regulated as firearms and that hasn’t changed as a matter of law, legislation, or regulatory policy – hence the ATF’s not pursuing a case against Roh, where Judge Selna's likely ruling would jeopardize how the ATF regulates stripped and partially complete receivers, rendering their purchase not subject to a background check.

The ATF’s interpretation and application of Federal firearm laws with regard to AR lower receivers may indeed be invalid, but only the courts have the authority to make that determination – which they have not.

Barry is/was wrong in all cases... end of story

 

[iceberg]

The way I understand it is (currently) FULLY ASSEMBLED AR lowers are subject to Federal law, 80% lowers are not. That's what they are most afraid of that fully assembled lowers also don't legally fit federal law as the law and regs are currently written.
That said some States ban even 80% lowers so know what your State laws are on this subject.

the 2nd amendment over rides all state laws as the supreme law of the land,,,

Tell that to the States that have the laws, I'm not arguing for or against their laws simply stating a fact that the laws exist in some States and that those States aggressively prosecute. Your fight over this is with them not with me.

maybe I'm not trying to fight with you but just clearing the air so some people know they have an ally in fighting these unconstitutional laws,,,

we have allowed this to happen for far to long,,,
its time to stand and fight,,,

I wish you the best of luck, you're gonna need it.

guess I cant count on you to fight for freedom,,,

but we can count on you to see things from only your perspective and demean others like you scream at liberals for doing.

 

[progressive hunter]

the 2nd amendment over rides all state laws as the supreme law of the land,,,

Tell that to the States that have the laws, I'm not arguing for or against their laws simply stating a fact that the laws exist in some States and that those States aggressively prosecute. Your fight over this is with them not with me.

maybe I'm not trying to fight with you but just clearing the air so some people know they have an ally in fighting these unconstitutional laws,,,

we have allowed this to happen for far to long,,,
its time to stand and fight,,,

I wish you the best of luck, you're gonna need it.

guess I cant count on you to fight for freedom,,,

but we can count on you to see things from only your perspective and demean others like you scream at liberals for doing.

what ever makes you feel better,,,

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.

 

[Ringel05]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.

Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.

Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.

If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.

 

[Ringel05]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.

Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.

If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.

They also have a .300 Blackout rig for $499, doesn't have the 5.56 range but it does have the power.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Feds to drop weapons charges to protect gun control efforts, sources say - CNN
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns

Long story short:
AR15 lower receivers do not - in fact, NO part of an AR15 - fall under the definition of a firearm under federal law; The Obama's administration decided to people illegally manufacturing firearms go rather than push this issue in court because of the impact the inevitable ruling to this effect would have on its gun control agenda.

One of the people in question is responsible for supplying the AR15 used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting spree.

The takeaway on this:
- The manufacture and sale of AR15 lowers is NOT subject to any federal law
- Democrats are more concerned with pushing/preserving their gun control agenda than protecting the lives of Americans

Surprise, surprise.

For reference - an AR lower:

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.

Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.

If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.

They also have a .300 Blackout rig for $499, doesn't have the 5.56 range but it does have the power.

I'm not a fan of ARs chambered for boutique rounds -- if 5.56x45 doesn't meet your needs, get a .308.

 

[Ringel05]

Are you sure that is not a fully auto semi-automatic?

That's the beauty of an AR lower -- its not semi-auto.

Actually your thread has me looking at getting a kit and doing one myself, saw one kit, a classic M-16 look in 5.56 Nato for around $410 or get a more customizable .223 for a hundred bucks more. What I like about the 556 is you can fire 223 out of it but not the other way around.

If you're looking to put an AR together yourself, you have -innumerable- options.
-Always- go with 5.56 over .223
ARs have never been cheaper than they are now.

They also have a .300 Blackout rig for $499, doesn't have the 5.56 range but it does have the power.

I'm not a fan of ARs chambered for boutique rounds -- if 5.56x45 doesn't meet your needs, get a .308.

Any one of them would meet my needs which are target shooting and that's it, besides I already own a shitload of 7.62x35 rounds (.300 Blackout). I wouldn't call a 7.62x35 a boutique round........