Lumber_Jack

Just a few days over 6 months. Finalizing host plans and picking up this week

I can’t speak to those suppressors specifically, but in general you’re going to love them. Shooting suppressed is so awesome it’s hard to explain in words. To me the only reason I don’t have one for every gun is simply a limitation of discretional funds to do so.

Anyone have a Sig P227 they’re willing to sell for a reasonable price? I had one and couldn’t afford to keep it and fund my new ventures so now kicking myself

This still available? If so shoot me a message

Willing to sell the gun without the optic?

Last fall me and 2 other guys cruised the 400 acres of timber below bee rock. View from the rock is pretty spectacular. The excessively steep slope below decidedly less spectacular. Bee Rock was privately owned for decades before it was gifted to the city of Monterey. Being so close to the interstate it’s certainly worth a stop. Especially on a non hazy clear sky day.

I’ll say this. The school deserves a lot of credit and recognition. One thing you don’t see in the MNPD video is panic teachers and children. They heard the alarm and acted according to a plan that had obviously been practiced. They protected those children as best they can. Unfortunately no plan is perfect or can work flawlessly and the evil got through to a few, but lives were saved by the forethought and planning of the administration and staff. I believe in learning everything we can from these events. 1) I hope more private schools will find ways to employee on-site security or SRO. 2)Any door that is locked for protection should also have some level of glass break prevention. It can’t be bullet proof but internal wire mesh would have prevented or significantly slowed the entry of the assailant. These are not criticisms of Covenant but they will be times brought up at my kids schools as items that need addressing

I have nothing but emphatic sympathy for your wife and her grief she is feeling now as someone who missed death by mere chance and at the death of colleagues and children at her school. With that said there was a breakdown in the security protocol on some level as an armed adult opened a door and was able to reach children without resistance. I know it’s too early to know exactly how entrance was allowed but I think all schools need to examine their most effective defense, and that’s a securely locked door or multiple doors between the outside world and the kids

Title says it all. Looking for an FNX 45 Tactical. With or without Reflex sight Need it to be priced less than new or I’ll just buy a new one

Yes we discussed this at the local silencer shop last week. The schedule sheet is just hand writing. How would they know or audit of the braced item was on the sheet prior to the publish date? I could say it was on there 5 years ago, or anytime after I bought the brace and the publish date. im not fooling with any of this bullish I’m just going to sbr it the old fashion way. I was planning to do that right when the whole brace things became popular and I just never submitted the form 1. Now I wished I had already done it.

You don’t need to submit anything to the ATF to add non-NFA regulated items to the trust. The trust is just a legal document. The only reason the ATF has any say at all is because you have transferred a regulated item into the trust and they are regulators if those items. As for any other item in the trust all you need is an amendment to the trust and add the item to the schedule sheet. And at the time of your demise all items in the trust will automatically transfer to the beneficiaries listed regardless of NFA status. The ATF can’t tell you that you are forbidden to add firearms to an NFA trust, they don’t have that authority

Yeah, I’d question this validity even in Washington state. A trust can hold anything from land to cars to jewelery whatever. An NFA trust is just a trust like any other it’s just geared towards satisfying the ATF requirements for qualified persons. So you control the schedule sheet, you can add anything you wish to the trust including non-NFA firearms. if I’m wrong I welcome correction

That’s a great question. There are on average 430 unintentional firearm deaths annually. How many are charged with similar offense? I can’t quickly find that answer, but I’d imagine it’s tied to the level of negligence associated with the offender. In this case I feel, if information presented is true, he had a significant level of negligence as his role as actor. Mainly dismissing safety briefings and training. But without that I think it reasonable that an actor who has been trained to think that a gun is clear when told so by the expert in charge of such matters isn’t negligently responsible for the gun being loaded. We all know gun safety and the rules associated but can we expect someone to know what they don’t know? Again it’s all moot if the actor dismissed safety training. The charging documents just said “as a produce and as an actor”. I’m simply questioning the bureaucracies and bureaucrats that we typically drag through the streets around here

I worked for the state of Tennessee for 7 years after working private industry for 12 prior. I’m the biggest opponent of “it’s been done this way for years”. My point was that I don’t think we can expect change without intentional implementation. We shouldn’t say you’re responsible for standards after action that we’ve not held you to prior to that action. I think there is culpability and extreme negligence here I’m just not sure it’s being applied in the manner I agree with. If we were to separate the parties and replace Baldwin the actor with Keanu Reeves the actor, who we know is proficient with firearms and done extensive training. If he is handed a “prop” gun (terrible terminology btw), declared clear, and the same result happens, is he being charged with manslaughter? My whole premise here is that I’m not sure he would be. Maybe I’m wrong and he would.

If all the reports are true that Baldwin disregarded safety and repeated requests for additional training then I agree that he has a significant level of culpability as a PRODUCER. As an ACTOR if he ignored or skipped the safety training and personal safety briefing then he should be held accountable on that level. I think several here don’t understand how the movie industry has worked for decades and to expect someone, again just on the actor side, to do something outside of what they’ve done historically is a bit of a reach. The scene was set for the actor to receive a weapon, point it at the camera and fire it. I agree that there should be multiple levels of redundancy in the safety process but the actor shouldn’t be the final step. The final redundant security check should happen at the prop level. The reason being is that the level of distraction and mental stress on performing a scene is significant and would lead to failures in the process simply due to mental distractions. I honestly don’t care about Baldwin one way or the other. I’m more concerned about culpability being placed at appropriate levels. If he was being charged with manslaughter as a producer and something less as an actor I probably wouldn’t have even opined at all. y’all can hit the dislike button all you want it’s just the internet. I’ve been here a long time and not too often I’m on the opposite side of the majority opinion. C’est la vie

It’s wayyy more nuanced than that, clearly, or we wouldn’t be here still talking about it.

I’ll take the snub S&W .38. Message coming

Ok I can see that justification but what about all the other producers between Baldwin and the armorer? As lead producer he is less “in charge” of operational procedures than a laundry list of others. As an actor we can agree to disagree on his responsibilities as an individual handling a firearm and I’ll acquiesce to the fact that we must hold actors accountable as we do someone in the general public. However, his role as an actor was to take a gun, handed to him by a hired arms specialist, point it at the camera and fire. So we are saying that he, as an actor, must take the firearm, remove all 6 individual bullets and check that they are blanks, then declare the weapon safe and proceed? I still believe the culpability falls on the person who knowingly brought or allowed live ammunition onto the filming site. If that’s Baldwin, fine charge him, but if not I feel it’s an overreach. I guess we’ll see when the full facts are disclosed and a jury of his peers decides the verdict.

Why is everyone here so “ok” with Baldwin being charged? Because of his politics? Or did I miss something? I still stand by the fact that these people are actors paid to act. To expect them to be proficient in gun safety is beyond the scope of their obligation. The armorer however was hired for that EXACT purpose and she failed on multiple levels leading to the death of a cinematographer. I guess I’m just on an island here by myself with those opinions

so I guess I’m just gonna sbr it the old fashion way and be done. It’ll probably take 6 years for all the paperwork to clear

Sorry for not reading this entire thread. But if I remove a brace and just go back to the old school AR pistol-style with a buffer tube, that’s considered compliance, yes?

My god. How of course this pops up and sells between times I logged in.

To me it still falls all the way back to the person who brought live ammo onto a movie set. The gun wouldn’t be “clear” in the traditional sense. It would have likely used blanks. So the ammunition would have to be pulled from the gun and inspected. I imagine that type of tedious policy gets overlooked on the regular

Yeah I can see his culpability on the producer side but the DA in the article specifically said he was be charged on two fronts as an “actor” and as a “producer”. It’s hard for me to see the actor side

Ok well that makes sense.