Friday, April 11, 2014

Sig Sauer v. ATF - Complaint



SWIFT said...

Anyone else noticing a ramping up, in the last few years, of Federal Agencies getting in everyone's face? The situation in Nevada, the raids in California, the FBI's orchestrated false flags, the IRS's targeting conservative groups, the 100 mile Constitution Free Zone around America, the useless VIPER TEAM assaults at bus stations,commuter train terminals and highways, the Fusion Centers federalizing local and state police, DoD militarizing the police? And, all this is an abbreviated example. Which one will be the spark?

Anonymous said...

Shame on sig sauer here. This suit will further cement "silencer" jurisprudence! Sig should, if anything, be challenging the silencer statute itself - instead of helping government KEEP it by skirting it in this way.

By playing the financial harm card, it not only submits without a fight to the commerce clause roots of gun control itself but it concedes the level of the RIGHT to buy sell and own - which is the CORE of the right itself.

The problem is that government has forced itself into private two party contracts that regard exercise of a right - ownership of a tool that we all have inherent rights to!

While I see sigs game here and understand the whittle whittle whittle angle, I hope it LOSES this suit badly. Maybe after a good spanking in this case it will decide that playing games around the edges isn't the proper course and that what is called for here is straightforwardly standing up to the unconstitutional restrictions and fighting to see them obliterated entirely.

It could even do so relenting to the financial harm canard - as opening up select fire alongside silencers to the general public absent onerous tasks would surely end the financial harm it experiences under current regulatory structure. And that's not even dealing with state level bans regardless of NFA garbage!

Sig should not be hailed for what it's doing here and as a faithful sig customer I am VERY disappointed in this chosen path. It's BAD for gun owners and is harmful to our rights in the long run.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a spark is what they want?.....An incident big enough to be able to round up opponents, confiscate property and take power under "martial law" or "shelter in place" as it's now called. They can then claim it's for everyone's "safety" while they stomp other's rights.....which is why it's all the more critical we win the PR campaign.

If the feds can be seen as the unreasonable tyrants they are by the average American sheeple, many will start to wake up and see our side.

Anonymous said...

Hate to say it but it is their own damned fault for submitting it in the first place.

Better to seek forgiveness than beg for permission.


Anonymous said...

Hell by the logic of the feds, an oil filter should subject be a $200 tax stamp because it, along with some other parts, can be used as a suppressor. All semi-auto AR-15s should now be considered NFA items too. After all just add certain parts to make them full-auto.

An item is the sum of its parts. Calling that muzzle brake a suppressor because you can add things to make it one is nonsense and serious overreach. Until that shroud is added, it is a muzzle brake.


Anonymous said...

The precedent has already been set by that genius constitutional scholar judge when he declared Musket balls ammo. Rat Ba$tards all of them. Suppose this also means PVC will not fall under the ATF's jurisdiction (I mean confiscation)