JohnC

The only thing that will stop us in the end is these left-leaning political activist judges because clearly banning an entire class of popular firearms post 1986 while pre-86 is legal is unconstitutional. If we ever get the right judges up to SCOTUS to hear it and follow the constitution as original intended by our founders, we will have a restoration of the second amendment. There was not even a crisis or a need to ban them post-86. So there is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be banned. All the arguments they make are the same old tired leftist arguments they make with carry permits, constitutional carry, etc., as if you allow it, it'll be the wild west and bodies will litter the streets because we'll all be spraying each other dead.

I've heard a lot of BS from Walmart employees that wasn't true. I'd wait for an official statement from Walmart before I believed that. :up:

I've been doing that a lot lately. :lol:

Went to the bookstore to eye-ball some propaganda and came across this article on the AR-31 by Armalite; they show this little rifle got 0.30 inch 5 shot group at 100 yards. I find that quite impressive for a rifle I consider pretty cheap shooting factory loaded ammo. Thoughts? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow. That AR is grouping nicely! :up: Looks like your son did an excellent job! :)

Man, it's best to let stuff like that blow over. I always tell myself, as long as they don't lay their hands on me or threaten my life with a weapon, they can talk all the dirty trash they want.

That looks like a nice rig! :up: You buying it? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My dad told me carry his pistol was a PITA and he really only got his permit so if he got pulled over on the way to the range with guns, the cops wouldn't bother him. I was like huh? That looks rough. Guess the rain got to it on his in/out's of his vehicle?

My first gun was a small Marlin 22lr (kids size) Then for passing to the 5th grade, I got a Ruger 10/22 with folding stock and all. I still have that gun. I don't recall how old I was, but my Dad got me a Ruger 22 revolver of this type: http://ruger.com/products/newModelSingleSixConvertible/models.html I had TONS of fun wit that gun! Then, he got me one of these: http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIIStandard/models.html For some reason, I had more fun with the revolver. I think it was because I used to like dressing up like a cowboy. The other part is I liked the 22mag cylinder I could swap up to. :up: I begged my Dad to get me a lever action 30/30 when I was a kid, but it kicked too hard and I didn't like shooting it.

As close as I'll ever come to that is my FN Five-seveN. :up: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro v2.2

    From what I understand, they're updating the whole site. But if you see anything wrong, feel free to Email them to let them know. :up: 

Welcome! :up:

TFALAC GIVEAWAY Enter to Win a Colt LE6920MP-B from Tennessee Firearms Association Legislative Action Committee. Drawing will take place on April 19, 2015. April 19 is the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Winner will be notified via phone or email and announced on Facebook. http://tfalac.org/tfalac-giveaway-2/ :up:

LOL

This is how ####ty my wife's 2003 Toyota Tacoma is running. At this point, it wasn't vibrating. I'll have to make a new cellphone video of that next time it happens.... https://vimeo.com/121449375 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Took me like a half hour to find this video of the belt fed. :lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cadAIX2pANY

I'll have to come see that belt fed soon. Looks BA from the video you posted a while back! How long does a barrel last typically with that ROF? Using hammer forged MG barrels? Brand?

There are a lot of folks who bought these for investment. But overall, from what I've read from most current MG owners, the majority of them would love to have post-86 MG legal to buy again because they could own more/types MG's for less cost. :up: Then main cost would be feeding them now with current ammo prices. :lol:

Court filing argues post-1986 machine gun ban 'defies Constitution' Claiming the “ban on the quintessential militia arm of the modern day defies the protections our Constitution guarantees,” the legal team led by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh filed a sur-reply February 27 in the case of plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones. The additional reply was in response to “defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.” Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Holder and Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.” That Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the court's Fort Worth Division last month declared the interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional) used her discretion and permitted a sur-reply indicates an interest in the plaintiff’s arguments, and if the government can be responsive to them. That she then issued a March 3 order giving the defendants until March 11 to file a sur-sur reply could indicate she has concerns over the lack of substance on government filings submitted to date, and is not even sure if defendants will produce anything more than continued obfuscation and misdirection. Arguing against the preposterous claim that plaintiff Hollis lacked standing, the sur-reply went on to challenge contentions regarding levels of judicial scrutiny and the government’s interpretation of Heller case applicability, and to expose wholly unsubstantiated arguments for a ban based on non-existent crimes. Referring to the earlier case of United States v. Miller, the sur-reply explained that “Miller’s phrase 'part of ordinary military equipment' could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” Instead, plaintiff observed, Heller actually “expands upon Miller and found that weapons which have personal self-defense value are protected regardless of whether they have military value.” As for those weapons that do have such military utility, and refuting government claims to the contrary, that only three-round burst firearms are standard issue, plaintiff noted squad automatic weapons are “by definition bearable upon the person, fully automatic and designed to be operable by one person,” and “The U.S. military currently issues a number of fully automatic light machine guns to its ordinary soldiers.” “[T]he machinegun ban is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to Mr. Hollis,” the sur-reply concluded. How Holder and Jones will reply remains to be seen, but one reality cannot be ignored, at least with any pretense of logical consistency: As Hollis will not overturn current requirements for owning machine guns, but merely remove the ban on more recently-manufactured firearms, it seems inconceivable for the government to contend that it trusts citizens to own machine guns manufactured before May of 1986, but anything functionally-identical made after that is just too dangerous for “civilians” to possess. http://www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution If you want to help by donating to this legal fight, go here: http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk Discuss.... :up:

Someone posted this and it made me lol, so I had to share. :lol: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More press: Claiming the “ban on the quintessential militia arm of the modern day defies the protections our Constitution guarantees,” the legal team led by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh filed a sur-reply February 27 in the case of plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones. The additional reply was in response to “defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.” Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Holder and Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.” That Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the court's Fort Worth Division last month declared the interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional) used her discretion and permitted a sur-reply indicates an interest in the plaintiff’s arguments, and if the government can be responsive to them. That she then issued a March 3 order giving the defendants until March 11 to file a sur-sur reply could indicate she has concerns over the lack of substance on government filings submitted to date, and is not even sure if defendants will produce anything more than continued obfuscation and misdirection. Arguing against the preposterous claim that plaintiff Hollis lacked standing, the sur-reply went on to challenge contentions regarding levels of judicial scrutiny and the government’s interpretation of Heller case applicability, and to expose wholly unsubstantiated arguments for a ban based on non-existent crimes. Referring to the earlier case of United States v. Miller, the sur-reply explained that “Miller’s phrase 'part of ordinary military equipment' could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” Instead, plaintiff observed, Heller actually “expands upon Miller and found that weapons which have personal self-defense value are protected regardless of whether they have military value.” As for those weapons that do have such military utility, and refuting government claims to the contrary, that only three-round burst firearms are standard issue, plaintiff noted squad automatic weapons are “by definition bearable upon the person, fully automatic and designed to be operable by one person,” and “The U.S. military currently issues a number of fully automatic light machine guns to its ordinary soldiers.” “[T]he machinegun ban is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to Mr. Hollis,” the sur-reply concluded. How Holder and Jones will reply remains to be seen, but one reality cannot be ignored, at least with any pretense of logical consistency: As Hollis will not overturn current requirements for owning machine guns, but merely remove the ban on more recently-manufactured firearms, it seems inconceivable for the government to contend that it trusts citizens to own machine guns manufactured before May of 1986, but anything functionally-identical made after that is just too dangerous for “civilians” to possess. http://www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution

Not racist at all. Comedy is what it is... I admit I lol'd. I'll have to let the wife see this tomorrow. :up:

Interview: Meet the Man Suing Eric Holder and the ATF Before getting to the interview, we'd like to give you some background facts on what led to the lawsuits. First, it is legal in the United States for a private citizen to own machineguns. Some individual states prohibit the ownership but it is permissible on a Federal level per the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), so long as the Federal government approves the purchase (currently regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or BATFE, formerly “ATF”) and the citizen pays a $200 tax. Once the purchase is approved (a process that can take several months), the citizen receives a document called a tax stamp and can then go about their business with the firearm. Since this is approval for a purchase, not a permit for continued possession, there is no legal mechanism for the stamp to be “revoked” or for the approval to be reversed. Next, in 1986, the Firearm Owner Protection Act was passed but included a provision (called the Hughes Amendment) stating that “persons,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, could still own machineguns as before but only if they were manufactured prior to that date. This created a rapid and artificial inflation of machinegun prices, putting them out of the financial reach of most citizens. Finally, in 2014, the ATF was asked – via legal document – whether a firearm transferred to a trust required a NICS background check. In an effort to require background checks without involving Congress, the ATF declared that unincorporated trusts do not fit the legal definition of “persons” per GCA ‘68. Through this declaration, the ATF essentially stated that trusts, not being “persons,” were not bound by the Hughes Amendment. Based on this, several individuals applied for a tax stamp to manufacture new machineguns and were approved. Their checks were cashed, the stamps were issued and, in at least one case, such a gun was manufactured. Then... the ATF simply changed its mind. The recipients were told their stamps were “revoked.” Any machineguns manufactured were now possessed illegally and must be surrendered immediately. The recipients of the stamps received phone calls, letters and eventually personal visits to confiscate any modified firearms. The reason? “Because we said so.” Regulatory agencies such as the ATF (and the IRS and the EPA and the BLM and…) have the power to change the rules by which we live, without any approval or intervention by our elected officials. These agencies are simply empowered by Congress to “regulate” a particular activity or industry and are given near-free reign to do so at their own discretion, often ensnaring law-abiding citizens in a web of red tape. Running afoul of them has cost many citizens their time, money, and reputations; many have also lost their personal property (including homes and family-owned land), their freedom and, in some cases, their lives. But an interesting thing is happening to this particular agency, this particular time. It’s being held accountable for its overreach. Mississippi Attorney Stephen Stamboulieh has filed two lawsuits so far, naming Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones as defendants, and demanding simply that their agencies obey the laws they are charged with upholding – or that the prohibition on the manufacture of new machineguns be lifted entirely. Stephen took time out of his schedule to answer a few questions for us and we’re pleased to post his responses. DoLP: First off, Stephen, thanks for taking the time to chat with us. I suspect you’re a pretty busy man these days. SS: It’s been a pretty busy couple of months for sure. DoLP: You’re suing the Federal government. Why? And what can you tell us about the case? SS: As of now, we are suing in two federal districts. The Northern District of Texas, in Dallas, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. The why is fairly simple. Since May 19, 1986 Congress has banned the possession and transfer of an entire class of weapons, machineguns, that are protected by the second amendment. Machineguns are no less protected by the 2nd Amendment than any other firearm. With the ban as it exists now, if the machinegun was manufactured after May 19, 1986, an individual cannot own that weapon. But it goes beyond that. Since 1934, certain firearms (and non-firearms) are registered and taxed by the government. When you go to purchase a suppressor, which by itself is only defined as a “firearm” because our government says it is, you must pay a $200 tax, file paperwork with the government, and then wait 6 to 9 months for the BATFE to “approve” the paperwork and register that device in your name. The same thing occurs with a machinegun. But why, you probably want to ask, if the 2nd Amendment protects, as Justice Scalia said in Heller, “all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” how can the government mandate a tax on a right like this? Why not a tax to vote? Why not a tax to send an email? Why not a tax to go to church? Let me get back to your question. Here is what happened. My clients – Jay Hollis and Ryan Watson – each filed applications to manufacture a machinegun on a trust. A trust is not prohibited from possessing or transferring a machinegun per the statute. The BATFE granted my clients approval to manufacture. One of my clients did manufacture a machinegun. The BATFE then “revoked” or “disapproved” their approved applications and demanded that if they made a machinegun, that they immediately surrender it. But there is no authority for the BATFE to revoke a stamp in the fashion they did. Zip. Nada. None. So, we sued on a various number of grounds. DoLP: Is this a class action suit? How many folks are you representing or have been affected by this? SS: It’s not a class action, but I do currently represent two individuals and the trusts that filed for, and were approved, to manufacture a machinegun. DoLP: So these folks asked for permission to make something, they were told that permission was granted, they made this presumed-legal gun and then were told, “Oops, we changed our minds. Turn them over or we’ll arrest you,” simply… because? That’s terrifying. SS: One of them manufactured. One didn’t. But yes. Turn them in “or else.” DoLP: Keeping in mind that I am not a lawyer but have seen a few episodes of “Law & Order,” this sounds like entrapment to me. Have any of your clients been arrested or penalized? Have they complied with the surrender order? SS: No arrests. And yes, the machinegun was surrendered under protest. Penalized is an interesting word. What is the value on one of the ONLY post-May 19, 1986 civilian legal transferrables? I don’t know, but I bet it is a lot. So yeah, penalized as he essentially had his property taken from him. DoLP: Alright, I know I’m leading a little on this but it’s an important point to make. A lot of people reading this will see “gun,” think, “Well, I’m not a ‘gun guy.’,” and go click on something else. Why should they care about this? SS: Look, the Constitution says what it says. The Second Amendment protects our rights to “keep and bear arms.” If Congress can rewrite the Second Amendment through legislation - and I mean, the Second Amendment is as cut and dried as it gets - why not rewrite the Fourth Amendment? Why not require that every person register with the Government for an email address and you can only use that one? What about a government issued Twitter ID? Facebook account? Heck, why even have a Constitution in the first place? DoLP: Taking it a step further, someone skims the story and thinks, “Well, why do these people want to make machine guns, anyway? Are they terrorists or something? If he wins, are people going to be walking around with Uzis and AK47s? Buying them at Walmart or something?” There’s a connotation there. What’s your response to that line of thought? SS: I love those arguments. So, yeah, let’s go down that path. Why not allow them for sale at gun stores? I can buy a gun at a gun store, right? What’s the difference? The Government already regulates FFLs (federal firearm licensees) why not allow them to sell machineguns if they want to? And the emotional argument regarding terrorists is a strawman. DoLP: What do you hope to achieve with this if you win? What do you see as the downstream effect, not only for second amendment rights but for other personal freedoms? SS: I hope that our freedoms are restored. Nothing more, nothing less. DoLP: Are there more suits pending or can you talk about that? SS: Yes. DoLP: Ha. Okay, I’ll assume that brevity means, ‘We’re not talking about that further.’ Now, these are in different Federal districts. Was that dumb luck, strategic planning…? SS: The BATFE approved a bunch of these applications. I dance with the one that brought me. DoLP: Do you have other attorneys working with you? Anyone of note? SS: Yes. Hollis’ brother is an attorney. Watson is an attorney, and I associated one of his partners. DoLP: Do you have anyone not working with you that you were expecting to take up the cause? Any notable refuseniks? SS: No. I don’t expect anything from anyone. DoLP: What about detractors? You’ve gotten some pretty nasty comments and snarky accusations from members of the shooting community, of all places. What’s your response? SS: They are afraid of a bad ruling that ends up somehow restricting things further. But what better time than now? Our government already denies us our rights. Are they going to deny them more? Like, machineguns now are double extra illegal? My response is this: lead, follow or get out of the way. DoLP: Are there legitimate arguments against pursuing these cases? SS: The arguments against us are all based out of fear. I don’t buy into the fear. I believe we are on solid ground. The courts will decide, and the chips will fall where they may, but we are going to try. DoLP: Any concerns about retaliation from the U.S. government? That used to be a paranoid question but with Operation Chokepoint, Lois Lerner’s IRS targeting, Fast & Furious setting up legitimate gun sellers, domestic spying by the NSA…. It’s not so far-fetched anymore. SS: What difference, at this point, does it make? Seriously. If we won’t take our own government to Court… due to fear of them doing something? Are we all really that afraid? DoLP: How long do you anticipate that this will drag on and how expensive do you think this will get? SS: Time frame - I don’t know. A couple different things could happen to shorten or lengthen the process. As to expense, depending on the length, how many attorneys, and the appellate process, I could see it getting fairly expensive. Especially if we get to the Supreme Court. DoLP: Any chance this won’t go to the Supreme Court? SS: Sure. The Supreme Court takes cases it wants to. If they refuse to hear the case, then we don’t get there. DoLP: You mentioned what you hope to get out of a victory. What about ramifications of a loss? Again – for gun rights but also for civil liberties in general? SS: What if we do lose? Like I said earlier, are machineguns going to be extra illegal? DoLP: Okay, elevator pitch time. If you could sum up why someone – say, one of those “not-a-gun” people – should care about this action, keep an eye on your progress and most importantly donate, what would you say? SS: It’s about the government’s ability to legislate our rights away. Period. It’s about our rights. DoLP: Excellent. Stephen, thank you once again for your time and, very sincerely, thank you for standing up like this. Good luck with the cases. SS: Thank you. http://www.dolpress.com/news/2014/11/20/interview-meet-the-man-suing-eric-holder-and-the-atf

What Mpg's does it get? My Dad has a 2001 TDI and he drives like old man slooooooow. But he averages around 47 MPG's with 95% city driving with AC on and has got as high as 52 mpg's when he's kept up with it; all highway driving, no telling what it would get. I think I recall him saying he's got up around 700 miles on a tank and not sure if that is to E or whatever. He was talking about getting rid of it before he retires and I told him I'd buy it. But I'm trying to make him see, he'll pay more in car payments for a new car than diesel maintenance on the TDI. He just gets pissed when he goes to the VW dealer to do stuff and they always find enough work to jack him for about $1,100. Still, I tell him, $2k a year in maintenance is a drop in the bucket compared to new car payments and insurance.

Wife bought her 2003 Tacoma before we met. It's a base model 2.4L 4cyl with auto. It's got just 89,000 miles on it now and she's had all the service done at Toyota dealerships as the maintenance schedule shows. Well, it sucks as far as I'm concerned. Before she met me she said it ate a set of bakes and rotors, so it had to be replaced under warranty. The cabin heat/AC fan is going out. It's had a O2 sensor replaced by 80k miles. It runs and idles rough now. The vibration sound is loud at times. It literally vibrates the hood and does it worse the colder the weather is. It has zero power, but only averages 20-21mpg. My 1997 Mustang GT with an 2004 Explorer aluminum block 4.6L 2v PI engine swap with mods, tune, etc., averages 23mpg with a frickin' V8 and will do 28mpg interstate with AC blowing. Oh, and it has a 5 speed Tremec 3550 swap with 3:73 gear, so 1st gear feels like a F250. Still can't figure out why that little 4cyl 2.4L eats so much gas, yet can't get up the interstate on that hill on I24 just past the hickory hollow mall exit without gearing down to 3rd gear. :down: Then, the trans is total ####. Sometimes when I go to take off, it hesitates and I feel a thump and then it moves sluggishly. Sometimes it hesitates, thumps and moves OK. About 15% of the time, it actually takes off without the hesitation, thump and then sluggish go. Well, when it shifts at part throttle it shifts from 2nd to 3rd too quick as well. The drivers side seat belt won't roll up on its own. i have to screw with it to get it to work or else it gets shut in the door. The cab was designed for midgets. Wind noise in the cab around the drivers side door makes me question if the door is shut all the way every time I get going. The truck rides like a basket-ball. If you ride over bumps like where trucks have stopped at red-lights and the pavement is pushed up, the truck bounces all over the place and feels dangerously unstable. Rust... Every rock chip, ding or scratch immediately rusts. My Fords, I've had the paint scratched and chipped right off and it took YEARS for any rust to start. case in point, my 1997 GT (bought new in Oct 96), front right fender got bent around 97 or 98, cracked the paint down to the under coat, this past year it just started to turn chalky white and this year it just started to rust. Let me chip the paint off a Toyota and a week later there will be surface rust. We got rear-ended by a chick in a Lexus on a Cellphone. She probably hit us going 15mph or so, but that truck is so bare bones, it punted us and felt more like we got hit by someone in an F250 going a bit faster. I was actually dazed a bit and my neck got sore. I've been in wrecks before, but it felt a lot more harsh than it should have been. The impact moved us and the bumper got bent in and down some. I thought I would like the truck. But this one has disappointed me.