Guns and Ammo Thread

[C27H40O3]

This Is Why We Need Guns

Defending their lives and their property as they see fit is exactly what those who have been abandoned by the authorities are doing in droves.



In any case, the idea that the existence of police officers in some way negates the right to bear arms has always been a ridiculous one. Police are an auxiliary force that we hire to do a particular job — there to supplement, not to replace, my rights and responsibilities. Every time we debate gun control in the United States, I am informed that the Sheriff of Whatever County is opposed to liberalization. To which I always think, “So what?” My right to keep and bear arms is merely the practical expression of my underlying right to self-defense. That, as a polity, we have decided to hire certain people to take the first shot at keeping the peace is fine. But it has no bearing on my liberties.


SNIP

Remember, a court ruled in 1981 that the government owes you and your family no protection provided by the police. They dont owe you protection. You are legally on your own.

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A. 2d 1 - DC: Court of Appeals 1981

District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

This rule of duty owed to the public at large has been most frequently applied in cases involving complaints of inadequate protection during urban riots or mob violence. Many of these cases challenge the preparedness of the police to handle such situations, while others, such as Westminster Investing Corp. v. G. C. Murphy Co., supra, challenge the tactical decisions made to curtail or remove police protection from the riot areas. In Westminster, officials of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia had decided to limit police presence in the area of the Murphy Company's store during the firey 1968 riots. Murphy's store was destroyed and the company filed a claim against the District of Columbia contending that the police department had deliberately or negligently abandoned its policing obligations during the riots and thereby permitted rioters to destroy Murphy's property. In affirming the dismissal of Murphy's claim against the District, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District of Columbia had no direct legal obligation to Murphy and that Murphy, therefore, had "no substantive right to recover the damages resulting from failure of [the] government or its officers to keep the peace." Id. at 252, 434 F.2d at 526, quoting Turner v. United States, supra [248 U.S.] at 358 [39 S.Ct. at 110].

[Beetlegeuse]

The Year Gun Control Died

Gun opponents would leave predatory cops armed and their victims helpless.

For fans of legal restrictions on self-defense rights, 2020 is a disaster. It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed, while the communities they terrorize should be helpless. It is also to insist that when police fail at their supposedly core task of protecting the public, people should be deprived of the means for defending themselves. As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what's necessary to shield lives and property, it's unlikely that they'll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don't work for government even more vulnerable to those who do....



reason.com/2020/06/05/the-year-gun-control-died

[Ernst]

Went to my first Appleseed this last weekend.

I have formal training in pistol and shotgun, zero with rifle. This was my 9th time ever shooting rifles and my first time not off a bench.

Overall a fun event. Enjoyed the history and left a better shooter than when I arrived. I tried to emphasize practicality over ultimate accuracy, shotting only hasty sling, kneeling vs sitting, etc.

I was the only one shooting a bolt-action. Not sure if this worked for me or against me. There were certainly instances where I ran out of time before ammo during timed drills, however I was also the top shooter by the end of both days and I think having to reset and rethink at least to some tiny degree between each shot may have played a part.

Past firearms training definitely helped as the fundamentals translate across platforms to a degree and not giving in to time pressure and stress so much. As for rifle-specific training I really didn't have any bad habits to break, being so inexperienced.

Came up just a few points shy of the Rifleman patch. No one got it. A few folks left early because I think they realized they didn't stand a chance. Crazy how some people just give up when something doesn't come easy.

If you have any formal marksmanship training in your past this will be painfully basic and slow at first. Still, any time at the range honing skills is time well spent and it was cheap and I got to meet and hang with some fun and like-minded folks. Give it a shot.

[GearHeaded]

Went to my first Appleseed this last weekend.

I have formal training in pistol and shotgun, zero with rifle. This was my 9th time ever shooting rifles and my first time not off a bench.

Overall a fun event. Enjoyed the history and left a better shooter than when I arrived. I tried to emphasize practicality over ultimate accuracy, shotting only hasty sling, kneeling vs sitting, etc.

I was the only one shooting a bolt-action. Not sure if this worked for me or against me. There were certainly instances where I ran out of time before ammo during timed drills, however I was also the top shooter by the end of both days and I think having to reset and rethink at least to some tiny degree between each shot may have played a part.

Past firearms training definitely helped as the fundamentals translate across platforms to a degree and not giving in to time pressure and stress so much. As for rifle-specific training I really didn't have any bad habits to break, being so inexperienced.

Came up just a few points shy of the Rifleman patch. No one got it. A few folks left early because I think they realized they didn't stand a chance. Crazy how some people just give up when something doesn't come easy.

If you have any formal marksmanship training in your past this will be painfully basic and slow at first. Still, any time at the range honing skills is time well spent and it was cheap and I got to meet and hang with some fun and like-minded folks. Give it a shot.

good post

and your absolutely correct. don't underestimate the bolt action rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter

I love my ARs and AKs but love my bolts as well

[Beetlegeuse]

Ernst, I'm glad you had the chance to broaden your experience.

What you were shooting was rimfire, yes? If that's the case then you probably were better off with a bolt gun. In shooting all precision begins with uniformity and a bolt action -- which doesn't move at all -- will tend to produce more uniform muzzle velocity than an auto-loader because any variability in the the movement of its action can affect MV. And it's more pronounced with rimfires than centerfires because both the firearm and the ammunition are more cheaply made. And because the powder charge weight in a rimfire is so relatively small that a difference of 0.1 grams makes a more pronounced difference in MV than the same variation in a centerfire round.

That's why autoloaders are the exception rather than the rule with snipers in all of the US armed forces and most law enforcement agencies. Because the autoloader has many more moving parts and it takes high quality design and construction to create a semi-auto action that has as little affect on MV as a bolt action does.

[Ernst]

Yes, I was shooting a Tikka T1X in .22LR. I'm quite pleased with the rifle. Accurate and reliable with a crisp trigger right out of the box.

[almostgone]

Ernst, I'm glad you had the chance to broaden your experience.

What you were shooting was rimfire, yes? If that's the case then you probably were better off with a bolt gun. In shooting all precision begins with uniformity and a bolt action -- which doesn't move at all -- will tend to produce more uniform muzzle velocity than an auto-loader because any variability in the the movement of its action can affect MV. And it's more pronounced with rimfires than centerfires because both the firearm and the ammunition are more cheaply made. And because the powder charge weight in a rimfire is so relatively small that a difference of 0.1 grams makes a more pronounced difference in MV than the same variation in a centerfire round.

That's why autoloaders are the exception rather than the rule with snipers in all of the US armed forces and most law enforcement agencies. Because the autoloader has many more moving parts and it takes high quality design and construction to create a semi-auto action that has as little affect on MV as a bolt action does.

There's a feeling of satisfaction you get when well fitted locking lugs mate up.

[Beetlegeuse]

Yes, I was shooting a Tikka T1X in .22LR. I'm quite pleased with the rifle. Accurate and reliable with a crisp trigger right out of the box.

I don't think those damn Finns know how to make a bad rifle. Tikka's rimfires are among the best. The Finns were still making quite an effective sniper rifle out of the Mosin-Nagant (the M-28/30) 50 years after the rest of the world -- including the Soviets -- had cast them aside as antiquated.

[Honkey_Kong]

So do anybody here shoot cast bullets? I'm kind of wanting to look in to it. At least for .45 ACP.

[GearHeaded]

So do anybody here shoot cast bullets? I'm kind of wanting to look in to it. At least for .45 ACP.

I wouldn't recommend it ,, unless your loading heavy cast bullets cause you hiking around in bear country and have a need for deep and heavy penetration.
normal range time and most circumstances its not needed

[Honkey_Kong]

I wouldn't recommend it ,, unless your loading heavy cast bullets cause you hiking around in bear country and have a need for deep and heavy penetration.
normal range time and most circumstances its not needed

I'm looking at it because it's a fraction of the price of jacketed bullets and that means more range time. I'm just worried about fouling the barrel.

[C27H40O3]

I don't think those damn Finns know how to make a bad rifle. Tikka's rimfires are among the best. The Finns were still making quite an effective sniper rifle out of the Mosin-Nagant (the M-28/30) 50 years after the rest of the world -- including the Soviets -- had cast them aside as antiquated.

I like Mosin Nagants.
That link didn’t work for me in Tapatalk, so for anybody with the same issue, here is what Wikipedia said about it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[almostgone]

So do anybody here shoot cast bullets? I'm kind of wanting to look in to it. At least for .45 ACP.

I do at the range. Recently stocked up on more because they get more and more difficult to find.

[Honkey_Kong]

I do at the range. Recently stocked up on more because they get more and more difficult to find.

Does the HI-TEK coating some manufacturers put on them worth it? And if not, how bad is it to scrub the lead residue out of the barrel if you have fouling?

[almostgone]

Does the HI-TEK coating some manufacturers put on them worth it? And if not, how bad is it to scrub the lead residue out of the barrel if you have fouling?

If it's not expensive, I occasionally get it, although I don't have issues with fouling. For instance I like the FalCoat bullets @ Falcon Bullet Company. Decent people, they and Missouri Bullet always are good to deal with.

I mentioned I never have issues with lead fouling, but also, I run a patch through my barrels prior to range shooting with just a dab of TWB-25 grease on it. Not much, just enough to leave a very light film.

Actually, I like all of mil-comm's products and have been using them for quite some time I use Break-free CLP for very few things these days.


https://mil-comm.com/tw25b/

[Honkey_Kong]

If it's not expensive, I occasionally get it, although I don't have issues with fouling. For instance I like the FalCoat bullets @ Falcon Bullet Company. Decent people, they and Missouri Bullet always are good to deal with.

I mentioned I never have issues with lead fouling, but also, I run a patch through my barrels prior to range shooting with just a dab of TWB-25 grease on it. Not much, just enough to leave a very light film.

Actually, I like all of mil-comm's products and have been using them for quite some time I use Break-free CLP for very few things these days.


https://mil-comm.com/tw25b/

Thanks I bookmarked that site.

I just bought some bullets from Bayou Bullets, but they're so back ordered they haven't mailed mine out yet.

[C27H40O3]

If it's not expensive, I occasionally get it, although I don't have issues with fouling. For instance I like the FalCoat bullets @ Falcon Bullet Company. Decent people, they and Missouri Bullet always are good to deal with.

I mentioned I never have issues with lead fouling, but also, I run a patch through my barrels prior to range shooting with just a dab of TWB-25 grease on it. Not much, just enough to leave a very light film.

Actually, I like all of mil-comm's products and have been using them for quite some time I use Break-free CLP for very few things these days.


https://mil-comm.com/tw25b/

I love Eezox spray lube and in the squirt can. Nice smell too. Not offensive to the nose.

https://www.eezox.com







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Beetlegeuse]

He needs an editor (ever writer does) but I can't quibble with his logic. Follow the hotlink in the headline for the full article.

The Second Amendment, Firearm Industry Exists to Protect During Crises • NSSF

By Larry Keane

The Second Amendment is inalienable and there is a perfect storm right now demonstrating its vital importance.

There is a constant barrage of attacks on the Second Amendment in “normal” times. These days are hardly normal, given the coronavirus pandemic, near economic standstill of stay-at-home orders and business closures and now rioting. Local law enforcement was already stretched thin when governors and mayors announced they were releasing criminals and prosecutors said they wouldn’t prosecute criminals. It’s no surprise firearm purchases soared. Millions of these buyers did so for the first time. Some were formerly in favor of strict gun control but were surprised by the obstacles encountered when they jumped off the fence and approached the gun counter for themselves.

The destruction and violence caused by rioters and looters, stumping on the message of peaceful protests, has thrown gasoline on the fire. Innocent bystanders are attacked, businesses built up over a lifetime were burned to the ground and now the calls to defund police departments are being shouted across the country.

America is waking up to the notion that rights aren’t the only thing reserved for individuals. Responsibility to exercise those rights is shouldered by individuals as well. More than six million background checks were conducted in three months for the sale of a firearm. NSSF retailer surveys discovered nearly 2.5 million people became a first-time gun owner during that time...


...Average Educated Citizens

It’s important to understand that the “average citizen carrying a gun” is exactly who the Founding Fathers thought should have a gun. It’s the average citizen for whom the Second Amendment was written. The late Justice Antonin Scalia explained as much in his majority Heller decision. The Second Amendment is an individual right. They are the same average citizens protecting their neighbor’s business from being destroyed and during recent riots.

The Second Amendment is crucial to the firearm and ammunition industry to ensure lawful firearm ownership. Without it, gun control politicians would have written away the right of Americans to purchase and possess firearms. It’s why NSSF fought for the federal government to list the industry as “essential” during the COVID-19 business closures. NSSF also believes in programs and education that make responsible gun owners smarter and safer.

NSSF launched Project ChildSafe® more than 20 years ago to reduce firearm accidents in the home by partnering with local law enforcement across the country to distribute more than 38 million firearm safety kits with gun locks free of charge. Operation Secure Store®, a partner program with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, educates retailers about how to increase security and reduce instances of theft and robberies. NSSF also partners with the ATF to lead the way in preventing illegal straw purchases of firearms through the Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM campaign.

These are Real Solutions® with proven track records at reducing criminal misuse and acquisition of firearms and gun accidents, resulting in the record low number of unintended firearm fatalities in more than one hundred years in 2019. This is what safe and responsible firearm ownership looks like. It’s an industry leading the way, proving real answers without infringing on fundamental rights. That’s what frightens those politicians who abhor the Second Amendment....

[Beetlegeuse]

The impact of these rulings could be YUGE, especially collectively.

David Codrea - June 09, 2020

'Second Amendment Cases' Before SCOTUS Bypass Core Purpose

“The Supreme Court is looking eager to weigh in on the Second Amendment weeks after it punted on its first substantial gun rights case in nearly a decade,” CNBC reports. “Ten different guns cases were on the agenda of the justices’ private conference … where they met to decide which cases they will hear in the upcoming term.”

As of this writing the cases have been relisted again. If the court does pick one, it will share something in common with the other contenders: All either ignore or tread lightly on the core purpose behind the Second Amendment, the maintenance of a well-regulated militia deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.” You can’t have that without an armed populace whose “right … to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The “punted” case was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. City of New York, “mooted” because, as explained by legal website JD Supra, the city “amended its rule to allow licensed handgun owners to transport their handguns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the five boroughs.”

The cases the high court are to pick from were summarized and detailed on SCOTUSblog, and included:

Mance v. Barr, a challenge to the federal prohibition on interstate handguns sales.

Rogers v. Grewal, a challenge to New Jersey’s requirements to prove a special need to carry a firearm outside the home.

Pena v. Horan, a challenge to California’s Unsafe Handgun Act bans.

Gould v. Lipson, a challenge to Massachusetts’ requirements to prove a “proper purpose” to carry a firearm outside the home.

Cheeseman v. Polillo, another New Jersey challenge “justifiable need/urgent necessity” handgun carry requirements.

Ciolek v. New Jersey, another New Jersey “special needs” challenge.

Worman v. Healey, a challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on magazines “capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.”

Malpasso v. Pallozzi, a challenge to Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement for issuing carry permits.

Culp v. Raoul, a challenge to the state of Illinois’ denial of “qualified nonresidents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.”

Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois, a challenge to a ban on “commonly-owned firearms and magazines.”

These are all necessary cases. They’re all worthy of support. And they’re all tailored to achieve a specific result. That’s understandable. The infringements happened incrementally over years and trying to roll them back through the courts, even when successful, at best results in what Martin Luther King condemned as “a right delayed.”

That means a right denied for the duration of the infringement.

Case in point: Young v. Hawaii, a challenge to that state’s denial of carry permits, was held up from en banc proceedings by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals until SCOTUS weighed in on the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case. At this writing, plaintiff George Young has been in appeals for over seven years with no end in sight, and the man is in his 70s.

Fighting this gun-grab and that, having appeals denied, struggling to finance a case and maintain the momentum for years against government entities with virtually unlimited resources, only to reach the end of the trail and have the Supreme Court deny cert shows the legal system for the rigged game that it is. It recalls nothing so much as the John F. Kennedy quote, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The guys who risked it all with the Declaration of Independence and went on to ratify the Bill of Rights knew a little something about that, which brings us back to “the security of a free State.” That’s why at some point the Second Amendment needs to be addressed head-on.

Of the 10 cases before the court, the Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in Mance, Pena, Gould, and Cheeseman do not mention the word “militia” at all. Rogers mentions it in passing but does not elaborate. Ciolek, Worman, and Culp simply quote the Second Amendment but go no further.

Malpasso elaborates a bit, noting “Militia service, of course, necessarily includes bearing arms outside the home,” and citing the Heller acknowledgment “that the right to bear arms was codified at least in part to ensure the viability of the militia.” That said, the case is about carrying firearms for personal self-defense.

Wilson, ultimately focused on “lawful purposes such as self-defense,” goes into the most detail, asking “ Whether the Seventh Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test which asks whether (1) a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (2) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (3) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with this Court’s holding in Heller.”

What we appear to have is a manufactured conflict between Miller, essentially requiring arms to have “a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” and Heller, which stressed “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

This is where those of us who aren’t lawyers scratch our heads, because, precedent aside, it’s obvious that the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms requires our unimpeded access to both kinds. If “common use” does not include what is commonly used by the military, the militia will be rendered obsolete, as each new technological development will be reserved for the standing army and denied to the people.

Yes, the Second Amendment is not a collective but an individual right, but yes, it also serves a collective purpose. We ignore the first part, authoritatively documented by legal scholar Edwin Vieira in his classic Thirteen Words, at our peril.

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people,” William Rawle wrote in 1829’s A View of the Constitution, the standard Constitutional law text at leading universities for decades. “Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

In short: States, subordinate to “the supreme Law of the Land,” may not undermine their duties to encourage, enable and protect an armed populace and to provide for the “well-regulated” part when individuals are called up and subject to lawful discipline. Subverting that, by any level of government, is nothing less than an act of subversion against “the security of a free State.”

It’s not out of line to hope that a Second Amendment case arguing this might find its way into a mix that is mostly concerned with kinder, gentler permits, or on slowing down the further functional emasculation of already-neutered arms. Less likely, but nonetheless necessary if we’re ever going to get serious about all this, would be for this Republic to get back to founding intent, and establishing a Bill of Rights culture where citizens assume their proper role in safeguarding freedom.

[Beetlegeuse]

Looks like NASCAR opposes both the 1st and the 2nd Amendments.

NASCAR rejects advertising from gun companies, causing fans to question its 2nd Amendment stance

NASCAR has reportedly been denying firearm companies the ability to advertise on their programming this summer as part of a “gradual shift” in their position on guns....

[Honkey_Kong]

Looks like NASCAR opposes both the 1st and the 2nd Amendments.

NASCAR rejects advertising from gun companies, causing fans to question its 2nd Amendment stance

NASCAR has reportedly been denying firearm companies the ability to advertise on their programming this summer as part of a “gradual shift” in their position on guns....

Nobody is forcing anyone to watch NASCAR or go to their races. They can do whatever they want. I don't imagine pissing off their fan-base is the best strategy, but I also think a lot of their fans are racist arseholes who don't have much money anyways and they want fans with deeper pockets.

[C27H40O3]

Looks like NASCAR opposes both the 1st and the 2nd Amendments.

NASCAR rejects advertising from gun companies, causing fans to question its 2nd Amendment stance

NASCAR has reportedly been denying firearm companies the ability to advertise on their programming this summer as part of a “gradual shift” in their position on guns....

Years ago, I supported the ACLU, and joined by sending a yearly donation. I liked their stance on free speech at the time. At some point they seemed to turn against 2A rights.

I stopped supporting and every time they send me shit asking me to support again, I forward it to the execute director Anthony Romero with an explanation that they won’t get another penny of my money until they support the second amendment as much as they support the first, fourth and fifth.

NASCAR users should let the boss there know they will not support it until it supports our issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Beetlegeuse]

Well damn. SCOTUS denied cert to all those gun cases.

Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas dissented to the denial for Rogers v. Grewal and as usual Justice Thomas' dissent is brilliant. He obviously laments the fact that liberal lower courts are intent on nibbling at the edges of the Heller decision (to the detriment of the 2nd Amendment) and is champing at the bit for a case that will enable the court to stamp "HANDS OFF OUR FUCKING GUNS!" on it.


EDIT:
BTW, this doesn't necessarily mean there was no merit in those cases and they individually are lost causes, it might be that the way it presented simply didn't give compelling enough a reason for SCOTUS to give it its attention.

[almostgone]

Well damn. SCOTUS denied cert to all those gun cases.

Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas dissented to the denial for Rogers v. Grewal and as usual Justice Thomas' dissent is brilliant. He obviously laments the fact that liberal lower courts are intent on nibbling at the edges of the Heller decision (to the detriment of the 2nd Amendment) and is champing at the bit for a case that will enable the court to stamp "HANDS OFF OUR FUCKING GUNS!" on it.


EDIT:
BTW, this doesn't necessarily mean there was no merit in those cases and they individually are lost causes, it might be that the way it presented simply didn't give compelling enough a reason for SCOTUS to give it its attention.

They still aren't done with the Jersey case, are they?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tho...cond-amendment

Petitioner asks this Court to grant certiorari to determine whether New Jersey’s near-total prohibition on carrying a firearm in public violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment," he said. "This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right."


Thomas closed with a parting shot at his fellow justices.

"Rather than prolonging our decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment, I would grant this petition," he said.

[Honkey_Kong]

Well damn. SCOTUS denied cert to all those gun cases.

Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas dissented to the denial for Rogers v. Grewal and as usual Justice Thomas' dissent is brilliant. He obviously laments the fact that liberal lower courts are intent on nibbling at the edges of the Heller decision (to the detriment of the 2nd Amendment) and is champing at the bit for a case that will enable the court to stamp "HANDS OFF OUR FUCKING GUNS!" on it.


EDIT:
BTW, this doesn't necessarily mean there was no merit in those cases and they individually are lost causes, it might be that the way it presented simply didn't give compelling enough a reason for SCOTUS to give it its attention.

America is dead. If not even the SCOTUS will defend the most basic and essential of rights, what about the others?

[C27H40O3]

America is dead. If not even the SCOTUS will defend the most basic and essential of rights, what about the others?

Agreed


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Beetlegeuse]

SCOTUS isn't saying they won't protect the constitution, they're just saying the petitioner didn't say "May I?" properly.

Their job isn't to settle every street brawl that erupts and it's the duty of each petitioner to submit their case in a manner that SCOTUS is compelled to take it up.

[C27H40O3]

SCOTUS isn't saying they won't protect the constitution, they're just saying the petitioner didn't say "May I?" properly.

Their job isn't to settle every street brawl that erupts and it's the duty of each petitioner to submit their case in a manner that SCOTUS is compelled to take it up.

I dont know what they did decide to here. I didnt look. Did they decide to take up any cases involving any other rights listed in the Bill of Rights?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Honkey_Kong]

SCOTUS isn't saying they won't protect the constitution, they're just saying the petitioner didn't say "May I?" properly.

Their job isn't to settle every street brawl that erupts and it's the duty of each petitioner to submit their case in a manner that SCOTUS is compelled to take it up.

They don't have to settle every street brawl. They just have to set the precedence for the lower courts to follow.

[Beetlegeuse]

They don't have to settle every street brawl. They just have to set the precedence for the lower courts to follow.

They did that with the Heller decision. The problem is lib-tard judges who are intent on legislating from the bench.



What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

[Too-$mall]

I just got this little guy-mossberg 500 pistol grip. not a hand gun, but not a shotgun. it's classified as a handgun. it's a loophole weapon. it's lonely and needs a pistol buddy. i got the biggest ball shot i could find to cause maximum damage to the unlucky A hole that tries to home invade me.


here's my wish list. prob never happen but hey, i can dream

i want one of these. it's shit for accuracy and sustained fire but ya dont need much at close range to zip'em up.
I give you the MAC-11. pre 1986 band models are going for 50-60K i think.

Id love to add and extended mag, and a silencer. laser site too, but mostly because it looks cool.

I've been doing a little reading on weapon smithing-learning about jigs, complete builds, and welding plates. if one studied, practiced, and bought the tools, it's very doable. there are youtube videos on building your own MAC-11 using a jig. maybe one day, if i pick up the hobby. That's right up there with moonshining, and workin on cars for me. dont do either, but maybe one day.

This one is also cool. i like machine guns

[Beetlegeuse]

I am not alone in that opinion.

Twelve Years After Heller

The Supreme Court will continue to ignore the Second Amendment until it receives a petition it has to grant.

...I am convinced the only way to change the Second Amendment status quo is for the Fifth Circuit, now at full strength, to give the Chief Justices a petition they have to grant. I would much rather lose a 5-4 decision, or 6-3, and know where the Justices stand, than to keep showing up in a fixed match to the Globetrotters.

#30#

My question is, if there were a liberal majority court under a demoncrat presidential administration, would you not want them exercising the same judicial rigor? It's supposed to be hard to get a case before SCOTUS.

[The road]

Looks like NASCAR opposes both the 1st and the 2nd Amendments.

NASCAR rejects advertising from gun companies, causing fans to question its 2nd Amendment stance

NASCAR has reportedly been denying firearm companies the ability to advertise on their programming this summer as part of a “gradual shift” in their position on guns....

Lmfao every redneck that watches it....

[GearHeaded]

Lmfao every redneck that watches it....

monster truck is way better


but even thats starting to go liberal and anti gun .. F_k what the heck is happening to this country

[i_SLAM_cougars]

I love how the word “Racist” in this country right now is basically the same thing as “Heretic” in the Middle Ages. Like the worst thing you can possibly be as a person is someone who inherently doesn’t like a generalized group of people or their maybe just their stereo type. Except that’s not what it even means anymore, because the word had totally lost its meaning and is just loosely thrown at anyone who’s opinion doesn’t go 100% along with liberal left wing ideology in this country. Just like if you went against the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages you were branded a heretic.

Off the top of my head I can think of plenty of things that are worse than racism. Not that I don’t think racism a bit silly in this day in age, but never the less there are worse things...

examples:
Murder
Rape
Human Trafficking
Assault/Battery
Robbery
Burglary
Grand Theft Auto
Extortion
Black Male (<~~ see what I did there)
Driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol

I also feel like comedians should be protected from being branded racist since it’s their job to make fun of people.

[The road]

Sometimes I want to step away from all news and social media so I dont even know what topics are trending...but if I had done that I wouldn't know who Carol Baskin is and that bitch belongs behind bars.

[Beetlegeuse]

The Federalist speculates that the conservative judges declined to hear all those RKBA cases because Justice Roberts has gone all wobbly on the Bill of Rights. They'd rather those cases not be heard until Trump gets to appoint one more originalist on the court.

[almostgone]

Winchester Earns Huge $38 Million Pistol Ammo Contract « Daily Bulletin

[Beetlegeuse]

Franklin Armory (the guys who invented the binary AR trigger, the AR SBR that isn't an NFA device, and the non-semi-auto AR) has filed a class action suit against the Mexifornia DOJ "for failure to perform their required duty." They're soliciting others (I presume they must be Mexifornia residents) to contribute to their suit (which I further presume means you'd receive a portion of any settlement).

Winchester Earns Huge $38 Million Pistol Ammo Contract « Daily Bulletin

Since it's frangible ammunition, I'm guessing that has to be practice ammo for kill houses.

[C27H40O3]

Franklin Armory (the guys who invented the binary AR trigger, the AR SBR that isn't an NFA device, and the non-semi-auto AR) has filed a class action suit against the Mexifornia DOJ "for failure to perform their required duty." They're soliciting others (I presume they must be Mexifornia residents) to contribute to their suit (which I further presume means you'd receive a portion of any settlement).




Since it's frangible ammunition, I'm guessing that has to be practice ammo for kill houses.

i cant figure out what they are talking about. what is the Title 1 rifle? What is special about it?