Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
This is an interesting deconstruction of the violent extremism that pervades transgender depravity, and it also attacks Red Flag laws soundly. It is well-researched with some data and footnoted, but it’s not too long.
Genital mutilation is labeled “gender-affirming care,” while the mainstream media constantly reminds attempts to frame anti-trans legislation as a matter of “survival.” From self-harm to self-deception, the transgender community is plagued by depravity and violence. Yet every step of the way, the Biden administration has sought to hamper any laws that would curb this violence.1 For the federal government, downplaying the violence of transgenderism is just as crucial as skewing statistics on firearm deaths. Creating the illusion that transgenderism and violence are separate issues is a task that never ends, resulting in confusion and false impressions. After all, without mountains of rhetoric and manufactured evidence, the average person would be inclined to assume transgenderism is a “red flag” for gun ownership.
[…]
Even though the studies are scarce, the association between transgenderism and violent offenses is inescapable. To those who have already made this connection, the shooting at Covenant School was a tragedy, not a surprise.
[…]
For the average Christian, attending these churches in good conscience is impossible. How can you sit in a pew and listen to a pastor who would immediately use your death for their own liberal activism? For the majority of Christians, their own death would be used to support the policies they opposed while alive.
The author and I have a shared interest in Christ and firearms. He’s kind enough to speak with me on social media, though his intellect is well above mine. He’s a good man; read the rest it’s worth your time.
I found this message to be instructive. It’s great to know that God hates, but few discuss the particulars of what He hates, why, and how important it is to avoid these things as a faithful Christian. The mentioned particulars about the causes of division and strife within a local body of believers are pertinent. Protect your flock; the video explains how. It’s worth watching to be on guard, and if it’s you causing problems, knock it off! It gets a little long, but he has a local flock to lead. Make the application to yourself and your congregation. If you click off after an hour, the final point is that those weak in the faith for refusing to study, serve, and grow are susceptible to being offended or run out of church.
This is a fair assessment, and it all comes down to the user and what he wants. I’m willing to clean the gun so it works in order to get the awesome trigger pull and that tactile feel. Others may not be so willing.
But the best comment of the video is this: “If you’re an American and you don’t like 1911s, we can’t be friends.”
Trump took a tour of Palmetto State Armory – yes, the company that wants to arm AS MANY AMERICANS AS POSSIBLE WITH AS MANY ARs and AKs AS POSSIBLE.
And apparently, Trump found himself a new Glock.
Some people are reporting that he bought the hand cannon (not sure if it was a G19 or what – someone said it was a .45, which is boss – but I love that custom threaded barrel and finish).
More important than the photo op was this clip where Trump promised to overturn the ATF pistol brace rule that has made tens of millions of Americans felons …
Did he really do all of that? Must be some sort of superman or something. Honestly, the sycophants and worshipers drive me crazy.
Suppose he did talk about the pistol brace rule. So what? He set the whole thing up with his precedent of the bump stock ban. Did he talk about canceling that project? Apparently not. No more than he talked about how he was wrong to shut the country down and march Fauci in front of the public for a year over the flu.
“I never got the credit I deserve on Covid,” said Trump, patting himself on the back for his “tremendous response” that saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
The commenters over Reddit/Firearms are brutal. He lost many gun owners over the bump stock ban. I predict this isn’t a hurdle he can overcome.
Color me unimpressed with all of this. Silly season has begun in earnest.
This gets tiresome. First of all, I simply cannot fathom the stupidity of telling someone they are under “suspicion” of a crime because of an anonymous call. Cops shouldn’t be dispatched in the case of anonymity.
Second, no one is obligated to assist the police in an investigation. “We need to identify you because [such and such, open investigation, caller said so and so, you fill in the blank] isn’t reason to force identification. That’s a violation of the fourth amendment, regardless of how some particular state law is interpreted by police procedures.
There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits17 and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit.18 Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifles.19 Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns.20 New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out.21 New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds.22 The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.
In a stealth return to the interest balancing test rejected by Heller and Bruen, the State ostensibly justifies its magazine limits by deeming the smaller magazines “well-suited” for its citizens.23 Suitability, in turn, is based on concocted statistics about what a hypothetical average person needs to defend against an attacker or attackers in an average self-defense situation. Based on this hypothetical statistically average case scenario, the State permits its citizen to have a gun, but the State decides the number of rounds in the gun that it finds suitable.24
In so doing, the State denies a citizen the federal constitutional right to use common weapons of their own choosing for self-defense. There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers.25 Yet, under this statute, the State says “too bad.” It says, if you think you need more than 10 chances to defend yourself against criminal attackers, you must carry more magazines. Or carry more bullets to hand reload and fumble into your small magazine while the attackers take advantage of your pause. On the other hand, you can become a criminal, too. So, the previously law-abiding California citizen who buys and keeps at her bedside a nationally popular Glock 17 (with its standard 17-round magazine) becomes the criminal, because the State dictates that a gun with a 17-round magazine is not well-suited for home defense.
