If you want to resurrect the 1960's NRA and have them write up commonsense reasonable gun safety legislation in your state, then you can have at it.
Keep it in your state.
Don't do it federally and don't come down here and do that.
-
Possible Downtime Alert
I am working to migrate THR from the current cluster to a new one. I would like to get this done before the weekend, but it's unclear what the timeframe will be, as testing is still ongoing. As I am writing this the new (rebuilt) host is doing a burn-in to ensure that everything will keep running under load.
When the migration happens users will see a Cloudflare message indicatating it cannot connect to the server. This is expected, and depending on how the migration goes this may last from 30 minutes to 3 hours - I won't know more until testing the various migration options is complete and I have finalized the plan.
More information is available in this thread.
As always, thanks so much for your patience.
Breaking News: SCOTUS rules against Ghost Guns
- Thread starter General1776
- Start date
Keep it in your state.
Don't do it federally and don't come down here and do that.
AlexanderA
Member
The "desired endpoint" of the antigunners is irrelevant. What's relevant is what they can actually accomplish, after an arduous political process.
The fact is, the American people can never, as a practical matter, be disarmed. Legally or illegally, they're going to have their guns. And the smart antigunners probably realize this.
Do not confuse the opening gambit in a negotiation with the final settlement. The opening gambit of the pro-gunners is no controls at all, and the opening gambit of the antigunners is no guns at all. Good luck with either of those propositions. The real argument is about what point between these two extremes we settle.
Last edited:
Miami_JBT
Member
Fidel Castro never fully disarmed the Cuban people. A lot of innocent people still ended up in ditches.
Again, they want you disarmed. They will move heaven and earth to do it.
In California, waaaaaaaaay back in the late 1980s, they were just going after those icky AKs. Nothing else, they pinky promised. And forty years later, where are they now? Pretty damn beyond what they claimed they only wanted in the late 1980s.
AlexanderA
Member
We're on the cusp of a truly draconian AWB here in Virginia. My goal is to prevent that at all costs. It appears that you can afford to relax a bit in Florida.
The only guarantee is that no one gets everything they want. Some things/rights are more precious and fundamental than others. If you believe the issue is simple and will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender you are living in a world that does not exist. Pointing the finger and talking of Fudds is helpful only in the minds of the doctrinaire.
Each of us has our own priorities. I would trade Polymer 80 kits for handling silencers as a standard firearm sale in a heartbeat. My opinion and your opinion are irrelevant. When it comes down to it, the judges and justices will make the call. That's their purpose, no matter who appointed them. It may go the ATF way one day, and the 2A way on the next. That 's life in these united states and if we want things to change, no amount of whining will do it. Voting, communicating and lobbying (ie $$$A) are the only things that will change matters currently.
Each of us has our own priorities. I would trade Polymer 80 kits for handling silencers as a standard firearm sale in a heartbeat. My opinion and your opinion are irrelevant. When it comes down to it, the judges and justices will make the call. That's their purpose, no matter who appointed them. It may go the ATF way one day, and the 2A way on the next. That 's life in these united states and if we want things to change, no amount of whining will do it. Voting, communicating and lobbying (ie $$$A) are the only things that will change matters currently.
Miami_JBT
Member
We were on the verge of the AWB in 2018. I was the only cop to speak against the bill.
The bill passed by a voice vote. One, ONE lawmaker demanded a recorded roll call vote.
That's when the AWB died because the Republicans didn't want to be recorded voting in favor of an AWB.
It wasn't compromise that prevented the AWB. It was sticking to one's convictions.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,503
The ruling is violating the Constitution. It's that simple
Last edited:
What's this "disarming yourself" that you speak of?
Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Murder, rape, burglary, battery, etc are all crimes. Doesn't stop 'em. They don't care.
Laws only hurt the law-abiding.
Congratulations on disarming yourself just a little bit more.
hso
Member.
FPC's take,
hso
Member.
Reload's take,
Supreme Court Upholds ‘Ghost Gun’ Kit Ban
Stephen Gutowski
March 26, 2025
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) did not exceed its authority when it reclassified unfinished gun part kits under the same rules as fully functional firearms.
That’s the conclusion of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). On Wednesday, a 7-2 majority upheld the Biden-Era ATF rule that requires makers and dealers of unfinished frames and receivers to obtain federal licenses, serialize their products, and conduct background checks on customers. The Court found the rule, designed to prevent the proliferation of unserialized guns–often labeled “ghost guns” because they can’t be traced back to the original manufacturer, was valid because The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) grants the ATF latitude in how it defines what is and isn’t a regulated gun part.
“The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote from the majority in Bondi v. VanDerStok. “Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The decision is a setback for gun-rights advocates who’d successfully blocked implementation of the ATF rule in the lower courts. It allows the agency to effectively shut down unfinished firearms parts kit makers and dealers while making any future attempt by the Trump Administration, which made no effort to intervene in the case after taking over the Department of Justice in January, to undo the rule–something Donald Trump promised during his campaign. However, the ruling is limited and leaves open potential future challenges to ATF enforcement actions related to the rule.
In the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch argued SCOTUS should judge the case as a broad challenge to the rule’s constitutionality. That meant the Court would only need to identify one viable application of the rule for it to withstand scrutiny.
“As presented to us, this case does not ask us to resolve whether ATF’s new regulations in §478.11 and §478.12 may be lawfully applied to particular weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers,” Gorsuch, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote. “Instead, the plaintiffs have pursued what the lower courts called a ‘facial’ pre-enforcement challenge to the agency’s authority to regulate any weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. In a challenge like that, the government represents, ‘the possibility that [ATF’s regulation] may be invalid as applied’ in some cases ‘does not mean that the regulation is facially invalid.’ Instead, [the plaintiffs’] burden is to show that the Rule itself is inconsistent with the statute on its face.'”
Gorsuch said the GCA requires makers and dealers of “weapons” that can “expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way” to obtain licensing and follow other rules for selling those weapons. He noted the lower court found the ATF rule went beyond that power, but said the majority disagreed–at least to a point.
“As the Fifth Circuit saw it, § 478.11’s provisions addressing weapon parts kits are facially invalid because no weapon parts kit can ever satisfy the statute’s two requirements. We disagree because, to our eyes, at least some kits will satisfy both.”
While examining how the ATF rule could be applied in a way that is consistent with the GCA’s language, Justice Gorsuch focused primarily on the now-defunct Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit. Those kits included an unfinished pistol frame alongside the tools and parts needed to quickly produce a working firearm. He said the kits can be viewed as firearms under the GCA because, similar to unassembled IKEA furniture, the context of the law likely included nearly-finished firearms alongside fully-functional ones.
“An author might invite your opinion on her latest novel, even if she sends you an unfinished manuscript,” he wrote. “A friend might speak of the table he just bought at IKEA, even though hours of assembly remain ahead of him. In both cases, the artifact noun fits because the intended function of the unfinished object is obvious to speaker and listener alike.”
“The term weapon can work this way, too,” Gorsuch continued. “Imagine a rifle disassembled for storage, transport, or cleaning. It may take time to render the rifle useful for combat, but its intended function is clear. And, as a matter of every day speech, that rifle is a weapon, whether disassembled or combat ready. In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit as a ‘weapon.’ Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: ‘Buy Build Shoot.'”
Gorsuch pointed to the GCA’s inclusion of “starter guns” in its definition of “weapon” to bolster his case. Starter guns are firearms with blocked barrels that are designed for use with blank rounds. However, as the majority noted, they can be modified to fire live rounds with projectiles in a short amount of time with common tools.
“[N]otably, the statute teaches that a starter gun is a ‘weapon’ before anyone invests that work,” Gorsuch wrote. “All of which indicates that Congress used that term, as an ordinary speaker might, to embrace some unfinished instruments of combat like Polymer80’s product.”
The majority also argued that Congress could have regulated only finished firearms if that was what it intended. Instead, Gorsuch wrote, legislators went beyond that.
“If Congress had wanted to regulate only operable firearms, it could have simply addressed ‘weapons’ that can ‘expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,'” he wrote. “But Congress didn’t stop there. Instead, Congress explained that a ‘weapon’ also qualifies for regulation if it is either ‘designed’ to accomplish that function or ‘capable of being ‘readily . . . converted’ to do so. Those latter provisions necessarily contemplate that some things short of fully operable firearms will qualify as ‘weapons.’ And if that is true, it is difficult to see how the easy-to-assemble ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit might not be among them.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, a George H. W. Bush appointee, and Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, were the only ones to dissent. Thomas argued the majority turned the GCA’s language on its head. He argued the GCA only regulates “frames” and “receivers,” the key unfinished part included in the “Buy Build Shoot” kits, in their completed form.
“Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one,” Thomas wrote. “But, it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted.”
He accused the majority of rewriting the statute–something he said SCOTUS had avoided doing in last year’s bumpstock ban case.
“The Government asked this Court just last Term to ‘rewrite’ statutory text so that it could regulate semiautomatic weapons as machineguns,” Thomas wrote. “We declined to do so. The Government now asks us to rewrite statutory text so that it can regulate weapon-parts kits. This time, the Court obliges. I would not.”
He took particular issue with the ATF’s contention that the mere inclusion of tools or jigs alongside unfinished parts automatically transformed the regulatory status of those parts. He included pictures of two unfinished AR-15 receivers and noted the ATF considered only one of them a firearm under its rule because of what it was sold with.
“Both images in Figure 1 depict unfinished receivers. Both lack machining and indexing in the key areas,” Thomas wrote. “The only difference is the presence of a jig and drill bits. Yet, according to the Rule, these extraneous items make an unfinished receiver a regulable firearm. The presence of items such as jigs or ‘marketing materials’—that are not, and never could be, part of a frame or receiver—has no bearing on whether a piece of metal or plastic constitutes ‘the basic structure and principal component of a firearm.'”
He argued that the most straightforward reading of the GCA would be that anything that can’t function as a frame or receiver isn’t regulated as one. He noted the ATF agreed with that assertion under its previous interpretation of the law, which stood for decades.
Thomas and Alito both also took issue with the standard the majority employed to uphold the ATF rule.
“[A] regulatory definition that is accurate in only a single valid application cannot possibly ‘explain explicitly,’ ‘fix or establish,’ or ‘set forth the meaning’ of a statutory term,” Thomas wrote.
Instead of pointing to IKEA furniture, Thomas pointed to motorcycles.
“Consider a hypothetical statute that defines ‘motorcycle’ as ‘a motor-powered, two-wheeled vehicle with pedals.’ If a regulatory definition copied the same language, and then added that ‘the term shall include any motorized vehicle,’ the regulatory definition obviously would be wrong,” he wrote. “Not every motorized vehicle is a motorcycle, and the fact that some motorized vehicles happen to be motor-powered, two-wheeled vehicles with pedals does not suggest otherwise. It is difficult to see how an overbroad regulatory definition becomes defensible simply because some set of circumstances exists in which the regulatory definition overlaps with the statutory definition.”
Thomas warned that the majority’s “novel ‘artifact noun’ methodology” “invites unforeseeable consequences and offers no limiting principle.” He argued it could even imperil millions of lawful AR-15 owners since their semiautomatic variants share very similar receivers with highly-regulated fully-automatic variants that are unlawful to own unless registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
“If an object already is what it may be converted into, then semiautomatic AR–15s would seem to be partially complete, automatic machineguns,” Thomas wrote. “This reasoning exposes the manufacturers, sellers, and owners of AR–15s to criminal liability under the NFA. But, Congress does not ‘hide elephants in mouseholes.’ An interpretive approach that would allow ATF to regulate the most popular semiautomatic rifle in America under a statute addressing automatic machineguns should give us pause.”
Gorsuch dismissed that concern.
“[T]he plaintiffs suggest, [the government] might next attempt to classify the receiver of an AR–15 rifle as a ‘machinegun’ because ‘it is possible to convert’ those receivers’ to function as machinegun receivers.’ That result, the plaintiffs warn, could leave many Americans facing new and unforeseen criminal liability for possession of a ‘machinegun’ simply because they own a ‘popular’ and ‘commonly available’ rifle. The plaintiffs’ fears are misplaced,” he wrote for the majority. “The government represents that AR–15 receivers do not ‘qualify as the receiver of a machinegun.’ Nor, the government emphasizes, has ATF ever ‘suggested otherwise.’ Much the same can be said of our reasoning today. As we have stressed, a statute’s text and context are critical to determining whether (and to what extent) Congress used an artifact noun to reach unfinished objects. And, without doubt, the NFA and the GCA are different statutes passed at different times to address different problems using different language.”
“Our analysis of the GCA thus does not begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate AR–15 receivers as machineguns under the NFA,” Gorsuch said.
Still, Gorsuch also noted the majority’s opinion was limited to the facts of the case.
“Admittedly, our reasoning here has its limits. Just because some kits, like Polymer80’s, qualify as ‘weapons’ that ‘can readily be converted’ into working firearms does not mean all do,” he wrote. “Think of the problem of the heap: Start with a heap of sand and begin removing grains; at some point, a heap no longer exists. That problem attends many artifact nouns. Even when used to capture unfinished products, artifact nouns generally reach only so far. It would be extravagant to speak of a novel when the author has dashed off only a few lines. Few would call a pile of unfinished logs a table. Subsection (A) may present a similar problem. Weapon parts kits vary widely. Not all come as complete as the ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit. Some, too, may require more time, expertise, or specialized tools to finish. And at some point a kit may be so incomplete or cumbersome to assemble that it can no longer fairly be described as a ‘weapon’ capable of ‘read[y] . . . conver[sion]’ into a working firearm. While we recognize the problem, this case does not require us to untangle exactly how far subsection (A) reaches.”
He noted the same concept applied to the majority’s determination that the unfinished frames included in Polymer90’s kits were close enough to functional frames to be regulated as such. He left open the possibility that more litigation may be required to feel out the contours of the ATF’s regulatory power over unfinished gun parts.
“Future cases may present other and more difficult questions about ATF’s regulations,” Gorsuch wrote. “But we take cases as they come and today resolve only the question posed to us.”
UPDATE 3-26-2025 8:21 PM EASTERN: This story has been updated with more details from the Supreme Court’s ruling.
No, we can't relax in Florida. It's a constant onslaught of people coming here to change it. Ask any range officer over 65 on the east coast of Florida and they'll tell you some version of "NY/NJ/MA sucks, but it's too easy to get a gun here." They're conditioned to reasonable regulations and are perfectly willing to compromise by handing rights away.
A ban on any kind of firearm for 18-21 year olds was perfectly reasonable regulation, an easy compromise against an assault weapons ban. Give away some rights to keep some rights. That was 2018 with a Republican House, Senate, and Governor!
Last edited:
Okie_Poke
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2022
- Messages
- 412
I just got around to reading the opinion. The voting split broke pretty consistent with predictions following oral argument. That's not always the case, but here oral argument pretty well foretold the result. A few thoughts on the opinion:
- As others have noted, this was a regulatory challenge (i.e., new rule exceeds authority granted under Gun Control Act), not a 2A/constitional challenge (i.e., new rule/GCA is unconstitutional/violates the 2A). This doesn't make the loss any less of a loss, but it's a regulatory/agency law loss not a 2A loss. I'll leave for you to decide which is worse.
- The court treated this as a "facial" challenge, and not an "as-applied" challenge. Facial challenges can be pretty hard to win because you have to demonstrate that virtually all applications of the rule are unlawful.
- Usually I think of facial challenges as applying in the constitutional context. But I guess it can apply in this one as well, at least when, as here, the parties apparently didn't argue othewise. See Opinion, p.7.
- The result of this is that the Court has just invited a bunch of as-applied litigation where various courts across the country will decide piecemeal which "parts kits" or unfinished receives are "close enough" to count as "firearms" under the GCA and which are not.
- Before getting to my summary, here's the operative text of the statute:
- Opinion summary on "weapons parts kits": Polymer 80's "Buy Build Shoot" kits are close enough and count as firearms. They are "weapons" because the completed firearm is a weapon, and people sometimes refer to uncompleted versions of things as the thing itself (e.g. an unassembled table purchased from IKEA). Also, they are sufficiently "readily convertable" because someone in the AG's office supposedly completed one in 21 minutes, and apparently that's similar to the amount of time it takes somone without "specialized knowledge" using "everyday tools" to convert a starter gun to fire live ammunitio instead of blanks. Because the GCA specifically says a "starter gun" meets the definition of "firearm," then the Buy Build Shoot kit must too.
- I'm just summarizing the opinion here.
- Majority opinion explicitly left open and did not decide the question of how close is close enough:
- Opinion summary on "unfished frame or receiver": The start here is the same IKEA example above to the effect that an "unfinished frame or receiver" is still a "frame or receiver" in common language. I mean, just look at the picture of a Glock 19 frame next to the Polymer 80 frame before the tabs are cut off and the holes are drilled. (Again, just summarizing the opinion, which includes the pictures). Then it gets more statutory-language driven. The gist is that Congress was rather loose about how it used "frame or receiver" in other places in the GCA, so it must have meant for the phrase to include at least some incomplete frames or receivers in this spot.
- Also, as noted above in the Reload's take, there's a little bit of "gotcha" being played here with respect to the challengers not contesting the ATF's prior practices, particulalry because of the ATF's prior decison that certain unfisnished AR15 receivers count as receivers subject to the GCA. Here's the link Gorsuch referenced in the opinion. That concession hurt quite a bit, I think.
- What becomes of 80% AR-15 lowers following this is unclear to me. Is ATF stuck with their prior guidance, or can they back up to 60%? We don't know.
- Also, as noted above in the Reload's take, there's a little bit of "gotcha" being played here with respect to the challengers not contesting the ATF's prior practices, particulalry because of the ATF's prior decison that certain unfisnished AR15 receivers count as receivers subject to the GCA. Here's the link Gorsuch referenced in the opinion. That concession hurt quite a bit, I think.
- Once again, the opinion specifically declines to decide how much machining has to be done to a hunk of metal or polymer before it counts as a firearm, leaving that for myriad federal judges to decide piecemeal:
- The arguments here did force the government to affirmatively represent "that AR-15 recievers do not qualify as receivers of a machinegun" subject to NFA controls, Opinion at 23, and the Court agreed its "analysis of the GCA does not begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machineguns under the NFA." While the Court's opinion acts like that is rather obvious, I'm not sure it would have been to those with an agenda had the Court not said it.
- The Court specifically declined to rule on whether jigs, tools, and instructions are properly considered in determining whether something is "readily convertable" or not.
Last edited:
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,503
The problem is the SCOTUS allowed the Constitution to be violated when they allowed any gun control to happen. This is why this goes on and on. Money is wasted and people's rights are violated. That is what is so perturbing.
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 691
That's hardly accurate and Roberti Roos was very much intended to be amendable on its own. Nobody made any promises and it was easier to sell an "assault weapon" ban in the shadow of a mass shooting, than that of the failed ballot proposition to ban handguns several years prior. There was no "we only want" in any of this.
But you're right about forty years later (more like a hundred, but ok). Where we're at now means that the Vanderstok decision has no real bearing on California since "ghost guns" are already regulated into oblivion.
Elkins45
Member
No, it isn’t. SCOTUS decides what is or isn’t a violation of the Constitution. Their opinion is the only one with any weight.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,503
Sorry but the Constitution says no infringements on arms
AlexanderA
Member
The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. It's a mistake to try to read the "plain words" of the document without reference to 200+ years of legal precedents.
Elkins45
Member
That's what you think. Your opinion has no meaning, and neither does mine.
SCOTUS alone decides what the Constitution means regardless of what it says. "Unconstitutional" is one of the most overused and meaningless words in existence today.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,503
Elkins45
Member
It wouldn't matter if you were Einstein, that's just the way the system is set up. It's been that way since 1789.
NeverEnoughFDE
member
I just wish I could sell the P80 frames I'll never use. 
Elkins45
Member
Are private sales illegal in PA?I just wish I could sell the P80 frames I'll never use.
I was going to ask the same thing.
Unless things have changed with the frame and receiver rule, you can still sell unserialized P80 frames and even completed frames/firearms as an individual per federal law without needing to engrave a serial number. However, I would not try to sell a bunch of them or there is a good chance of getting into trouble. But selling one or two every now and then is not an issue. The frame and receiver rule affects manufacturers, FFL dealers, and gun smiths. It does not affect individuals, other than how you now buy them.
Necessary_Nutrient
Member
The absolutist/anarchist/libertarian positions are as useful as usual in a complex legal environment: Not at all.
The courts have long played a crucial role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and this extends to the Second Amendment. While the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, it is not absolute—just as freedom of speech does not protect incitement to violence, and religious freedom does not permit human sacrifice. The judiciary has consistently upheld the idea that constitutional rights must be balanced against public safety and evolving societal needs.
Virtually every amendment in the Bill of Rights has been subject to legal interpretation and reasonable regulation. The First Amendment has exceptions for libel, obscenity, and incitement; the Fourth Amendment allows for certain warrantless searches; and even the Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination have procedural limits. Similarly, the courts have recognized that while the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, that right does not prohibit reasonable regulations such as background checks, restrictions on felons, or limitations on military-style weapons.
By interpreting and refining the scope of the Second Amendment, the courts fulfill their role in ensuring that constitutional rights are applied in a manner that considers public safety, changing technologies, and societal conditions. Just as no right in the Constitution is without limits, the courts have the authority—and responsibility—to determine the appropriate boundaries of gun ownership and use.
The funny memes and pedantic arguments, as usual, fail to understand precedent and the role of the judiciary. In light of the most permissive legal environment in decades, they are also silly.
The courts have long played a crucial role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and this extends to the Second Amendment. While the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, it is not absolute—just as freedom of speech does not protect incitement to violence, and religious freedom does not permit human sacrifice. The judiciary has consistently upheld the idea that constitutional rights must be balanced against public safety and evolving societal needs.
Virtually every amendment in the Bill of Rights has been subject to legal interpretation and reasonable regulation. The First Amendment has exceptions for libel, obscenity, and incitement; the Fourth Amendment allows for certain warrantless searches; and even the Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination have procedural limits. Similarly, the courts have recognized that while the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, that right does not prohibit reasonable regulations such as background checks, restrictions on felons, or limitations on military-style weapons.
By interpreting and refining the scope of the Second Amendment, the courts fulfill their role in ensuring that constitutional rights are applied in a manner that considers public safety, changing technologies, and societal conditions. Just as no right in the Constitution is without limits, the courts have the authority—and responsibility—to determine the appropriate boundaries of gun ownership and use.
The funny memes and pedantic arguments, as usual, fail to understand precedent and the role of the judiciary. In light of the most permissive legal environment in decades, they are also silly.
Last edited:
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 3,158
Do we have as many rights as we did in 1968?
The death of a thousand cuts is still death
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
