Soju

Shot 3 rounds of trap. No issues breaking it open at all. Shot well too even though I have yet to pattern it. I see many more broken clays in my future.

I'm fairly confident that he knows as much about football as he does politics...

Still not as good as the troll thread. Seriously though, check out the movie Troll Hunters..

In the clip with the firing , those weren't blackhawks. To the best of my knowledge there is only one unit that has those birds... you can see them in the movie Blackhawk Down...

Replace the part yourself. It will be easier, quicker, and less of a hassle. Even if things weren't crazy I wouldn't send it back for that...

So you are profiting from this at the dealers expense? Well now I can see why a dealer might want to refuse the transfer.

That should be irrelevant though. What is important is who fills out the 4473 and who the actual owner of that rifle is going to be. If they are the same person, that is a legal and who pays means nothing.

He is referring to federal law not NJ law in regards to straw purchases I believe.

This thread is fun.

Easy solution. If you bought it from a reputable place, refuse the transfer, have the dealer send it back, and get refunded. Many places will do so and cover the dealer shipping costs if you tell them it wasn't what you thought/wanted, or whatnot.

Mostly true. Gifting is not a straw purchase though, UNLESS the person IS a prohibited person. And in this case, the 4473 applicant is the actual purchaser, so it is irrelevant.

Did you already pay? If not, nothing. If so, where did you order from? Most places will give a full refund if the dealer doesn't transfer it.

If the transfer is being done through a ffl the NICS check and form 4473 would be done for that individual so there is no way it can be a straw purchase . The one who fills out the 4473 is the purchaser for legal purposes. That you paid or ordered it originally or whatever should be irrelevant.

Ill take it if the deal falls through.

My CZ Redhead Target by Huglu.

Nowhere did it say anything about Obama wanting to do something himself about football. He said changes will probably come. And they have been...

1. What you would have done, or what I would have done, has no relevancy to what happened. I don't know what I would have done. But for a second persons viewpoint who was there, guess what that person did? He also shot the dogs. That person is of course a responding officer. So that 2 different people shot the dogs certainly helps substantiate the legitimacy of it, and the danger of the situation. 2.I would rather a 'prohibited person' have a firearm and use it for good then have a law abiding citizen who is too scared to use it put themselves and a kid in a deadly situation. I don't have much faith in my ability to fend off a pack of 3 pitbulls with 2x4. I was saying that it is sad you are against people from doing good things...just because they are considered 'prohibited'. I'm against people with bad intentions doing bad things. Maybe the police should be looking at the person who let their pack of pitbulls run around free. That is reckless.

So if it turns out the guy was not a criminal, the gun was registered, yet the shooting took place on the other side of his property line, making the possession now illegal, should he be charged too? I mean, he broke the law... Only if it fits their agenda right... Seriously? How sad...

Glad you have your flame suit on. Owning a gun that isn't "legally registered" in DC doesn't make you a bad person when the laws regarding firearm ownership in DC are bad laws. Being a bad person makes you a bad person. If you wish to imply that simply breaking a law means you are a bad person then you are suggesting that all laws are just and have moral standing. I would also assume that you would believe any NY residents who don't register their guns after the passing of the recent bill there, means all those are bad people too, correct? What about the police who said they will chose to not enforce it? Are they criminals also? Just because a good guy breaks a bad law doesn't make him a bad guy all of the sudden.

Now that I did not know.

It does. Though one of the effects of it is probably a loose butthole.

Probably true.

Cardio is rule number one!

You misunderstood. I didn't say your position had no merit. I says it either does or it doesn't, but knowing people has nothing to do with that. I'm not sure I know what this means. I'm also not sure it has any real meaning. Fortunately for me, you have made claims that simply aren't true, and are hardly valid to begin with. You have however stated what I said originally. You believe the 2nd is outdated. You can try and play word games with it to make it sound like you aren't saying that, but I'm not so sure you are as clever as you think. It isn't fooling anybody. Again, I wasn't, and still am not saying your position isn't valid. I commented originally because you made an irrelevant point to try and back up that position, and then got all upset when somebody 'put words in your mouth', when that wasn't the case. Please try and recognize the difference between being corrected and your argument being challenged. They are not the same thing.

I hate to do it, but I have to comment here. You ask if any of us have "been on the two way range" yet then go on to show how YOU haven't only that you know of people who have. I'm sorry, but that is saying exactly squat. Good for you for knowing people. If I had to guess, most people know people who have been in different situations too. I imagine you were looking for a cookie because that does nothing to support or substantiate any point or position. The position has its own merit unrelated to who you do or don't know... When you said this. Not aware of any of those things being in listed in or supported by the Bill of Rights so one could only assume you wish to change them (the 2nd in this case). That would imply either you never agreed with it to begin with or that you think it is outdated.