NationStates

American Legionaries wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:One can even join the FPC now and still get covered.
Also to note, if you read the order from the merit panel in the 5th circuit, Maxim Defense customers and possible customers are also covered.
So it would seem those who bought anything by Maxim Defense will also be covered.

Possible customers? So can I tell the ATF to eat shit because I've thought about buying some of Maxim Defense's products?

M.D argued that the pistol brace bullshit is a harm to their business model and would lead to layoffs so 2 of the 3 judges agreed that this rule is a harm to M.D.

An idea is floating around that with the recent 9-0 ruling in sackett v. epa, will help with the paxton v. dettlebach (the made in texas suppressor law) seeing as how Thomas and Gorsuch in their concurring ruling is reigning in the govts excessive use of the commerce clause, which in turn will limit the batfe(arbf) in trying to regulate a product that isn't under their purview due to no interstate commerce.

Reminder that the common sense gun control we currently have means you cannot use medical or recreational Marijuana and own or possess firearms or ammunition. This is of course a valid exercise of power and nobody would ever complain if your right to speech religion privacy or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment were contingent on your ability to stay away from the devils lettuce.


https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atf-provide ... ijuana-law

Des-Bal wrote:Reminder that the common sense gun control we currently have means you cannot use medical or recreational Marijuana and own or possess firearms or ammunition. This is of course a valid exercise of power and nobody would ever complain if your right to speech religion privacy or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment were contingent on your ability to stay away from the devils lettuce.


https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atf-provide ... ijuana-law

Judge McGlynn and Benitez, pretty much said the same thing in their rulings at the time, and ruled that the 2nd Amendment is to be held to the same standard of strict scrutiny and to reject interest balancing bullshit and to treat the 2nd the same as the other enumerated rights, which more or less echoed Scalia's and Thomas' rulings years before in Heller.

Speaking of said decisions, NAGR is going after Ma. unconstitutional awb.

But...but....I still want gay married couples to be able to defend their marijuana plants with AK-47s!

Maryland-Delaware wrote:But...but....I still want gay married couples to be able to defend their marijuana plants with AK-47s!

But the ATF wants none of those things.

American Legionaries wrote:

Maryland-Delaware wrote:But...but....I still want gay married couples to be able to defend their marijuana plants with AK-47s!

But the ATF wants none of those things.

ATF only exists because Prohibition agents needed new jobs when Prohibition ended.

Maryland-Delaware wrote:

American Legionaries wrote:
But the ATF wants none of those things.

ATF only exists because Prohibition agents needed new jobs when Prohibition ended.

Which is a shame, the whole dept. should have been disbanded right then and the agents promoted to cleaning shitters and picking up refuse.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:Reminder that the common sense gun control we currently have means you cannot use medical or recreational Marijuana and own or possess firearms or ammunition. This is of course a valid exercise of power and nobody would ever complain if your right to speech religion privacy or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment were contingent on your ability to stay away from the devils lettuce.


https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atf-provide ... ijuana-law

Judge McGlynn and Benitez, pretty much said the same thing in their rulings at the time, and ruled that the 2nd Amendment is to be held to the same standard of strict scrutiny and to reject interest balancing bullshit and to treat the 2nd the same as the other enumerated rights, which more or less echoed Scalia's and Thomas' rulings years before in Heller.

Speaking of said decisions, NAGR is going after Ma. unconstitutional awb.

I'm hoping the NAGR kicks MA's ass in court.

The more AWB decisions that go in our favor, the easier it should be for the USSC to kill AWBs permanently.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Judge McGlynn and Benitez, pretty much said the same thing in their rulings at the time, and ruled that the 2nd Amendment is to be held to the same standard of strict scrutiny and to reject interest balancing bullshit and to treat the 2nd the same as the other enumerated rights, which more or less echoed Scalia's and Thomas' rulings years before in Heller.

Speaking of said decisions, NAGR is going after Ma. unconstitutional awb.

I'm hoping the NAGR kicks MA's ass in court.

The more AWB decisions that go in our favor, the easier it should be for the USSC to kill AWBs permanently.

Well seeing as how 1st circuit is hostile towards the 2nd Amendment and likes to treat it as a second class right, I too would hope the USSC would take on at least one.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Judge McGlynn and Benitez, pretty much said the same thing in their rulings at the time, and ruled that the 2nd Amendment is to be held to the same standard of strict scrutiny and to reject interest balancing bullshit and to treat the 2nd the same as the other enumerated rights, which more or less echoed Scalia's and Thomas' rulings years before in Heller.

Speaking of said decisions, NAGR is going after Ma. unconstitutional awb.

I'm hoping the NAGR kicks MA's ass in court.

The more AWB decisions that go in our favor, the easier it should be for the USSC to kill AWBs permanently.

Daily reminder that Maura Healey should be in jail for her gross overreach of her position/powers.

Proudly telling this particular sad sack to pound sand since 2016!

Read earlier today that jury selection has begun in the trial of the broward coward scot peterson for his inaction during the parkland fiasco.
Don't really know how this will turn out considering the USSC has ruled numerous times that police officers have no duty to protect.
Perhaps guilty of some sort of perjury charge?

Also.
Permitless concealed carry has cleared the senate committee and being sent to the full senate for a vote.
What doesn't make sense, is that the bill was changed from 18 to 21 yr olds to conceal carry, however 18 to open carry. Makes no damn logical sense.

HEH, batfe(arbf) jackboot cunts dealt another blow in their unlawful pistol brace rule.
GOA, GOF, SAF and the state of Tx were just granted a preliminary injunction against the new unlawful regulation.
Injunction also includes all members of GOA, GOF and SAF.

“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads

Judge’s Declare Gun Rights Groups & TX Protected From ATF Pistol Brace Rule

4th circuit court of appeals just wrapped up oral arguments on Md, unconstitutional aw and mag ban, a case that was vacated by the USSC and remanded back to the 4th for a rehearing in light of bruen.
Md. lawyer was basically laughed at by the judges in his weak ass attempt to argue that bruen didn't apply and the "military test" was sufficient to ban so called aw.
It was heard by a 3 judge panel and looks like it will be a 2-1 ruling striking down Md, aw and mag ban.

Grinning Dragon wrote:HEH, batfe(arbf) jackboot cunts dealt another blow in their unlawful pistol brace rule.
GOA, GOF, SAF and the state of Tx were just granted a preliminary injunction against the new unlawful regulation.
Injunction also includes all members of GOA, GOF and SAF.

“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads

Judge’s Declare Gun Rights Groups & TX Protected From ATF Pistol Brace Rule

4th circuit court of appeals just wrapped up oral arguments on Md, unconstitutional aw and mag ban, a case that was vacated by the USSC and remanded back to the 4th for a rehearing in light of bruen.
Md. lawyer was basically laughed at by the judges in his weak ass attempt to argue that bruen didn't apply and the "military test" was sufficient to ban so called aw.
It was heard by a 3 judge panel and looks like it will be a 2-1 ruling striking down Md, aw and mag ban.

Good news all around.

Grinning Dragon wrote:HEH, batfe(arbf) jackboot cunts dealt another blow in their unlawful pistol brace rule.
GOA, GOF, SAF and the state of Tx were just granted a preliminary injunction against the new unlawful regulation.
Injunction also includes all members of GOA, GOF and SAF.

“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads

Judge’s Declare Gun Rights Groups & TX Protected From ATF Pistol Brace Rule

4th circuit court of appeals just wrapped up oral arguments on Md, unconstitutional aw and mag ban, a case that was vacated by the USSC and remanded back to the 4th for a rehearing in light of bruen.
Md. lawyer was basically laughed at by the judges in his weak ass attempt to argue that bruen didn't apply and the "military test" was sufficient to ban so called aw.
It was heard by a 3 judge panel and looks like it will be a 2-1 ruling striking down Md, aw and mag ban.

Nice so I’m protected by both the GOA and FPC as I’m a paying member of both

Grinning Dragon wrote:HEH, batfe(arbf) jackboot cunts dealt another blow in their unlawful pistol brace rule.
GOA, GOF, SAF and the state of Tx were just granted a preliminary injunction against the new unlawful regulation.
Injunction also includes all members of GOA, GOF and SAF.

“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads

Judge’s Declare Gun Rights Groups & TX Protected From ATF Pistol Brace Rule

4th circuit court of appeals just wrapped up oral arguments on Md, unconstitutional aw and mag ban, a case that was vacated by the USSC and remanded back to the 4th for a rehearing in light of bruen.
Md. lawyer was basically laughed at by the judges in his weak ass attempt to argue that bruen didn't apply and the "military test" was sufficient to ban so called aw.
It was heard by a 3 judge panel and looks like it will be a 2-1 ruling striking down Md, aw and mag ban.

Now if only they'd strike down the handgun poll tax we'd be set.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:HEH, batfe(arbf) jackboot cunts dealt another blow in their unlawful pistol brace rule.
GOA, GOF, SAF and the state of Tx were just granted a preliminary injunction against the new unlawful regulation.
Injunction also includes all members of GOA, GOF and SAF.

Judge’s Declare Gun Rights Groups & TX Protected From ATF Pistol Brace Rule

4th circuit court of appeals just wrapped up oral arguments on Md, unconstitutional aw and mag ban, a case that was vacated by the USSC and remanded back to the 4th for a rehearing in light of bruen.
Md. lawyer was basically laughed at by the judges in his weak ass attempt to argue that bruen didn't apply and the "military test" was sufficient to ban so called aw.
It was heard by a 3 judge panel and looks like it will be a 2-1 ruling striking down Md, aw and mag ban.

Now if only they'd strike down the handgun poll tax we'd be set.

Referring to those unconstitutional permit to purchase bullshit?

Grinning Dragon wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Now if only they'd strike down the handgun poll tax we'd be set.

Referring to those unconstitutional permit to purchase bullshit?

Permit and training requirement.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Referring to those unconstitutional permit to purchase bullshit?

Permit and training requirement.

Along with those dumb FOID type requirements as well.
As we all know, none of those would be able to meet the text, history and tradition test.

As a side note.
The batfe(arbf) tried to argue in their latest set back with the judge in Tx, that members of GOA shouldn't count as in their mind the GOA doesn't have a "standard" membership.

Hunter Biden attorneys say that, if charged, Hunter Biden will argue that the restrictions on drug users from having guns violate the second amendment.

Hunter Biden, the hero we need!

Grinning Dragon wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Permit and training requirement.

Along with those dumb FOID type requirements as well.
As we all know, none of those would be able to meet the text, history and tradition test.

As a side note.
The batfe(arbf) tried to argue in their latest set back with the judge in Tx, that members of GOA shouldn't count as in their mind the GOA doesn't have a "standard" membership.

Saw that in the article, that just reeks of desperation.

Galloism wrote:Hunter Biden attorneys say that, if charged, Hunter Biden will argue that the restrictions on drug users from having guns violate the second amendment.

Hunter Biden, the hero we need!

Just when you thought the timeline couldn't get any more cursed...

Galloism wrote:Hunter Biden attorneys say that, if charged, Hunter Biden will argue that the restrictions on drug users from having guns violate the second amendment.

Hunter Biden, the hero we need!

Interestingly enough, hunter's daddy railed against the bruen decision, even though bruen basically echoed heller, just with pictures so dipshits in those inferior courts could follow along.

San Lumen wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Looks like America's armpit, NJ, went and banned any firearm/BB gun, etc, that doesn't have a serial#, no grandfathering either. As we all know the only reason to require a serial# and have it registered is only for when the day comes to confiscate arms.
New Jersey Politicians Enact Largest Gun Ban in U.S. History


FPC/GOA/SAF and other firearm rights printers are probably going brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Good but you and others don't like it. Tell me if the second amendment is absolute why is no other? Why don't I have the right the to send threatening letters to elected officials and not get arrested?

All 13 original amendments should be absolute, but politicians have also screwed us over in that regard too

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hunter Biden attorneys say that, if charged, Hunter Biden will argue that the restrictions on drug users from having guns violate the second amendment.

Hunter Biden, the hero we need!

Interestingly enough, hunter's daddy railed against the bruen decision, even though bruen basically echoed heller, just with pictures so dipshits in those inferior courts could follow along.

They still can't follow along, though.

American Legionaries wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Interestingly enough, hunter's daddy railed against the bruen decision, even though bruen basically echoed heller, just with pictures so dipshits in those inferior courts could follow along.

They still can't follow along, though.

The antigun orgs/judges/lawyers have latched on to this idea/tactic that heller and bruen was about handguns in common use for self-defense and somehow the plaintiffs have to prove aw's are commonly used in self-defense. So basically it all boils down to being used in only self defense, when that isn't the standard. As we all know the standard is "commonly owned/possessed" and the onus is on the govt to prove a regulation is consistent with text, history and tradition, the plaintiffs don't have to prove anything and interest balancing bullshit is a no-go.

The other tactic they have started to employ is the "founding fathers could have" as part of their historical analog. Which is just as equally laughable.