Results 11 to 20 of 29
-
June 4th, 2019, 01:11 PM #11
-
June 4th, 2019, 01:38 PM #12
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
Anyone know if it has been definitively proven that the VA shooter had a firearm with a suppressor on it. Or was it a MAC (WAG because of the reports of the "extended" magazines) with the fake suppressor/barrel extension? As far as that goes, has it ever been said yet what the .45's were? Since it doesn't fit the liberals/lame street media agenda (white guy with an AR style firearm) will we ever know for sure?
Ron USAF Ret E-8 FFL01/SOT3 NRA Benefactor Member
-
June 4th, 2019, 03:07 PM #13
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
"An official with the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives says investigators have identified two .45 caliber pistols used in the shooting at a Virginia Beach municipal building that killed 12.
Speaking at a news conference Saturday afternoon, ATF regional special agent Ashan Benedict says all indications are that the guns were bought legally. He says one gun was bought in 2016 and the other was bought last year."
That is the only thing I can find on the topic, you would think if there WAS a suppressor, the ATF would be harping about how illegal it was for peasants to have without permission from the overlords.Una Salus Victis Nullam Sperare Salutem
-
June 4th, 2019, 03:50 PM #14
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
At least one place I found that says it was a silencer but considering the source I have doubts. Nowhere have I found a description of the pistols.
https://www.pennlive.com/nation-worl...re-deaths.html"Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things."- Marvin Heemeyer
-
June 4th, 2019, 04:47 PM #15
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
The fact that police arrived on the scene and followed the sounds of the gunshots to his location, is puzzling; he had 2 pistols, 1 silencer (they say), so it's certainly possible that the cops followed the sound of the OTHER gun. Or maybe he just had a barrel extension.
Face it, the media (and many cops) can't tell an Uzi from a TEC-9, or a shotgun from a rifle. Most things that attach to gun muzzles are not silencers (or even suppressors). You can buy lots of muzzle brakes on eBay.Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.
-
June 4th, 2019, 04:50 PM #16
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
Rules are written in the stone,
Break the rules and you get no bones,
all you get is ridicule, laughter,
and a trip to the house of pain.
-
June 4th, 2019, 04:50 PM #17
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
Same thing here, just no info coming out about the guns. Again, probably because they don't fit the lefts/media agenda. I'm thinking MAC10's in .45 with the barrel extension. If it would have been suppressed, how could the police have be led to the gunman by the gunfire. A suppressed .45, using normal rounds (which are subsonic) would not have been heard good enough by the responders to be led to the shooter. And the responders would have though that it was suppressed just because of the size and shape of the barrel extension. But did they actually determine that it was a suppressor? I believe not because that would have sent the left/media over the edge.
Ron USAF Ret E-8 FFL01/SOT3 NRA Benefactor Member
-
June 4th, 2019, 06:01 PM #18Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
-
Richboro,
Pennsylvania
(Bucks County) - Posts
- 3,058
- Rep Power
- 21474851
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
Why do we even have to discuss this now? We all knew with Obama gone and Trump as President (with Republicans controlling both the house and senate) suppressors would be taken of the NFA list. It was guaranteed.
-
June 4th, 2019, 06:32 PM #19
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
Nobody here said it was guaranteed.
The Republicans never controlled both houses, they only controlled what got voted on. The Dems always had enough votes to prevent the Senate from passing a bill.
The Dems now have the power to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. That doesn't mean they have the power to impeach, just the power to get it started. The Senate can pretty much ignore them.
Honestly, it would be nice to buy silencers at Walmart, but removing them from the NFA isn't at the top of my personal priority list. Re-funding ATF to restore federal gun rights is in the top 10, because literally millions of citizens have no way to get their rights back despite there being no reasonable basis for denying them today. Eliminating the Hughes Amendment is top 10 material, and every MG owner I know is in favor of that, despite the mouth-breathers claiming that "greedy investors" oppose it. Getting rid of the stupid import restrictions is up there, there's no rational basis for outlawing imports of items that can be manufactured here legally.
But silencers are still cheap, more can be made, the $200 tax is no longer the several-months-salary it was in 1934, and the delay is annoying but manageable for adults. if we have enough political capital to get some gun restrictions removed, silencers aren't first on the list.
I doubt that Trump has spent 5 minutes thinking about silencers in his life; he knows what he knows from watching movies, just like most of Washington. He needs to be educated, silencers for firearms are like mufflers for cars.Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.
-
June 10th, 2019, 11:29 AM #20
Re: SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.
Denied cert.
Life has a melody. Not great, not terrible.
Similar Threads
-
Carry in Kansas Now?
By Spartos in forum GeneralReplies: 2Last Post: July 3rd, 2009, 02:49 PM -
KANSAS GUN CONFISCATION!!!
By FromMyColdDeadHands in forum GeneralReplies: 13Last Post: April 17th, 2008, 01:01 PM -
Welcome to Kansas!
By Skullz in forum GeneralReplies: 4Last Post: February 1st, 2008, 08:23 AM
Bookmarks