Burst Trigger Case

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Boats

    Broken Member
    Mar 13, 2012
    4,110
    Howeird County
    sounds like the court ruled based on procedure instead of content.

    because the SAF has a legitimate complaint, they had to use any ******** reason to uphold the ruling. This is the appeals court version of "you didn't say please"
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    sounds like the court ruled based on procedure instead of content.

    because the SAF has a legitimate complaint, they had to use any ******** reason to uphold the ruling. This is the appeals court version of "you didn't say please"

    Wrong case. This is the case changing MD's Rapid Fire Trigger Activators brought by MSI. The courts holding that "per se" taking of personal property does not require compensation, is plain scary.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,398
    Messages
    7,280,105
    Members
    33,449
    Latest member
    Tactical Shepherd

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom