Boycott Eagle arms and FOAC

[SigForLife]

I'm not going to engage is hypotheticals. He simply doesn't have the authority. Neither does "someone."

Neither did the PSP to regulate what they called "partially manufactured frames and receivers" (PMFRs), but they did, with the support, blessing and direction of AG Shapiro and Governor Wolf. And it wasn't until we sued and got an injunction against it that the practice ceased. https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/01/3...-and-receivers. While the Commonwealth Court did act swiftly (for it), it still took several months, during which residents of PA, including FFLs, were forced to comply. There a just result (after substantial cost) was achieved. But we can go down the rabbit hole of Governor Wolf's lack-of-power/authority in relation to COVID, but that hasn't stopped him and the PA Supreme Court has even blessed it. So, before anyone says someone in Government doesn't have the power, remember that we're the mere peasants and they're the ruling elite. They'll do whatever they want and force us to incur the cost to challenge them and their unlimited resources. And when they lose, there's no penalty and all the costs are born by us, the mere peasants.

[Justin///M]

Neither did the PSP to regulate what they called "partially manufactured frames and receivers" (PMFRs), but they did, with the support, blessing and direction of AG Shapiro and Governor Wolf. And it wasn't until we sued and got an injunction against it that the practice ceased. https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/01/3...-and-receivers. While the Commonwealth Court did act swiftly (for it), it still took several months, during which residents of PA, including FFLs, were forced to comply. There a just result (after substantial cost) was achieved. But we can go down the rabbit hole of Governor Wolf's lack-of-power/authority in relation to COVID, but that hasn't stopped him and the PA Supreme Court has even blessed it. So, before anyone says someone in Government doesn't have the power, remember that we're the mere peasants and they're the ruling elite. They'll do whatever they want and force us to incur the cost to challenge them and their unlimited resources. And when they lose, there's no penalty and all the costs are born by us, the mere peasants.

Well said and I agree, but I find those examples 180 degree out of unilaterally banning legal commerce. Be that as it may, it's beyond the point of this thread, unless the "he might ban gun shows" is why we're now capitulating on things that aren't firearms. Which makes it worse.

[Marines55]

Well said and I agree, but I find those examples 180 degree out of unilaterally banning legal commerce. Be that as it may, it's beyond the point of this thread, unless the "he might ban gun shows" is why we're now capitulating on things that aren't firearms. Which makes it worse.

thanks for helping clear that up SigForLife. the problem here is that we have a bunch of chest thumpers saying "he has no authority", "he can't do that", "he cant ban legal commerce". When in reality he surely can. it may not stick, but it would fall unto us to take up legal counsel and pay to fight it in court. it can drag on for months or years as the state doesn't care how long it takes or how much it costs. the state could and has been linking illegal firearms (those that were made and sold without serial numbers or those possessed or manufactured by prohibited buyers) throughout Philly and im sure it doesn't stop there. we won't know how many they have found or how many they have traced because they won't release any of that information since im sure most all of it is being used in "active investigations". the only one who has all of the information is the one(s) that have made the decision based of of years of surveillance and evidence that has made them come to such a decision. by all means, boycott if you want. but the fact of the matter is that an 80% item is not considered a firearm and the real ground work has already been laid by states that have already banned them entirely.

[Justin///M]

thanks for helping clear that up SigForLife. the problem here is that we have a bunch of chest thumpers saying "he has no authority", "he can't do that", "he cant ban legal commerce". When in reality he surely can. it may not stick, but it would fall unto us to take up legal counsel and pay to fight it in court. it can drag on for months or years as the state doesn't care how long it takes or how much it costs. the state could and has been linking illegal firearms (those that were made and sold without serial numbers or those possessed or manufactured by prohibited buyers) throughout Philly and im sure it doesn't stop there. we won't know how many they have found or how many they have traced because they won't release any of that information since im sure most all of it is being used in "active investigations". the only one who has all of the information is the one(s) that have made the decision based of of years of surveillance and evidence that has made them come to such a decision. by all means, boycott if you want. but the fact of the matter is that an 80% item is not considered a firearm and the real ground work has already been laid by states that have already banned them entirely.

I can't get past the first sentence since you can't make a point without personal attacks. That might say something about your points. Good bye.

[Justin///M]

Eagle Arms welcomes back JSD Supply. I guess all this talk of banning gun shows because of non-firearms was for nothing.

[libertyof76]

The proper public statement to begin with would have been:

Eagle Arms is a private organization. As such it has the right to make decisions that are against the principle of the 2nd Amendment as that applies only to governmental entities. We find their actions will, in the long run, also subvert the 2nd Amendment due to the implied message that banning parts of a gun is acceptable to those who support the 2nd Amendment. While they have such a right, we find it wholly unacceptable on principle.


That would have put the ball in the court of Eagle Arms, instead of the need for a statement that is contradictory of the actions FOAC took.

This is not a time to be giving ground, either to the government on actual 2A issues, nor to countenancing public organizations, who supposedly support the principles of the 2A, taking actions that actually undermine those very principles.

CRIME is not a GUN ISSUE - It is a PEOPLE ISSUE!

As always - give an INCH, LOSE A MILE!
Division in the ranks comes from those who WILLINGLY give an inch.

...

BINGO. That's all the had to say! Instead they took the side of an extreme Anti-Gunner in Shapiro!

[Marines55]

I can't get past the first sentence since you can't make a point without personal attacks. That might say something about your points. Good bye.

sorry you cant comprehend he points I make. sorry you take offense to things I typed. sorry to have ruined your day. pretty sure it won't bother me much at all, but it sure seems to have wrecked your day. good bye fragile one

[HKusp 45]

I think the real lesson here is ..... hold criminals properly accountable and as long as there is hard evidence of crimes that involve selling illegally or buying illegally or murdering with said firearm remove them long enough for them to never want to chance it again. Unfortunately that doesn't help politicians keep everyone fighting each other, so instead we let criminals out with little to no real punishment anymore and show "compassion" for repeat offenders. Make the punishment fit the crime and I bet that the problem will start to correct itself.

[Yoder]

Sometimes it's not a conspiracy. It could be the guy running the gun show is worried about murderers and gang bangers buying 80% lowers and killing a bunch kids. Maybe he doesn't want that on his conscience. I don't agree, but I understand. It doesn't necessarily mean he wants to take away your rights.

[Justin///M]

Sometimes it's not a conspiracy. It could be the guy running the gun show is worried about murderers and gang bangers buying 80% lowers and killing a bunch kids. Maybe he doesn't want that on his conscience. I don't agree, but I understand. It doesn't necessarily mean he wants to take away your rights.

But that goes back to the property rights issue which I haven't seen anyone here argue against. Everyone agrees they can make the decision to sell what they please on their property. It's the way in which is was done in a sinister and underhanded way with the AG. If they were worried, then why are they permitting them to be sold again?