M*CARBO Brotherhood

Permission Granted, we are a go... repeat we are a go

@JoeFridaySays

Easy fix there, once the Form 1 is processed and the Tax Stamp is received, install a stock in place of the brace.
That and maybe stencil “SBR” on the lower receiver. :joy:

3 Likes

That is an astute observation Dred, Though from my perspective. My femininity cost me $200<400+ and months of pacing because when I go to the range I get unwanted attention.
I had considered that I could forgo all the tax stamps and pull my spaghetti strap top down low and bat my eyelashes and claim ignorance, I mean I am blonde. How ever it’s hard to believe when ya take a closer look and realize it was all guilt from an 80 lower and solvent trap kit. Hard to claim total ignorance when it looks like a great amount of intent and skill went into the build.

4 Likes

just got an Email saying they are out of stock on Adams Arms .300 blackout pistol length conversion kits and to expect a refund, think I’m gonna use the money making the GF happy, buy her some tritium sights or something.

Think this is a sign; or at least that’s all interpret as, it’s time that I don’t spend huge amounts of money on this build. Last night I thought, hey maybe I should get a Law Tactical folding stock and a quick takedown system to remove the barrel.

I believe it’s time for an intervention.

4 Likes

Well here it is August 2020 and ATF is again apparently crafting secret rules restricting the possession of certain pistol braces by American Citizens.

Congressman Matt Gaetz has announced and has sent them a letter demanding they stop. The letter addressed to Attorney General William Barr and ATF Acting Director Regina Lombardo, was co signed by Republican Reps. Neal P. Dunn, Bill Posey, W. Gregory Steube, John Rutherford, Ted S. Yoho and Daniel Webster.

This and a lot more information is all covered in a well wrirrem article by David Codrea in this months (August 2020) Firearms News magazine pages 84 and 85.

At this time no response has been received.

We all should stayed alerted to this subject. First bump stocks then red flag now more to come.

I have no affiliations with the magazine but I will tell you it stays on top of firearm news and other useful information about firearms.

Larry

5 Likes

@LarrySr

Interested to hear what braces they are going after as you used the word “certain”?

2 Likes

I’ll be honest I couldn’t care about bump stocks at all because they are wildly unpredictable in their performance people like a bum socks just should’ve bought a binary trigger or drop the coin and get a select fire lower. No I’ve actually removed my pistol brace and changed it out with a skeletonized mortar plate from Double Star Tactical returning my brace back to its original host, Micro Ronin stabilizer.

If I were to make a guest I think the next thing that’s probably gonna be on the chopping block it’s going to be 80% firearms and binary trigger’s and pistol stabilizers, I also foresee some sort of ban on AR’s, we might wind up like the UK with a pull bolt Variant only.

1 Like

Dave

The article used that word.
It is a long article and did say the letter contained this:

" We understand that ATF is currently considering restricting one arm brace model owned by 700,000 Americans [and] strongly urge ATF to cease taking actions and reconsider or rescind any secret determinations which call into question the legality of firearms owned by millions of law -abiding"Americans"

Larry

4 Likes

Pic girl
That’s great.
If we continue to let them nit pick us to death we will end up like the uk.
Good luck with that.

Larry.
PS I think bump stocks are stupid but some firearms owners don’t.

3 Likes

Only if we let them.

2 Likes

There is no such thing as an 80% firearm, it’s a piece of metal until such time as it made into a firearm.
Pistol stabilizers fall under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Going to be tough to do much about them without stepping on that law.

2 Likes

Congress just passed red flag laws for ex-military hidden in the spending bill – with R support. Trump threatened to veto it but they came back with a veto-proof majority.

Those vermin politicians haven’t been tarred and feathered in a LONG time and it shows. About the only way to get rid of them is primary them out, and it’s way too late in THIS election cycle to do that. Who knows what other perfidies they commit before the next election… unless voter fraud gets the D’s majorities in both Houses and possibly the presidency. At that point, there won’t BE another election.

Never forget your vote is critical, from local dogcatcher, the school board (especially important), all the way up to President.

9 Likes
    A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle,

a ladder with bananas on the top.
Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water.
After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder, the others beat up the one on the ladder.
After some time, no monkey dare[d] to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation.

    Scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. 

The 1st thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder.
Immediately the other monkeys beat him up.
After several beatings, the new member learned not to climb the ladder even though he never knew why.
A 2nd monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The 1st monkey participated on the beating for the 2nd monkey. A 3rd monkey was changed and the same was repeated (beating). The 4th was substituted and the beating was repeated and finally the 5th monkey was replaced.
What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never received a cold shower, continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.
If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder … I bet you the answer would be … “I don’t know — that’s how things are done around here” Does it sound familiar? (Congress?)
It’s time to vote all of Congress out and start over.

5 Likes

Have you looked at any of the red flag laws involving military do you understand what it’s about it’s about military husbands who beat their wives and then when they get out of the military their record is behind them they can go out and buy guns all the things that would usually prevent somebody from getting firearms is sealed in the military records. Then who beat their wives are capable of far worse crimes and I don’t feel bad when those guys can’t go out and buy a firearm or have any of the rights they used to have they made a choice and what we’re seeing now is an accounting system she’s with these guys leave the base is leave behind all records or their misbehavior.

1 Like

NO I DON’T… You can shove your Revenge Laws. Or better yet tell it to the New BLM WarLord after the Nanny women turn the country over to them…

Red flag laws are supposedly implemented to take guns away from mentally disturbed gun owners, but they are based in fallacy and represent real losses of rights.

Proposals for the enactment of “red flag” laws, or “extreme risk protection orders,” as some call them, are at the top of the current list of demands by “progressives.” But two glaring fallacies underlie those proposals. One is that firearms are inherently evil, as are their owners, and catalysts for violence; while the other is the claim that such laws will not be misadministered and lead to endangering other rights.

Proposed red flag laws would allow police to violate both one’s Second Amendment rights and the rights of due process by confiscating one’s firearms based on a claim that the gun owner is unbalanced or prone to violence. The working details vary among the various state and federal versions, but their results are the same. One’s constitutional rights may be clipped on the mere fantasy allegation of anyone from an angry wife to a snooping do-gooder, thereby initiating a sequence of events that could lead, and already has led, to the deaths of police officers and gun owners.

The danger becomes all the more likely when a medical professional such as a psychiatrist claims a gun owner has gone off the rails. But is a psychiatrist’s claim truly an indication of real danger? Most people would likely believe it is. But tests of that belief conducted by Stanford University professor of psychiatry David Rosenhan and others in a landmark 1973 study indicate such an opinion is far from a slam-dunk fact. Rosenhan had sane people fake hallucinations in order to test the widely held belief that psychiatrists could reliably tell a truly mentally ill person from one who is not. The results showed “psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.”

Though Rosenhan received much pushback from the psychiatric community, the essence of his conclusion was found as far back as 1887 by investigative journalist Nellie Bly. She successfully faked symptoms of mental illness to gain access to a lunatic asylum in order to expose its inhumane conditions. At the very least, Bly’s fakery and Rosenhan’s study bring into question the legitimacy of the psychiatric opinion, an opinion to which all red flag laws I’ve seen give added weight regarding who is sane and who is dangerous. Is that warranted?

It has been my observation that psychiatrists are far from objective about gun owners. For instance, almost all mental health professionals at Johns Hopkins, where my mother was a professor of epidemiology and public health, openly viewed gun ownership as a dangerous compensation for things like low self-esteem or sexual inadequacy. That bias, I noticed, often masked an elitist desire to restructure and control society to their liking and was expressed as objective fact in the famous 1960s study chaired by former Hopkins president Milton Eisenhower.

His National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence study recommended that private handgun ownership be banned. But the bias behind that and other recommendations was stripped away in a later study by the Carter administration that was intended to confirm the Hopkins findings and provide a launch pad for draconian gun laws. It didn’t. Carter researchers found the Hopkins study was “results oriented” and intentionally constructed to come to the conclusions it did. The surprise Carter conclusion, which was shoved under the proverbial publicity rug, stated: “It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because firearms are readily at hand and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view.” The lead researcher then delivered what remains the coup de grâce most have never heard: “A compelling case for gun control cannot be made.”

That should have pushed the red flag law idea over the precipice, but it didn’t. Gun-control activists keep making up “truths” that reflect their own irrational biases, without any regard to the likelihood that their new laws would bring about a legal and constitutional slippery slope and a descent into a police state of informers and arbitrary arrests.

Red flag law proponents dismiss that scenario and buttress their dismissal with the opinions of academics such as Diablo Canyon College philosophy professor Jacob E. Van Vleet. He and other elites generally maintain that the slippery slope concerns are fallacies “precisely because we can never know if a whole series of events and/or a certain result is determined to follow one event or action in particular. Usually, but not always, the slippery slope argument is used as a fear tactic.” Maybe so, but that’s a rhetorical cop-out, for there is an overriding reality about the type of constitutional-rights-busting power implicit in red flag laws that was stated by English Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

That does not mean America would necessarily slide into an East German-style Stasi police state overnight. It might take a while. “There is no ‘slippery slope’ toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must be first tolerated by the American people and their leaders,” former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming has said. But “once the down staircase is set in place, the temptation to take each next step will be irresistible,’ noted former New York Times columnist William Safire. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood:

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

And victims we will be.

The urge to destroy our Second Amendment will require that other rights against abusive government, such as search-and-seizure protections, will have to be weakened as well. As the Sir Thomas More character in the movie A Man For All Seasons asked a zealot who wanted to knock down all the laws of England to find the devil, “Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then — the laws all being flat?”

Wake up and smell the sulfur.

Photo credit: AP Images

Dan Gifford is a national Emmy-winning, Oscar-nominated film producer and former reporter for CNN, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, and ABC News. His films include the 1997 documentary Waco: Rules of Engagement.

This article originally appeared in the February 17, 2020 issue of The New American.

7 Likes

I’m against any red flag laws because it removes a Constitutional right without due process - they come and take your guns on the mere accusation of an unknown person. It could be your ex- or just a neighbor who doesn’t like you, and you must prove your innocence, you’re not innocent until proven guilty. How do you prove a negative?

Neither you nor I know whether the person getting their guns taken is guilty until they’re tried and convicted, but they’re not even charged with a crime so how can they be tried and how do they exhonerate themselves? If someone accused YOU of doing something, wouldn’t you want the chance to defend yourself BEFORE you’re punished? Red flag laws let ANYONE accuse someone ANONYMOUSLY, and bingo, their guns are taken from them. This violates the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and maybe the 6th Amendments and is NOT right.

If someone beats their spouse, they are lower than dog shxt but the correct procedure is to change the military code to allow their records to be unsealed, NOT to violate the rights of everyone else. Red flag laws are a clear violation of rights and the politicians who enact them are unfit for the office because they clearly are violating their oaths.

9 Likes

I think you really should look into the things that of happened to military wives and girlfriends and how their exes have no criminal record and they leave the military the military becomes like Vegas what happens there stays there do you guys know it Hass to be some for the consequences of those actions.

Yeah so, lets just pass an unconstitutional law so they do some anon revenge and punish every one…Brilliant!
TOTAL SJW TACTICS.

What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” Do you fail to grasp?

Actually what we NEED; is a Red Flag Law that removes Voting Rights for those who support Unconstitutional proposals.

7 Likes

So you’re saying EVERY guy who gets out of the military beats his wife? Every single one of them? Are there ANY ex-military who haven’t beaten their wives or husbands (yes, it DOES happen, and more often than you’d probably believe)? That’s what you seem to be accusing. If so, you’re smearing shxt on a lot of fine people. Fix the military code instead of breaking the civilian code.

I’m all for arresting, charging, prosecuting, and - for those found guilty at a trial - punishing any vile POS who beats his/her spouse. Those are the steps - 1) Arrest, 2) Charge with a crime, 3) Prosecute, 4) Determine guilt, 5) Punish if and ONLY if found guilty.

Red flag laws bypass steps 1 through 4 and go directly to the punishing step. How do you know someone is guilty of beating their spouse? How do you KNOW? I’m sure it happens but you’re painting with a mile-wide brush, and if you’d do that, others would too. How many INNOCENT people do you think it’s okay to hang to get the one guilty one?

Red flag laws are so open to abuse it’s frightening. ANYONE can accuse you with no evidence whatsoever and storm troopers bust down your door at 4am and take all your guns. You aren’t even arrested or charged, and YOU have to prove you’re not a danger, the accuser doesn’t have to prove jack shite. You may never even know who accused you.

You’ll spend thousands on attorneys to MAYBE get your legal property back. MAYBE. Meanwhile, your name and address are in the paper so your reputation is ruined, and every criminal who can read now knows you and your family are defenseless because you’re now a prohibited possessor, your guns were taken from you, and you aren’t allowed to get more. And you didn’t do one damned thing wrong.

There are people vile enough to “swat” some random guy they don’t even know, just for the ‘fun’ of watching a SWAT team attack his house and hopefully kill him. Other people REALLY want gun control but know they can’t get it through legislation so they have to go in by the back door, and red flag laws are perfect for their goals. Do you think that kind of vermin won’t misuse those laws?

Red flag laws bypass your God-given rights and the Stasi, KGB, and Gestapo nod in approval.

7 Likes

While your focused just on the military the rest of the world will abuse Red Flag laws to fit their anti-gun agenda/ get even against somebody be it neighbor/ fellow worker/ former spouse or student against a teacher. It appears that you are on a specific agenda with a purpose in mind !

6 Likes

Not to detract from the discussion, but it seems this has drawn a lot of attention. Military prosecution, and Redflag laws, probably belong in their own topic, instead of Elles build thread.

4 Likes