Commiefornia Settles With 80% Arms On Definition of "Firearm"

[John Stark]

This is from a Reddit link, and I have not been able to verify an actual press release on their own website:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/1ccknbc/press_release_80_percent_arms_california/

UPDATE: Here is the press release from 80% Arms own website:

Press Release - CALIFORNIA SETTLEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEBlackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (dba 80 Percent Arms) Settles Legal Dispute With California, Upholding Customer Privacy and Second Amendment RightsCustomer Privacy UpheldFort Worth, Texas — Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (BMG) has successfully resolved our prolonged...

www.80percentarms.com

Essentially California admitted that they accused 80% Arms of making "firearms," which has a strict definition in terms of ATF determinations and the various Infringing laws passed since 1934.

If Commiefornia is throwing in the towel on this, my take is that they know that the ATF is going to lose at the Supreme Court, and they are cutting their losses.

Ghost Guns do NOT meet the definition of Firearm, and Commiefornia has openly admitted that. That looks very good for 80% Arms in their SCOTUS case, and very good for the Right to make our own weapons and buy parts. If they are NOT "firearms," as Commifornia is admitting here, then they are NOT subject to being banned, they are NOT subject to a background check, and they are NOT illegal or prohibited.

Suck on that Gruesome!

Buy, Build, Shoot!

 

[pshift]

It's true.

Press Release - CALIFORNIA SETTLEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEBlackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (dba 80 Percent Arms) Settles Legal Dispute With California, Upholding Customer Privacy and Second Amendment RightsCustomer Privacy UpheldFort Worth, Texas — Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (BMG) has successfully resolved our prolonged...

www.80percentarms.com

 

[Beerman]

This could eventually help Dexter Taylor, I hope.

 

[John Stark]

FYI Commiefornia had to cough $500,000 to 80% Arms, who spent about $2.5 million to not only defend their brand and their whole business model, along with the Second Amendment, but as a strong and successful effort to refuse to disclose their customer data base and the their personal information that goes along with that to the political bastards who run Commiefornia.

How many gun companies and 2A organizations would actually risk their own necks and organizations to try and keep their customers as anonymous as possible? How many would DEFY the Fed Coats for their fellow Americans as 80% Arms has done for all of us?

Hopefully 80% Arms can go after Commiefornia for the rest of their legal fees and any loss of business.

Remember, the process is the punishment. Even if you win, you still lose when battling an illegal, out of control, anti-Constitutional "government" that flagrantly breaks the law to harm its own citizens and violate their Rights with little to no consequences for the jackboots who prosecute and enforce this bullshit.

The people at 80% Arms are true patriots. God bless them!

 

[Saltwater60]

If this is I will go out of my way to buy from them next time I’m in the market for something. This is amazing.

 

[Cooolone]

80% wouldn't take anything less than what they've expended defending themselves and any lost profits from business denied! Why would they take 1/5th of their losses just in cost?

They ARE going to lose...

All acronym agencies are about to be declawed!!!

 

[Saltwater60]

80% wouldn't take anything less than what they've expended defending themselves and any lost profits from business denied! Why would they take 1/5th of their losses just in cost?

They ARE going to lose...

All acronym agencies are about to be declawed!!!

If they didn’t settle the government would keep suing them and cost them more maybe. I don’t know. Also maybe they think this will get them a lot more business and make them money in the long run.

 

[John Stark]

Typically I don't try to read the tea leaves when it comes to SCOTUS decisions, and the considerations they might make in any given case, to pretend like I know how they are going to rule. I am not a scholar nor a prognosticator.

Even given the relative clarity we have enshrined in the US Constitution, along with the proper way to interpret the "less clear" parts via "history, text, and tradition," the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, are a fickle crap shoot IMO. Thus, mo matter how clear the Constitution is, I know that the Court has a very good chance of either punting on any given case to kick a particular problem down the road, or worse, hand down an utterly terrible decision that leaves all of us under Tyranny for decades or longer.

However, I think this thing with Commiefornia is a big deal, beyond the good outcome for the Right of Americans to build their own Arms.

As I stated above, Commifornia had to admit that 80% were not selling "firearms." Essentially they were saying before this that 80% Arms was illegaly selling "firearms." In terms of law enforcement, that is a VERY strong claim to make. Arms manufacturers and FFLs get heavily fined, raided, shut down, sanctioned, arrested, tried, imprisoned, and so on for illegally selling "firearms." ATF and other FedCoat agencies are ruthless about selling "firearms" illegally (while looking the other way when it comes to the "Iron Pipeline" that facilitates the illegal distribution and off-books sale of "firearms" by criminal organizations who are in their pocket).

The plain fact of the matter is that if 80% Arms had not defended themselves against Commiefornia, its likely they would not only have been run out of business, they could have been arrested.

Thus, this whole distinction of what is and is not a "firearm" is crucial. Hence the importance of Commiefornia admitting that 80% Arms was NOT selling "firearms" under the very specific definition that both states and the Fedrats have been using for more than a half century.

So, I made a strong to curb my own enthusiasm on this news and think about the angles here a bit more. I had to ask myself what benefit could Commiefornia get from settling this case, beyond not throwing taxpayer money at a problem that didn't actually exist as a matter of law definition.

Is it possible that Commiefornia got the word from Garldand that they were going to have a slam dunk at SCOTUS and win Vanderstock vs. Garland, which the Supremes just agreed to make a ruling on? Its not like we don't know that the inside machinations that go into crafting SCOTUS decisions aren't known outside of the Court, right? The ruling on baby murder was leaked by someone inside SCOTUS not that long ago. We know there are zips inside the wire at the Supreme Courts. We also know that these fascists in both the states and at the Fed level coordinate thier Infringments. The UnSafe Act is a clear example of that, as that was basicallt written the Obamanation regime and NY become the test case when FUAC bumrushed us with it by declaring an emergency based on Sandyhook.

Does anyone doubt at this point that there are conspiracies at the highest levels of government and politics to destroy our Constituion?

My thinking is that Commiefornia would NOT have settled with 80% Arms on the definition of a "firearm" if they knew that the Vanderstock was in the bag for the Department of JustUs, i,e., that Garland was going to win on Ghost Guns.

My thinking is that Commiefornia, which is run by a ruthless regime that is antagonostic to the US Contitution and tyranical in their government, woud NOT have settled if they knew Garland was going to win, because the aparatchiks in Commiefornia would have brought have had a wide open door to persecute 80% Arms and get felony convictions against them, thereby destroying not only their business, but their lives completely. Selling illegal "firearms" has SEVERE penalties at both the State and Fed level.

Anyone think Commiefornia wouldn't work ruthlessly with Garland and the ATF and the FIBs if they thought they were going to win on Ghost Guns? A SCOTUS ruling against Ghost Guns would not only destroy the people at 80% Arms, it would expose everyone in the United States to no-knock warrents, raids, arrest, prosectution, and imprisonment. Posessing illegal "firearms" is a very serious charge for anyone who owns one.

There is a reason Commiefornia was going after 80% Arms' customer database: so they could Infirnge.

Now the timing on this was something that really sturck me. Vanderstock get taken up, and within a few days Commiefornia settles with 80% Arms. Seems to me, like I said at first upthread, that was a slam dunk indicator that Commiefornia was throwing in the towel because FedGov knows they are going to lose Vanderstock.

If Commiefornia had inside information on how the Supremes were going to rule against Vanderstock, why would they settle with 80% Arms and unequivocally admit that they were wrong about 80% Arms selling "illegal" firearms.

I think it makes more sense to say that they know they are going to lose Vanderstock, hence the settlement.

Commiefornia was NOT forced by a court to admit that 80% Arms was not selling illegal "firearms." Commifornia tacitcly admitted that Ghost Guns are NOT "firearms" according to the legal definition of that term.

No gun grabbing state would ever admit that Ghost Guns are not "firearms" if they thought they had viable "legal" path to enforce that and civily and criminally litigate that successfully against the serfs.

I think this is a big win, maybe bigger even than Bruen once Vanderstock is won in our favor.

The Right to manufacure Arms is a core part of the Second Amendment; we wouldn't have any "firearms" if no one could or would make them. Its at the heart of the entire matter.

I believe that makes for a nice springboard to launch attacks against many of the other Infringments that should have never been made "law."

If we have a Right to make Arms (we do), then we have a Right to dispose of our own property as we see fit.

That is a very nice springboard indeed.

 

[ManualF150]

To me a firearm is a device that is completely assembled (or in immediate vicinity, within the same premises/building) to have a round put into battery and able to be fired.

I never liked this 80% crap.

Same with NYS' laws on making your own guns.

 

[Acer-m14]

the definition of a Firearm ....

its none of the governments business what a firearm is or is not ..

 

[Zerex]

But in NYS................possessing an 80% receiver is a crime in itself..............ATF said it is a firearm once the FCP is machined at all.............but legal to possess...........

Almost NYS's entire Criminal code regarding firearms................ is a crime..........

The novelty of owing an AR with Mattel, Fisher Guide, Hydramatic, Ben and Jerry's, Goodyear, Savage, Studebaker, Ford, etc, is great, but not in NYS.

A Glock is not on my list............