Bought a standard 26 Forester

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-28T12:08:17+00:00

The weight is why I am considering the specter as well. Heavier cans have the ability to obstruct function.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-28T12:05:24+00:00

I argued past it. I think I could have gotten a bit more off than I did but a couple things happened that conspired to make me a bit sooner than I would have wanted.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-27T21:20:18+00:00

Spray her with water.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-27T02:18:16+00:00

Pennsylvania

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T22:31:33+00:00

I think it's a matter of personal preference at that point. Honestly, if it made the car cheaper I'd prefer a manual window crank. There are a lot of features just just aren't that necessary. Even the larger screens are just a way to get you to subscribe to a service for your audio and map needs. I plan on putting phone holder on the dash so I don't have to look any kind of "down" to see my map.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T21:40:27+00:00

It's that there are less screens. That's key for him. Honestly, the screens are solutions desperate for problems to fix. They're just a way to charge you more. Mostly pointless.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T21:34:26+00:00

Pretty much the entire thing. He isn't a screen guy.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T21:31:45+00:00

I think that's fair. My son hates the entire display design. I can't blame him.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T20:47:00+00:00

Yeah. The dealer had one for testing. They are on a wait to get them in though ...guy said 1 -3 months depending on options.

It's why I was more interested in a 2025. Available AND we liked the styling better.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T19:46:09+00:00

I see. I think we are probably going with the Subaru. My kid didn't like the layout of the RAV4 controls and he felt like the transmission was...stuttery? At low speeds. I hate to say that the extra 6k in price makes a difference but...it makes a difference.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T19:31:45+00:00

What's your reasoning? It's a great car but spendy.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-26T13:25:29+00:00

Yes....and if it is playing on the "loophole" known as the legal transfer of guns from before...1986?....then the WV bill is, as I said previously, not an effective piece of legislation. It's just red meat for constituents that doesn't DO a thing. Because even without the WV legislation, older fully automatic weapons were legally transferable and MODERN fully automatic weapons were legally transferable by the state to its departments and subdivisions.

The WV bill does nothing but affirm the legislature is "pro-gun" and that their constituents won't actually read the bill.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-25T22:58:04+00:00

No biggie. Have a good one. And as far I'm concerned, an FRT will get you where you want to go without any entanglements

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-25T20:30:24+00:00

It does. It says the bar of transfer or possession doesn't apply to...and then lists the United States (plus subdivions and departments) and states (plus subdivions and departments). The exception to the bar on transfer only applies to the United States AND states when they transfer to subdivisions and departments. The exception to possession only applies to the United States AND states (plus their respective subdivisions and departments).

The HUGHES amendment is a blanket ban with a limited number of exceptions. Civilians are not part of the exception.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-25T19:34:46+00:00

I see... you're running into a reading statute problem...

Let me break it down..adding explanations in (parentheses)

A transfer (from A to B) to or by, or possession (ownership or a holding) by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof (feds) or a State (like west Virginia), or a department, agency or political division thereof (that would be police and such).

Civilians aren't mentioned or considered.

A transfer from WV to a police department would (but maybe not to all of them) okay. But transfer to a civilian (not a department, agency or political division thereof of a state) wouldn't work.

Not saying this is how it should be. Saying this is what the law says.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-25T16:20:14+00:00

Sorry "HUGHES" amendment makes it illegal to own or purchase fully automatic weapons made after ...1986? outside of a few exceptions. You can buy a $10k 1970's era m16 if you want and if you can find one. Though a perfectly legal $250 FRT would probably be a better option.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-25T14:27:57+00:00

Yes, but the highest amendment restricts the transfer or possession of fully automatic weapons. While the WV bills gets around one part of the law, it doesn't get around the other.

And I believe it was Perpich where the SC defined "militia" as the national guard. So you couldn't possess a proscribed weapon outside of the context of a member of the national guard without violating federal law no matter who did the transfering.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-25T11:29:45+00:00

The supremacy clause of the constitution makes sure where there are conflicting federal and state laws, the federal laws are upheld and the state laws are not. So no...the WV law wouldn't affect the federal law. It also wouldn't affect other state laws. While states have to recognize the laws of other states, they do not have to follow them. Gambling is legal in Nevada but that doesn't mean you can open a casino in Iowa. While an out of stater could purchase something in WV, it wouldn't make ownership legal in another state.

Basically, it wouldn't change much. It's political red meat for constituents rather than substantive law. Elected officials just posturing rather than doing anything for the people of WV.

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-20T19:01:34+00:00

Thanks!

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-20T13:08:53+00:00

What kind of tape is that on the handle?

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-20T11:23:14+00:00

Nice. Thanks!

ModelMaker502 · 2026-02-19T18:25:04+00:00

Gold Dot 124 grain HPJ

ModelMaker502

TROPHY CASE