So it's responsible to get a statt but not irresponsible not to follow it... I have never once had a retailer ship a firearm with a external lock and rarely with a trigger lock... If your going violate your ATT you shouldn't bother with it at all
Well, thanks for making us all look bad on a public forum.
You need a short term att, it's the law.
In the unlikely event you got pulled over with the package, you need a STATT, telling the officer you didn't get one because you assumed the shipper didn't put a trigger lock on it and you didn't want to violate your STATT is ridiculous.
Getting pulled over with your package with your STATT and a unopened package,
"whats in the package? "
" it's my brand new AR, "
" do you have your STATT with you? "
" Yup, here it is"
"can you open the package for me to ensure its trigger locked please? "
" sure, "
Open package
A- shipper shipped locked, you go on your merry way.
B- it's not locked," sorry officer I thought it reasonable to assume the shipper shipped my firearm adhering to the laws set fourth by the firearms act, I wasn't about to open my package at the post office causing a scene, but I did get my STATT as required by law"
Take the 10 minutes it takes to get the STATT and be done with it.
Stop using the "well I'd have to open it in public bla bla bla..." EXCUSE to NOT get you STATT.
I've never had someone at the CFC specifically tell me I have to open my firearm in public to ensure its locked. But they have specifically told me to get a STATT to pick it up from the post office.
If people keep #####ing about having to get a STATT to pick up a package at the post office eventually we'll have to have it shipped to a gun store, and have to get a STATT anyways to pick it up.
It's not a debate, you need a STATT to pick up your firearm from the post office. It's the law.