quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
They accepted a concealed carry case out of NY for this fall's term.

That's a rather small issue compared to anything with AR15 attached to it. As someone else noted, if this is appealed to SCOTUS, and they were to both take it and rule favorably on it, it would send a cascading effect across the entire country (which it should and would be a positive). SCOTUS, and especially Roberts, seem unwilling to do their job when it comes to making a decision that broad reaching.

Make no mistake, I'm like everyone else here in that I hope this makes it to SCOTUS and SCOTUS surprises me by taking it and ruling on it in line with what the Constitution demands.

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
I really want this to stand but I don't see the CA gun grabbers backing down.

That unfortunately is the reality in California. If this law fails, California politicos will likely reorganize and come up with some sort of work around legislation to take its place. The true Left is never going to give in to what the Constitution demands for the 2A.

California's technically unfeasible micro-stamping law is why Glock still makes Gen 3 guns and nothing has been added to the roster of "approved" guns since the law went into effect. It is effectively a ban on new firearm designs which may actually be "safer" than older designs in many cases, by mandating something that is not technologically possible and easily defeatable with a simple file. They will do anything to ban as many guns as possible.

There is a great video made by the Boone County Indiana Sheriff's department showing two shooters firing 30 rounds with two 15-round mags, 3 10-round mags, and 5 6-round mags. Since mag changes take about a second there is no significant difference in time to fire all 30 rounds at 3 targets (one shot per target cycling back and forth). Magazine capacity limits have no effect on rounds fired, provided that the shooter has the extra mags.

A person legally carrying concealed is likely to have the mag in the gun and maybe a spare or two (but probably not 5) so magazine capacity restrictions affect the legally armed citizen more than a mass shooter that plans his attack and can carry as many spare mags as he wants, in a shoulder bag if necessary. Magazine capacity is more about efficiency - an infantryman with an M16/M4 and 6 spare 30 round mags plus the one in the rifle has 210 rounds and a lot less bulk than 10 spare 20 round mags and one in the rifle for 220 rounds. Same for police officers - 17+1 in the gun and two spares is 52 rounds, and a lot less bulk than 4 spare 10 round mags plus one in the gun. I've seen at least one officer that carries a 33 round extended mag just in case.

At the most basic level, an armed citizen should be able to have the exact same handgun, ammo, capacity, and spare mags as a police officer. For both, the handgun is for self defense, to be used on very short notice, and in reality for most officers, not used very often. If an officer is called to a "shots fired" or "man with a gun" the shotgun or rifle will be carried. The one exception I have heard of is new policies for active shooter events at schools - any officer already on the scene will engage the suspect with whatever arm he is carrying, and will not go out to his car to get something else because time is critical and most shooters give up or kill themselves when anyone shoots back.

Remember Clint Smith says the best thing you can do to win a gunfight is bring more ammo, and no one ever said "I wish I carried less ammo" after a gunfight. Mag restrictions disarm the good guys more than the bad guys, because good guys carry in case they need a gun, but there are practical limits to how much you can carry concealed. If you KNOW you are going to be in a gunfight then you will bring more ammo, like a wraparound rig with a bunch of mags, appropriate cover garment, and probably have a shotgun or rifle in the car nearby. Bad guys KNOW when they are going to cause a gunfight and prepare accordingly.

In the 2004 election John Kerry couldn't stop talking about AK47's on the street. They were cheap back then - WASR's were like $400 and SKS's firing the same round were half that for surplus. Now cheap AR's are $500 and AK's are nearing $1000 and we see more AR's in highly politicized shootings, with the associated demonization and misinformation - useless for hunting, not accurate enough, too powerful, etc.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

For those who find a 94-page statement a bit daunting and time consuming, here's a statement from one of the Plaintiffs



For those interested in who the main players that are apart of this case, a nice mix of private citizens, private business' and advocacy organizations:

Plaintiffs: James Miller; Wendy Hauffen; Neil Rutherford; Adrian Sevilla; Ryan Peterson; Gunfighter Tactical, LLC; John Phillips; Poway Weapons and Gear; San Diego County Gun Owners PAC (SDCGO); California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF); Second Amendment Foundation (SAF); Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (FPC)

Just in case anybody wants to light some candles to St. Benitez:



Olde but goode, of course.

^^^^^I didn’t like RBG being granted sainthood by the left, and I don’t like this.

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
^^^^^I didn’t like RBG being granted sainthood by the left, and I don’t like this.

It’s a joke…

I love it. But I have a fondness for memes that cultivate feels. One of the only things I miss about social media is creating memes that went viral on the pages I followed and created a mass triggering.

I disagree. The NYS case could be huge. If the SCOTUS rules for who I assume are the plaintiffs, it may have the effect of invalidating every "may issue" law in the country. It might also put limits on the grounds various levels of government who impose licensing regulation can use to deny a license. That's a pretty big deal. I would say it's close to, if not equal to invalidating the concept of an AWB.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
They accepted a concealed carry case out of NY for this fall's term.

That's a rather small issue compared to anything with AR15 attached to it. As someone else noted, if this is appealed to SCOTUS, and they were to both take it and rule favorably on it, it would send a cascading effect across the entire country (which it should and would be a positive). SCOTUS, and especially Roberts, seem unwilling to do their job when it comes to making a decision that broad reaching.

Make no mistake, I'm like everyone else here in that I hope this makes it to SCOTUS and SCOTUS surprises me by taking it and ruling on it in line with what the Constitution demands.

What a shock! California filed an appeal today... California Appeals Court Ruling Upending Assault Weapons Ban

Well you knew that was going to happen.

I wish there was a way to strip all private security from the politicians who want to ban guns. There has to be some way to go on the attack and make them feel the same pressure they are putting on everyone else.

Maybe pulling a page from the rabid left and doxxing then endlessly harassing those who provide armed protection for tyrants could be effective?

What would it take for the Secret Service to go on strike to protest the unconstitutional power grabs and corruption that will lead to a single party government?

Sounds like a good movie script. Except Hollywood would write is so the Secret Service stopped a far right takeover, not the far left takeover that actually happening.

Back to the story:

"An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction … used in warfare,” Campbell said. It “causes absolute devastation to the human body. It is as if a bomb went off in the tissues of the patient.”

Somebody better show him a 7.62 x 51 wound. Or 12-gauge 00 Buck. Or a 12-gauge slug.

If we banned all semi-auto rifles completely, mass shooters would use pump shotguns with 00 buck or slugs and then there would be demands to ban 00 Buck and slugs since you don't need them to shoot birds.

An AR-15 is an entry level common use home defense weapon. Calling it anything else is just ignoring reality and trying to scare people with silly and incredibly stupid claims.

I think I'll get a Left Handed Bula M14 repro. Didn't know they existed until a couple days ago.

With the nice wood stock that lacks a pistol grip and simple removal of the flash hider and replacement with a muzzle brake, it will become a harmless non-assault rifle.

It’s been said many times here. The most important reason is that it’s a type of weapon in common use by the gov / mil. To fight against gov tyranny, we need the same tools. Otherwise we’re bringing a knife to a gun fight. Crime seems like a symptom of a tyrannical gov (or a gov not doing its job) and so use against crime as well.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
To fight against gov tyranny, we need the same tools.

Then we shouldn't be arguing for AR's, we should be arguing for public ownership of M4's and SAW's.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
To fight against gov tyranny, we need the same tools.

Then we shouldn't be arguing for AR's, we should be arguing for public ownership of M4's and SAW's.

A case sould be made that that was what Miller was all about.

flashguy

Stay issued. Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocked a federal judge’s ruling which overturned California’s longtime ban on assault weapons.

A three-judge panel issued a stay of the June 4 order from U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California, in which the judge ruled that sections of the state ban in place since 1989 regarding military-style rifles are unconstitutional.

The stay will remain in place pending the outcome of another case challenging the ban. The 9th Circuit panel said parties will file a status update within 14 days of a decision in the other case, Rupp v. Bonta.

WAPO