Oh Shoot

  But of course not my real point. Just trying to find the minimum level of 2A infringement that folks don't feel the least bit hypocritical about living under while calling the oldest surviving US firearm company an evil sum bitch.   Hell, Remington doesn't even necessarily call all the shots. They're owned by Freedom Group ya know which is still owned by Cerberus. So if you're gonna boycott them, include Bushmaster, DPMS, Barnes, Para,  Marlin, H&R, and others.   - OS

  Exactly.   Just how far should some of you advocate this "purist" 2A approach?    Maybe Barrett and every gun store should move out of TN also. After all, we're being infringed big time here with no constitutional carry. Hell, can't even have a loaded heater in vehicle without a permit, and can't have a fully loaded long gun in there even with one. Can't legally carry even with the already infringing permit in thousands of places in the state. Etc.   Hell, we can't even carry a switchblade or 4+" knife, so Smoky Mountain Knives and every custom knifemaker in the state should bug out too.   Maybe we all should put our money where our mouths are and get the hell outta here to Arizona or Alaska rather than live under such 2A oppression!   - OS

Yeah, I do see a difference there regarding burden of proof.   But then again, burden of proof is a larger legal construct that likely makes that quote from the Park Service just words, I'd say.   And btw, from where in TCA did the PS derive that little opinion?   - OS

I dunno about Rand and this tack, seems pretty ballsy to approach it as gun issue but have you send money directly to his 2016 campaign. Or his next senate run, which would happen on same year. (note website only called "Rand-2016.com") and root of it redirects to "RandPac.com"    And to top it all off, I got a similar big Rand Paul snail mail packet asking for donations to "The National Association for Gun Rights", too. Kinda wonder if there's a little piece of that for Rand too?   I just dunno...   - OS

Domain created 5.5 months ago. Maybe a home biz or drop shipper, legit I hope. Image from 6/11, could be a store there now, who knows. - OS

  How peculiar. Thanks.   kj4gxu, you had it pert close, sorry for any doubt.   - OS

  Can't answer the question, unless the previous forum software allowed a lower post count to switch over, and they just carried over when the switch was made to IP Board.   However, now that you are a Benefactor, can't you just change it to whatever you like under the Member Title field?   - OS

  Now, c'mon, let's be a bit more accurate.   Manchin-Toomey doesn't call for anywhere near universal background checks. Private sales are still allowed.   Hell, you can still do it at a gunshow without check if you merely go off property, and no limitations on normal private sales we do now without a check.   The only truly nasty problematic part is the "pursuant to an online ad" thing, which is nasty indeed, I admit.   But it's far far from being "universal background check".   - OS

  Thanks for info, this is first time we've heard this from actual instructor about new format.   Sounds like you mean 70 points though, and not 70 percent, right?   - OS

  I'll wager he'll pack it in after the next term.

  Ah, gotcha.

    Looks okay to me under their changes in allowable firearm stuff about a year ago.   There are a number of .22 conversion kits on there, they aren't firearms, and they don't have over 10 round mags. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p3984.m570.l1313.TR10.TRC0&_nkw=.22+conversion+kits&_sacat=0&_from=R40   And tons of auctions that went to completion: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=.22+conversion+kits&_in_kw=1&_ex_kw=&_sacat=0&_okw=&_oexkw=&_adv=1&LH_Complete=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=200&_fpos=&_fsct=&LH_SALE_CURRENCY=0&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=50   Quick glance shows that the great majority of them sold, too.   - OS

Seems to be something about a rebate program to the individual outlets, get a reward incentive for x number of gallons or whatever.   So I guess it has something to do with federal fuel tax not getting paid or income from it not getting claimed or something, or IRS wouldn't be involved.   - OS

  I believe that one  worked its way to TN Supreme Court, but they refused it, and let the previous court's decision stand?   - OS

  "Only" $80M.  I think government spending levels have jaded you. ;)   - OS

  You lost me on that one?

  Far from an expert here, but don't see why it wouldn't be at least an adequate quality build. Never heard Rgun stuff dissed as being particularly subpar, and lots of folks run one of their BCGs.   What you'd need is basically just a barrel nut/castle nut wrench. Blocks to hold upper and lower in a  vise makes things much easier, but not totally mandatory, especially the lower, I've done 3 lowers without any special tools at all. You could probably get a TGOer to help you put barrel/gas tube in and likely not even need to buy a wrench either. Everything you need to know is well documented in tons of YouTube vids if you choose to tackle it all yourself.   One of the biggest hurdles with assembly is already done for you: drilling/pinning the gas block sight base, or at least I guess it is, since it shows already on the barrel, you'd want to confirm that. Lots of folks farm that job out anyway, if they don't have drill press and expertise to do it.   Only thing about Rguns is that they may seem to have a different definition of "in stock" than many other companies, and current chatter suggests you might not be getting that kit anytime soon, so you'd need to confirm that before committing the bucks (dunno if they charge you from the gitgo, or when it ships).   - OS

  Well, certainly neither suit was about carry, but only ownership, but I don't recall any written majority opinion saying they "couldn't" rule on that part of 2A also?   Indeed, what gets me about all this is that the majority opinions in Heller did indeed often mention affirmation of "keep and bear".   And in McDonald, only the specific restrictions of carrying arms in sensitive areas was mentioned as a restriction on the "bear" part.   But all in all, it's clear that "everybody" agrees that neither decision did rule de facto on right to "bear", so I reckon it's a bit moot.   However, see the case that DaveTN mentioned, seems that one may work its way up to SCOTUS regarding carry specifically.   - OS

  One historical fact regarding that:   No Republican US Senator has ever lost a reelection primary, and only one has ever lost reelection bid.   But to put that in perspective, we've only had 9 Republican Senators vs 38 Dem ones.     - OS

  1359 posting statute used to read differently, mentioned the verbal component as sufficient, ya might have been thinking of that, although still not intended to cover private residence.   - OS

  I seem to have grown one on each side of my back as I achieved geezerdom.

So nice he said it twice. :)

    Gents, the simple answer is because the Senate is Dem. No sense the House throwing it over there, they wouldn't try him if he shot somebody on live TV.   I'm pretty convinced the GOP has meticulous documentation for Articles of Impeachment, but they don't have a say in the jury selection.   - OS

  Yep, needs to drop 50 clams to get back in the ballpark.   - OS

Just as in Heller and McDonald, by not mentioning carry but only ownership, SCOTUS basically said by this latest inaction that carry is a states' right issue.   Somebody needs to challenge it in DC if you want to get them to rule on whether the federal government can ban carry. And then if they say the fed cannot, then another suit in a state to see if they will incorporate it as a right for everyone.   That's how the Heller to McDonald thing went.   Seems they'll almost certainly have to eventually rule on something from  CO or NY or CT restrictions, though, as that also involves ownership.   I hope the balance of the Court isn't lopsided left by the time they do, though.   - OS