You have no “checks and balances” of power in your country unless you have an armed citizenry to counteract an armed State.
This is what the UK doesn’t understand.
Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith Tweeted on January 4, 2022 [Or, perhaps the people in power do understand and prefer there not be checks and balances on their power.
I’m of the opinion the U.S. should sanction countries which infringe upon the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. But, I will grant we need to do far more in our own country before we have the moral highroad on the issue.—Joe]
There are two kinds of lawyers in this world: the ones who understand Bruen as an unprecedented and ahistorical Supreme Court power grab rewriting the Second Amendment to create an individual right to gun ownership over and above the power of the states, and the ones who collect fees from gun dealers and manufacturers.
Yesterday I took a new coworker to the range. He is former military and likes guns but all his guns were stolen a year or so ago and had not replaced them. I took him to the range and let him shoot several of my handguns and introduced him to Steel Challenge like shooting (with multiple paper targets) and USPSA stages. He said he really enjoyed that and it was nothing like he had ever done before. He plans to get a new gun soon. I plan to take him to a Steel Challenge match when the weather gets better.—Joe]
Based on the above, partially complete Polymer80, Lone Wolf, and similar pistol frames with any kind of indexing or material removed from the front or rear fire control cavities for installation of the trigger mechanism and sear, or slide rail attachments to connect the trigger mechanism and sear to the frame, have reached a stage of manufacture where they “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to a functional frame. As examined, they are classified as a “frame” and also a “firearm,” as defined in the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B), and implementing regulations, 27 CFR 478.12(a)(1), (c). They are classified as firearms even if they are not sold, distributed, marketed, or possessed with any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, or guides.
How do we combat propaganda? Censorship isn’t working. Even the most pro-censorship people will admit that getting companies like twitter to censor propaganda is hard. We can do better. I know that people can do better. You just have to try.
Noah @noah_anyname Tweeted on April 20, 2022 [This is really late game thinking.
Just keep saying no to Stalinists like this until you are out of ammo. Then attach the bayonet and continue to defend yourself as long as you can.—Joe]
How about, “You fear shopping because you might see someone exercising their constitutionally protected rights? Let me buy you a one way, no return allowed, ticket to Venezuela, China, or North Korea.”—Joe]
A shortage of public defenders in Portland, Oregon, has led courts to dismiss hundreds of criminal cases and delayed justice for scores of other victims whose cases have languished in a backlog for months.
Between February and December of this year, Multnomah County dismissed 300 cases because no public defender was available to represent the defendants, according to the Multnomah district attorney.
In all, the district attorney’s office said, nearly 2,500 felony cases were affected this year by a lack of public defenders.
“The courts are put in the position of releasing defendants without prosecutors having so much as an opportunity to request bail or release conditions. And it’s not getting any better,” District Attorney Mike Schmidt said in a statement last month.
“This sends a message to crime victims in our community that justice is unavailable and their harm will go unaddressed,” Schmidt said. “It also sends a message to individuals who have committed a crime that there is no accountability while burning through scarce police and prosecutor resources. Every day that this crisis persists presents an urgent and continuing threat to public safety.”
Oregon, primarily due to the influence of Portland, has passed laws that would have halted all gun sales if the courts had not stopped the enforcement of those laws. There are very few hypothesis consistent with the evidence. Nearly all of them lead one to conclude politicians need to be prosecuted or removed from office via other means.
.. is made by necking down a 20mm Vulcan autocannon shell casing. It was developed as a collaborative project among members of the Snipers Hide online forum. It has undergone several revisions since 2010.
It’s usually loaded with a hand-crafted low-drag 1,690 grain solid copper bullet, which it fires at roughly 3,350 fps. The projectile itself is roughly 4 inches long, with driving bands and an aggressive rebated boat tail to reduce base drag.
The sectional density is around 0.70, which is an astoundingly high measure of the mass-to-diameter ratio. It’s very heavy for it’s caliber, nearly a quarter pound.
The ballistic coefficient is about 1.85, which is an astoundingly high measure of how aerodynamic the bullet is during flight.
And, of course, because it is more that .50 caliber (for now) it must be registered as a “destructive device.”
Wow. Nice ballistics! But I wouldn’t want to pay the price to feed it.
You can’t understand any significant aspects of the gun-control debate once you eliminate defensive gun use. It becomes inexplicable why so many Americans oppose otherwise perfectly reasonable gun-control measurements. It’s because they think it’s gonna lead to prohibition, and they won’t have a gun for self-defense.
Private gun ownership can be a legal issue. In this case the courts and/or the Department of Justice might have valid reason to weigh in on it.
If you want to push the envelope, gun ownership can related to criminal statistics and the FBI collects the data on that.
But the CDC? They have a long and dirty history of conspiring to deprive citizens of their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They need to stay in their lane or plan on enjoying their trial.—Joe]
“We applaud Texas for doing the right thing and accepting the district court’s ruling against its law prohibiting 18-to-20-year-old adults from carrying firearms in public,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s senior attorney for constitutional litigation. “Not only do young adults have the same constitutionally protected right to bear arms as all other adults, they are also among the reasons we have a Second Amendment, Constitution, and Country in the first place.”
Pittman noted the Second Amendment does not contain any mention of age as a restriction, unlike other portions of the Constitution.
“To start, the Second Amendment does not mention any sort of age restriction,” he wrote. “This absence is notable—when the Framers meant to impose age restrictions, they did so expressly.”
This only the Fifth Circuit. I would not be surprised to see the Ninth Circuit tap dance their way into believing they can set the age as 65 and over. Then the next day saying “Red Flags” laws allow confiscation for people over 60 because they are of unfirm mind.
A woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than a man doing the same.
And this message is getting across to women. Between 2012 and 2022, in states that provide data by sex, permits for concealed handguns increased 115% more quickly among women than among men. The percentage of women who say that gun ownership protects people from crime has also been growing faster than their male counterparts.
The high cost of permits disarms the very people who most need protection, including minorities who live in high-crime urban areas.
Lamont seems intent on executing his plan to reclassify peaceable Connecticut residents lawfully exercising their constitutional rights as felons. His example illustrates very clearly what the reassurances of gun control advocates are worth and how anyone who thinks its safe to rely on such reassurances will be in for a rude awakening.
Indeed, the month after Lamont announced his intentions, an editorial in the Connecticut Mirror argued that constitutional assurances the right to keep and bear arms will be protected should themselves be repealed. “It is time to talk about repealing the Second Amendment,” the author insisted. But he made it clear that his plan wasn’t necessarily an alternative to incrementalism but a potential aid to it. “[T]he very existence of a loud argument about the larger issue of repeal will make those incremental proposals seem more moderate, and therefore ultimately more achievable,” the editorialist wrote.
Never forget, the only reason for gun registration is confiscation.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California issued a permanent injunction on Monday against the “fee-shifting” provisions of the state’s gun law – which empowers private citizens to bring lawsuits against manufacturers of illegal guns – declaring it unconstitutional.
“‘It is cynical. ‘It is an abomination.’ ‘It is outrageous and objectionable.’ ‘There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions.’ ‘It is an unprecedented attempt to thwart judicial review,’”