|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
ATF position on equipment use threatens private gun-making
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "The effect of this ruling will be to close down operations in which persons who are legally entitled to manufacture their own firearms for personal use are permitted by a business to use its equipment, either with instruction or without. Provided such firearms are not intended to be sold or distributed, marking and record-keeping requirements do not apply. By changing the rules, ATF has closed down a means by which people who lack the equipment themselves to finish off a part will be able to exercise their right to build a firearm, a practice many rely on, particularly when completing so-called '80 percent' precursor receivers." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/6/2015)
|
| This puts a lot of machine shops in a legal liability position they might not even be aware of. All small businesses "swap favors" with their customers and shops in their area. Kinda hard not to offer your mill to someone you know; particularly if they've done some tricky work to help you out in the past. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
