Welcome to ATF's latest cluster-coital experience. Here is the statement on ARF-com:
I will have comments after the Q&A section below.
To all retail customers:
On January 2010 American Tactical Imports Inc received official notification from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives that the original barrel shroud (aka: fake suppressor) supplied with your GSG 5 SD model must be replaced. It has been determined that this shroud is regulated under the National Firearms Act. American Tactical will provide a replacement shroud at no charge for each GSG 5 SD model sold or currently in inventory.
Consumers in possession of a GSG 5 SD model with the original shroud in place on the firearm are now in violation of the NFA. To avoid continued violation of the NFA, ATI asks that all persons in possession obtain a replacement shroud as soon as possible. We anticipate arrival of the new shrouds to begin by the middle of February 2010.
IMPORTANT: THE ORIGINAL SD MODEL SHROUD MUST BE RETURNED ACOMPANIED BY THE FIREARM SERIAL NUMBER BEFORE A REPLACEMENT SHROUD IS ISSUED. THE DIAMETER OF THE SD SHROUD IS 1-9/16”. DO NOT RETURN THE SMALLER CARBINE SHROUD.
WHAT TO DO:
If possible return your old shroud to the dealer where purchased and show him this notice. The shroud will be returned to ATI along with a list of serial numbers from the guns that the shrouds were removed. ATI will send replacements to the dealer for pick up at your convenience; ATI will be sending replacements as fast as logistics allow. If your dealer is out of business or difficult to reach, or you purchased your gun used, from a consumer, return the shroud directly by US mail or UPS to American Tactical Imports Inc. 100 Airpark Drive Rochester, NY 14624.
PLEASE TRY NOT TO CALL US. We will provide comprehensive information on our web site www.americantactical.us , and www.ar15.com or by e-mail to email@example.com
REMEMBER, INCLUDE THE FIREARM SERIAL NUMBER WITH EACH SHROUD OR A REPLACEMENT WILL NOT BE ISSUED.
This action IS NOT being instituted through any fault and is strictly due to NFA compliance. American Tactical will assume the responsibility to satisfy the requirements in an effort to minimize the impact on our customers and protect your investment.
We at American Tactical Imports Inc. sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this unfortunate situation.
President C.E.O. retailcandoc.021210
This is what I found most interesting from the Q&A below:
We at ATI only have an official ruling on the can its self as being now classified as a real silencer. ATF has not issued any official documents regarding this publicly or to ATI, other than having their lawyers approve the statement that starts this thread for consumers. (Emphasis supplied, MBV) I wish I had a 'here's the official word!' doc from ATF to give you, but it appears at this time I will not be getting one, or be allowed to show you what I already have.
So, the Chief Counsel's Office is up to their old CYA secretive tricks again.
Here is the Q&A following the statement on the same ARF-com thread:
How much more is the replacement going to weigh? Is the finish any better on the new one. Mine chips the paint if you look at it wrong. Will it look the same when installed on the rifle?
The original SD fake suppressor weight .45 LBS (7.2 ounces). The new fake suppressor weight .5 LBS (8 ounces) so there's not really too much difference in the overall weight. Looking at the new one next to the old one, the finish looks the same. The modification is completely internal, there is no change in the guns appearence with the new fake suppressor.
OK, since this applies ONLY to the GSG5/SD does this mean that the standard GSG5-carbine is in the clear???? Or is the fate of the GSG5-carbine "yet to be determined"??????????
As it stands right now it is only the SD can that is being effected by the mind changing at ATF.
Another damn delay on getting an SD conversion kit!
Tell me about it
And I am to be responsible to ship it back? I would like you to pick it up
At this time, we would like you to return it to the dealer where you bought it from. That way we can get them in bulk from the dealer and ship replacements to one location. How it gets to your dealer is up to you.
interesting, brings up a couple of questions, wasnt it passed before importation? and what reason do they give?
Yes it was. I even have a letter I'm not allowed to share where they revoked our permits for being approved in error. The brunt of this entire situation is on ATI here, please don't look for an official letter to be issued to the public by the ATF because I get the feeling they will not.
just curious, what will the replacement shroud look like? will it be the smaller version, or something completely different?
Nope, dead ringers. In fact, the modification can be done at the factory on the original version, which is why we're not destroying them. Cost saving.
Is there an issue with the carbine models?
Not yet. Doesn't mean that they won't change their ruling on that either at this time though.
isnt the carbine and the SD the same thing besides "girth"? i cant see why they would have changed the design without letting ATI know about it.....even thought they already changed the finish
This is the real kick in the groin here is that there has never been an alternate 'version' of the fake suppressor. The carbine version was a hollow shroud when it went in for testing, all the guns have hollow cans. Same for the SD. I think what's bothering me the most is that field agents have told dealers (I have several different accounts of this) that the can was originally solid and that it was altered at some point in time. Sorry fellas but EVERY SINGLE GSG-5 AND GSG-5SD HAS A HOLLOW CAN. It's the only way they were ever made. Also to pre-empt some questions too, THERE ARE NO APPROVED CANS ON ANY SD THAT IS IN THE COUNTRY. All the new GSG-522 guns, when they come out will have the new style can.
Does the fake can actually reduce the dB ?
Mikey threaded one onto the 5P and shot a bunch of rounds. Nope, there is no noticable change in dB. I don't think ATF even tested it before revoking our licenses.
I know that "we must comply or else" but seriously, what is the reason behind this? Is it based on potential? Should we stop selling 2 liter colas and baby bottle nipples?
When we met with the ATF about this in january one of their field agents showed us how to make a suppressor out of a bottle of water that was on the table. Granted, we have seen fake cans come in on gun repairs that have definitely been altered and maybe they seized a gun with an altered one, i really don't know. They contacted us about it way back in November and it's all been slowly building up, but other than letting us know that we imported over 13 thousand guns that they have now decided are NFA firearms, telling us to formulate a plan for a recall/swap out and sending agents here to monitor our movements on this, they're not really telling us a whole lot.
Isn't the end of the barrel even with the muzzle end of the "can"?
Yes, doesn't matter apparently.
What reason did they give for the can falling under NFA?
Actually, I do have this, kind of, although the wording of the law and their reasons only kind of match up if you squint and tilt your head to the side a bit. Here is what the referenced in their letter regarding the re-testing of the shroud;
"As you are aware, the GCA, 18 USC $ 921 (a) (24), defines 'firearm silencer' as follows:
"....any device for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication."
General characteristics of known firearm silencers include:
1 Ported inner tube (bleed holes)
2 Expansion chambers
3 Baffles or washers which create seperate expansion chambers
4 sound dampening material such as foam, steel wool and other materials
5 End Caps
The previously submitted GSG-5SD barrel shroud incorporates a large expansion chamber and integral end caps and, therefore, was classified as a firearm silencer."
That's what they said.
so to me at least, the jury is still out on the issue of whether or not the standard carbine is effected by this as ATI has yet to state that it absolutely is not.
This is accurate. Right now we have to wait to see what ATF tells us to do.
what a bunch of shi+. Doesn't the ATF have anything better to do than come after firearms owners who own guns that THE ATF APPROVED IN THE FIRST PLACE??
Right on brother.
and HOW long am i gonna be without a can? well, i guess we have to ask when the replacement will be available first.....
Well, that is hard to say. My first shipment of replacment cans is going into US Customs tomorrow. Got about 1500. The manufacturer over seas can pump out a few thousand a month and of course they all have to be paid for. As previously mentioned, unfortunately, all the fine details are not 100% solidified on how we're doing all of this and what the ATF tells us we can and cannot do. Case in point, the ATF is issuing an amnesty period for consumers but hasn't decided what that is yet, but we had to go live with the news because of what their field agents are telling store owners. Decisions are coming from the higher up ATF brass but on site execution is being handled by field agents from Buffalo on the local level. Needless to say, lets hope one hand knows what the other is doing.
OK, so this doesn't make a lot of sense. If we remove the NFA regulated device and ship it, aren't we in further violation? If this device has suddenly become an NFA regulated item, isn't it more adviseable to destroy the device vs. shipping it? If I ship an "illegal" device via the USPS, haven't I just committed a whole entire series of additional felonies? Where is the actual ATF ruling?Do we have any kind of drop-dead date for compliance? I can't just take a silencer and ship it anywhere I'd like, if this device is now considered by legal definition a silencer––what your asking us to do is illegal. We need a whole lot more information on this issue.
I should think you would ask customers to remove and destroy the device, then supply a new one vs. returning and trying to ship an illegal device
I think your first sentence says it all my friend. ATF says that we are to export all fake silencers back to Germany. Each one we receive will have to be connected to the firearms serial number and manually accounted for by the ATF. We lucked out that the interior sleeve can be added to the old design so once we start shipping quantities back to Germany they can be retro-fitted to the new design so hopefully we'll have some good turn around on getting larger quantities of cans. Receiving back the cans at our facility for inventory and packing is the ATFs call, so I can't imagine they would hold you for shipping the can when it's what they have instructed.
Where is the actual ATF ruling?
We at ATI only have an official ruling on the can its self as being now classified as a real silencer. ATF has not issued any official documents regarding this publicly or to ATI, other than having their lawyers approve the statement that starts this thread for consumers. I wish I had a 'here's the official word!' doc from ATF to give you, but it appears at this time I will not be getting one, or be allowed to show you what I already have.
^^HOLY SHIT. u r right.
now, we are screwed sideways!!!
I will wait till I get a certified letter from the ATF that can accompany the "NFA Item" back to ATI.
Be prepared to not receive that letter, although I understand why you would want it. I want it too. The fact of the matter is that from April 2009 thru November 2009 we had a total of 5 approved permits to import the GSG-5SD, Cans individually for repair and the SD Conversion kit and those are now all revoked because of the changed decision. Rulings change and we as the importer, distributors, dealers and you as the consumer have to comply to their revision no matter if 'someone' is willing to admit fault or not. Once we physically mail letters to the dealers who have received GSG-5SDs from our distributors then it will be on the consumer to get the original can back, which really sucks a lot. But, if you keep your original fake can and in like, idk, two years get busted by an ATF guy for still having it, you'll be in some trouble.
The ATF should issue expedited approved form 1's
A nice wish, but don't count on it.
If the shop the weapon was purchased from is also a dealer that can legally sell silencers and other NFA items that would be a step in the right direction. In Iowa, I am not allowed to own a silencer unless I'm an approved LE or Mil user with the appropriate paperwork from the agency I work for. This still doesn't get around the fact that I don't have the appropriate ATF paperwork and am now magically in possession of a device that is banned in my state and there are maybe 1 or 2 FFLs in the whole state that deal with NFA devices.
This is where things are really hairy right now, especially because the ATF has told us they will offer an amnesty period but they have not said how long it will be. With everything having to be pushed up on getting this info out (thanks field agents) ATI is still dealing with setting up the distributors on this. Then we need to work with the dealers. Then we'll really be ready to deal with consumers. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world. We're just trying to figure out which instructions given on which day from which division of ATF are the ones we need to follow with nothing but a silencer ruling on paper.
I still have yet to see the actual ATF ruling or when this is to be completed.
I recommend that you contact NFA branch of ATF at (304) 616-4500 and ask them for this. I have no response from the ATF that they are going to issue this at all to us or the general populace. They did make us remove quite a bit of dialogue regarding the ATF from our letter before their lawyers would let us make a statement.
exact reason the ATF disliked the fat SD can is known
One big hollow expansion chamber, end caps. That's it. I get irked by the wording in the ruling I put up in this thread a few lines up. It says expansion chambers-plural, we have expansion chamber-singular. Doesn't matter, they changed their minds, revoked my import licenses on original models and here we are.
Just curious, if this is such a big deal and all why no mention of this on the ATI webpage? Why is it that the only way you can find out about what is potentially a big problem is to stumble upon the notification here and here only? If you do a web search with the words GSG-5 SD and ATF you get nothing at all about this. I am curious as to how something like this is ever going to get out to the owners of these? Looks like we will have several folks in violation of the ATF's ruling and have no idea that they are.
Unfortunately, Brent who updates the website is out sick, so hopefully he will be back tomorrow and we will have our home page updated. Again, we were pressed into kicking off this information sooner than we were really ready to because of field agents auditing dealers and telling them some not so correct or definite information. ATI is in the process of tracking down every SD starting with our distributors. We then have to track from our distributors to the dealers, then from dealers to consumer. ATF is making us follow the course of, run it by ATF and wait for the ATF to approve the methods of action with their legal department. This is not a fast turn around unfortunately. As we know more I will be updating you on here and we will be updating our site once Brent is back.
If I didn't answer your questions let me know, but I hope that you have read all of this because as you can see, ATI doesn't really have a lot of answers right now either. We're taking it a day at a time and moving forward as we are directed to by the ATF.
Now here's some questions ATF doesn't want you to ask:
Who in the ATF Firearms Imports Branch approved this in the first place? I mean, they didn't come into the country without the ATF's approval, right? OK, which incompetent moke did it? Or rather, which politicized moke in the Chief Counsel's Office decided after the fact that the Brady Bunch wouldn't like what had already been approved?
Understand, they way they're telling it now, someone in this agency approved for import 13,000 unregistered suppressors. Don't they get to like lose their hall pass to go to the john unescorted, or something? Who reimburses the huge costs of this cluster-coitus that will be incurred by the manufacturer, the importer, the dealers and the customers? You gonna pay them back, Little Jimmy?
Yeah? I thought not.
"fake suppressor" so what I would like to know is how does a foo can become a registered NFA device?
Someone needs to pay here. The "changing of minds" which causes honest Citizens to become federal felons if they don't read a web page needs to be put to an end once and for all.
What if someone resold this in a private transaction and the new owner is unaware of the situation? It seems they flat don't care.
Thanks for posting this, Mike. I've already forwarded it to my dealer for his info in case he missed it.
Isn't there an amnesty/reward program for these things? I understand that if you come into possession of a class 3 device, you can turn it in for $50 at any gun dealer, courtesy of the BATF.
I seem to recall some scuttlebutt at the local gun store about a widow finding an illegal Tommy gun in her late husband's effects. I wasn't there, but somebody got paid.
I mean, if they SAY it is a suppressor, it must be worth the bounty, right?
What good was a fake can in the first place? If it didn't silence, or even muffle the report of a shot, why the hell have it? Could these fake cans have had real guts installed and been successfully be converted to actual silencers? Is that the reason they've been recalled?
This stinks to high heaven. Didn't HK just settle a lawsuit resulting in minor changes to the GSG but leaving it still looking like the the MP5? I'm wondering if someone at HK (or Colt) dropped an suspiciously thick envelope on a desk at BATFE.
Until the ATF releases an OFFICIAL statement as to the procedure THEY require, I wouldn't accept the return of ANY GSG-5 as a dealer. I work for a Class III dealer/Type 7 manufacturer, I would advise that his best LEGAL way of dealing with the GSG-5 SD 1st Anniversary models we have in stock would be to remove the shrouds and torch cut them into oblivion unless the ATF makes a special provision for their return.
Strictly speaking, the ATF is claiming these are now Title II components and possessing/shipping/receiving them without an approved transfer (no matter what license you have) is illegal. Shipping it to a third party (ATI) would simply be another illegal transfer. Unless the BATFE states in writing that they approve of the process by which these shrouds are exchanged, everyone who sends/receives these items is technically violating the NFA/GCA.
Am I being paranoid? Sure. In light of the way the handled this case so far, I feel eminently justified in not trusting them!
Two thoughts -
one. After Olafson, why would ANYONE be so effin' stupid as to turn anything in to anybody in the gummint? Least of all the same BAT-FYs who framed and railroaded Olafson.
The JBTs probably set the whole thing up to boost their wilting image and maybe get a testosterone jolt for their agents who haven't had a Vicki Weaver or Dave Koresh to assassinate in recent times.
Second - I'm pretty sure anyone who reads this blog knows this already, BUT in countries that are run by more liberated people instead of fearful fascists, citizens are not only encouraged to carry but also to use suppressors in order to safeguard the hearing of people on or around ranges and training facilities. If you know anyone in Israel or Finland for example, they should be able to get you a suppressor in a local shop. Then again, of course, we ALL know how the streets run with blood in those places due to the use of suppressors, right?
Hmph. Limp weenied, smegmaphile, tinhorn dictating yellow bellied jackbooted dipschitz.
Hey that guy in the picture at the top of the article looks like that guy who robbed that 7-11.
I would recognize that ski mask anywhere.
Of course, if the BATF wanted to backdoor a scheme for 13,000 search and seizure warrants, what better way to go about it?
If the same BATF were answering to an administration whose CEO openly admits he'd like to have a "civilian security force that rivals the US military in firepower", which presumably answers only to him, and I was the owner of such a firearm, I might be a little concerned.
Am I nuts if I suggest that it might be a tad naive to assume the BATF's accidental-approval-come-shady-disapproval maybe isn't so accidental?
Ain't sayin', just sayin'.
W.B. Jones: I stand in awe of your mastery of profane rhetoric. You, sir, are my hero.
If I was the owner of one or more of these "devices" (and I'm not) I would have two words for the folks over there at "F" Troop....
I arrived here linked from Of Arms and the Law.This is a good site, I like it here. California has patriots, too.
As far as a bounty on each can, I don't know how that would go. After they started scratching the bible verses off the military optics recently, I inquired with the manufacturer as to whether I could still get "pre ban" optics or have them custom engraved. They said nope, not for civilians. Did I just say "pre ban optics"?!
HAPPY D -
If you look closely, does it seem that the JBT's terrorist mask slightly obscures his vision? Would it be a hoot if he blindly sprayed his own comrades and sent the rest of his rounds into the air, scattering pigeons and smashing innocent twigs... while perhaps shouting, "Nyok nyok nyok... wooo woo woo woo woo woooo!"
and JD Anon -
Thank you, sir - for your kind words, I humbly bow, and in deference to the questionable gender of the BATFUs, I also equally perform a swishy curtsy, sweeping my finest petticoats along the DOJ floor mosaic here in my summer home.
Regarding the top picture: I'm real uncomfortable with idiots with machine guns too stupid to pull the eyeholes down from his eyebrows. This may explain some of the "friendly fire" during the Waco raid.
What? I've never heard a peep of this on the MSM- and I don't know how to read or use a computer, so there's no way I'm goinng to learn about this recall.
I think the bad boys are gonna be useing my ill-informed house as their next staging area... please, don't anyone tell anyone that I have one of these and have no intentions of returning it for exchange.
Given ATF's legal troubles, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this whole idiotic operation was just a way to justify continuing funding.
It screams of "look, we're doing SOMETHING!", especially given the reluctance of ATF to give authorization to ATI to release documents related to this.
Documents that I expect will get leaked anyway, since they have to pass through so many hands...
First, we don't have *ANY* official word on this - just a claim by an unknown person on a website where anyone can be anybody. As proof, note my "user name" here.
Second, there are ALL SORTS of BS stories flying around the intarwebs - how are we to know this one is true, with no official letter from the BATFEces?
*IF* I understand this correctly, mostly from reading between the lines and researching the gun in question, here's the problem...
The "fake can" is actually nothing more than a barrel-shroud. It APPEARS to be a hollow metal tube that has a bigger opening on the "receiver" end than on the also-threaded muzzle end.
*IF* someone were so inclined, he could remove the shroud, and use the bigger-hole in the receiver-end to insert a perforated tube and a bunch of steel-wool into the shroud.
If he then turned the shroud 180 degrees lengthwise and threaded the muzzle-end of the shroud onto the muzzle backwards - so the shroud was hanging off the end of the Bbl like a suppressor - it would function as a suppressor.
I also am guessing that the "extra weight" involved in the new "shroud" will include an inner "sleeve" on the shroud that will make it impossible to "stuff" as aforementioned.
All that said, this is INSANE. First, the ATF is now going to have the name and address of all owners of these rifles - and they're forbidden by law to collect such info.
Second, I can - off the top of my head - think of a number of folks who received ATF approvals and were bankrupted when they later changed their minds.
The costs to ATI must be TREMENDOUS - the ATF should be made to reimburse all expenses incurred by a manufacturer when they - in good faith - act on an BATFEces approval and they later reneged on their approval.
Personally - if I owned one of these (I do not) - I wouldn't do a damn thing until I had IN HAND a copy of an official BATFEces letter ordering me to do so.
The objections and concerns - especially about shipping an item ruled to be an illegal suppressor - are more than valid. Tell me these goons wouldn't be happy as they could be to arrest 13,000 people on charges of illegally shipping NFA suppressors?
Don't try to tell me they're above such behavior - after Olafson I don't believe they're above ANYTHING...
WV: "exesses" -- indeed, the BATFEces have many on their record...
Odds are they'll find a 922(r) issue with the improved dummy suppressor as it's being done offshore and the remanufacture is adding another countable foreign made part or two. They'll count the welds as foreign parts...this game could go on for a long time.
BATFE doen't care, they don't have anything to lose and they have no reason whatsoever to help. It's not in their interest to be useful to firearms manufacturers so they aren't.
Just what, again, constitutes a cause for war?
When, exactly, is the social contract broken?
When, in the promulgation of unjust "law", is the authority of government dissolved and the citizenry A.B.S.O.L.V.E.D. ???
We have long since suffered more grievous injury to our Rights than did The Founders; our Liberty and Rights, established by the Founding Documents and reinforced by our history and traditions, are now obviously being ignored and trampled to an unprecedented extent.
What will it take for us to act?
What treason, what hypocrisy, what lawlessness, what degree of corruption, what calamity, what utter disaster must come to pass for men to find their courage?
aughtsix: Please stand by. The planetary computer is presently generating the answer, though it may take a year or two.
So then, IF I were to fill out the application and pay the $200.00 "transfer fee", would I then be in compliance to legally own a silencer that doesn't silence?
Too "Acting Director Melson": Your suggestion that BATF be responsible for all financial reimbursement, for their own mistake, has one small flaw; the BATF is funded by us tax and transfer fee payers.
Wasselmander Benefessor Jones, to be honest I have never worn a ski mask that did not mess with my vision.
But given ATF fire discipline it may only improve their aim."Nyok nyok nyok... wooo woo woo woo woo woooo!" And then he tosses the grenade in the room with his buddies.
Lovely insult by the way, Well done Bravo.
Holy cats! That field agent from the alphabet gang has a plastic soda bottle and showed you how to make a suppressor with it. Hope he has the tax stamp for the soda bottle. Likewise, I hope every alphabet agent has the appropriate tax stamps for the soda bottles on their desks. Also, the guy who fills up the soda machine down the hall needs to be publicly flogged for dealing in unregistered suppressors.
Seriously, I don't see how constructive intent can't be leveraged against the BATFE if they acknowledge that soda bottles can be made into suppressors.
what would really be scarey is if BATF Gave a free issue tax stamp via "batf rulling " if owner applied for the tax stamp and went thru the process of a real supresser.
all for a so called 'supresser' that would fail every osha requirement of performance if it was a jack hammer or car muffeler.
explination note of some past history ;
(like when in early 1990's 'streetsweepers' and other <12 ga shotguns > had to be registered as a 'destructive weapon' after the fact of sale date ... there was an official amnesity period ... AND THAT MADE EACH SUBSIQUENT BUYER/ OWNR SUBJECT TO THE TAX STAMP TRANSFERED BY INHERITANCE might be an exception . it also made some of the streetsweepers able to be confiscated if the amnestity period lapsed and was not registered . and likely left many streetsweepers out there as illeagle thru no fault of original and subsiquent owners because theyd be believed to be grandfathered in as exemt since original purchace preceeded the batf rulling.
frankly registering after the fact was an infringment to property rights to freely liqudate the asset by limiting buyers in requiring added red tape in fees to buyer and in handeling the transaction thru a class 3 dealer . and to keep said stamp with the weapon. that made (at time of purchase) a other wise non federally regulated weapon into a weapon that needed the same paperwork handeling as machine guns on the federal level. )
the only advantage was that it established a more solid leagle ownership of the weapon (in leagle terms) and in many streetsweeper owners discovering theyd qualify to own machine guns in passing the required background check and gaining experiance in going thru the process.
davida michaelle aka davidainmaryland1 in yahoo and cam frog .
***They did make us remove quite a bit of dialogue regarding the ATF from our letter before their lawyers would let us make a statement.***
Since when do you need the ATF to approve the content of your own statement? They don't own the dialogue you had with them and... The first amendment exists.
i guess they(the atf) can approve anything and then change their minds, look at the fast and f**%&ed/ops gun walker up thing they tried to blame on j & g sales, the atf cost a few people their lives on that deal,and then tried to hide it...some heads need to roll there(at the atf)still but they will just sweep it under the rug...the days of by the people for the people are over.soon they will be at the door to take the rest of our firearms...just like adolph did
Is the Gsg5 22 silencer still an issue with the SD? I just bought an SD yesterday at Dunhams sports. This post is from two years ago. If it was such an issue I believe the guns would have been removed from the stores and not be able to sell them.
Post a Comment