Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:48 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Knowing that the Roger's cert request attempts to argue for CCW, and argue that OC can be banned in favor thereof, why would SCOTUS take up Roger's?

And how would Roger's + NYSRP be comprehensive when SCOTUS in Heller v. DC already recognizes:

1. CCW may be prohibited.
2. OC is the right.
3. Right to travel.

So that brings up another "comprehensive" question:

Why would SCOTUS issue a comprehensive comprehensive decision?

=8-|
Sigh.

Sigh.

Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

These issues, therefore, are not established for any practical purpose. Some people, who actually believe in broad interpretations of civil liberties, want the Court to more clearly enunciate what rights the 2A protects so that the People can begin enjoying those rights with reduced fear of prosecution.

And now I've committed the cardinal sin of knowingly feeding the troll. May God forgive me.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:29 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Resist the
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:45 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Sigh.

.
.
.
And now I've committed the cardinal sin of knowingly feeding the troll. May God forgive me.
God may forgive you, but we will not!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:23 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
“SCOTUS doesn't get involved in minutiae and narrow issues of specific laws.”


They do. Such as MA stun gun ban.
Oh for the love of crackers, are you serious? I think you are trolling, but how does affirming that 2A applies to arms not conceived at the time of ratification somehow equal minutiae? It was unanimous per curiam by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 02-12-2019, 1:27 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 02-12-2019, 1:29 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Oh for the love of crackers, are you serious? I think you are trolling, but how does affirming that 2A applies to arms not conceived at the time of ratification somehow equal minutiae? It was unanimous per curiam by the way.
In the exactly the same way as affirming the right to travel with one's firearm. A narrow issue of a specific law. Or you are unable to read complete sentences?
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 02-12-2019, 1:34 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
In the exactly the same way as affirming the right to travel with one's firearm. A narrow issue of a specific law. Or you are unable to read complete sentences?
If you think both of those are "narrow" issues, no wonder you appear so confused in many of these threads. Expanding 2A and rights in general is the exact OPPOSITE of narrowness.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:38 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.guncite.com
Posting the opinion to Heller does not demonstrate that a circuit court has interpreted heller in any particular way. What point did you think you were making by posting that?
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:53 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Round and round we go
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:54 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
If you think both of those are "narrow" issues, no wonder you appear so confused in many of these threads. Expanding 2A and rights in general is the exact OPPOSITE of narrowness.
Spot on
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 02-18-2019, 12:52 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

New York City and NYSRPA have asked the Court to set a briefing schedule that has NYSRPA file its brief on May 7 and NYC file its brief on August 5.

This briefing schedule would allow the Court to hear oral arguments during the October session.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 02-23-2019, 7:20 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
If you think both of those are "narrow" issues, no wonder you appear so confused in many of these threads. Expanding 2A and rights in general is the exact OPPOSITE of narrowness.
I was right, you are unable to read complete sentences.
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 02-23-2019, 7:22 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 02-25-2019, 4:17 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,422
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
I'm going to keep reposting it over and over until you discontinue your slight of hand . . .

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten.../06/07-290.pdf
https://www.guncite.com

=8-|

. . . I doubt though that the Mods want "round and round we go" as the norm.

=8-(
Rather than posting links to whole documents (or whole web sites), suppose you state your exact point and then quote the passages you think support that point.

Remember
1) The Supreme Court is not reading this thread, so the importance is quite small, and
2) Nobody ever 'wins' an internet argument, so emotional investment here is not warranted.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.




Last edited by Librarian; 02-25-2019 at 4:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 02-25-2019, 5:40 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Rather than posting links to whole documents (or whole web sites), suppose you state your exact point and then quote the passages you think support that point.

Remember
1) The Supreme Court is not reading this thread, so the importance is quite small, and
2) Nobody ever 'wins' an internet argument, so emotional investment here is not warranted.
I really wish we could +1 comments.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 02-26-2019, 7:28 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
I'm going to keep reposting it over and over until you discontinue your slight of hand . . .

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-conten.../06/07-290.pdf
https://www.guncite.com

=8-|

. . . I doubt though that the Mods want "round and round we go" as the norm.

=8-(
There is nothing in those links refuting my statements. Did you read them?
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 02-26-2019, 8:48 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

mrrabbit's only idea is "see Heller". But he can't find any cases of an appeals court that has thrown out a conviction for OC without a permit, or has made an injunction against enforcing such laws. Laws against OC are enforced. If mrrabbit doesn't believe these laws are enforceable, he should start OCing now. But he doesn't do that, because he knows he will be arrested and convicted.

And that's what it means to say, "OC isn't a protected right". You can and will be arrested and convicted for OCing without a permit in California. How is something a protected right, if doing it will inevitably lead to arrest and conviction? Mrrabbit can't explain that, except by saying that the courts are corrupt.

And I pointed out, this is a lot like the arguments that tax protesters use. "The income tax is illegal!" they say. Great, so stop filing your returns and then win in court. "No, that won't work because the courts are corrupt", they say. Ok... well, in fantasy-world, you can OC without a permit and not file your income taxes. That's cool. But back in the real world, I don't want to get arrested and convicted.

Mrrabbit is on my ignore list and I wish Calguns would put him a ban list.

Again, if he's so sure that OC is a protected right, he should start doing it, today.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 02-26-2019, 8:50 AM
redhead's Avatar
redhead redhead is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 564
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Rather than posting links to whole documents (or whole web sites), suppose you state your exact point and then quote the passages you think support that point.

Remember
1) The Supreme Court is not reading this thread, so the importance is quite small, and
2) Nobody ever 'wins' an internet argument, so emotional investment here is not warranted.
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 02-26-2019, 9:56 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

mrrabbit may be inconsequential in some respects. Most of us know not to take the OC thing too seriously so it isn't a problem for us.

The difficulty is that he might convince someone who doesn't understand that law enforcement and the courts will not be at all happy if you open carry in this state except under very specific circumstances.

This means that people have to argue with him continually and ad nauseum so that somebody doesn't take him seriously and go out there and get arrested, get convicted, and have the state revoke their right to possess a firearm at all.

Being well-meaning does not mean you are harmless.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 02-26-2019, 12:19 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Being well-meaning does not mean you are harmless.
Given Señor Conejo's inability to support any of his false statements, I am not convinced that he is well-meaning. His command of written English suggests he's not special needs, which is about the only innocent explanation (at least as far as I can hypothesize) for his behavior.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 02-26-2019, 12:34 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Given Señor Conejo's inability to support any of his false statements, I am not convinced that he is well-meaning. His command of written English suggests he's not special needs, which is about the only innocent explanation (at least as far as I can hypothesize) for his behavior.
I understand that concern.

But I keep remembering back to the UOC bunch and their pronouncements.

Many/most were wonderful people who were convinced that they were both righteous and unassailable. No matter that a whole bunch of us tried to point out what would really happen if they persisted they insisted their version of reality would prevail.

There were a few whom folk found convincing even though they were clearly behaving badly. That untoward behavior and poor outcomes still haven't convinced all that they should really not trust what some characters say and the courses they pursue.

Anyway, I'm going to assume mrrabbit means well and just hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality. This is unfortunate and could be disastrous for some if they take him too seriously.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 02-26-2019, 5:30 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The pronouncements about open carry and the Heller decision can be used in at least 2 ways:
  1. To inform one's personal actions as to open carry (this is the fear that has been expressed in the above few messages)
  2. To act as a predictor of future court decisions

While some seem to be concentrating on the former recently, I believe it's the latter that is the primary reason it's brought up. Quite obviously, one is likely to run afoul of the law if one were to openly carry in areas where laws forbidding it are operative. But that's true of every law, just or unjust, Constitutional or not. Law enforcement agencies have proven their willingness to enforce unjust or (what would later be determined by the courts) Unconstitutional laws, so a pronouncement that the 2nd Amendment protects open carry is really a pronouncement that it is supposed to protect it. But Constitutional protections don't mean a damn thing if they're not actually heeded by the various government agencies.


And so we get to the latter application of the pronouncements: prediction of court outcomes.

The argument with respect to tax protesters falls flat here, particularly with respect to claims of a corrupt court system. We know that the court system is corrupt. We've seen, time and time again, the 9th Circuit go out of its way to bury the right to arms in the ground, both in contravention of the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment (and of what it means for something to be a right in the first place) and in contravention of the logical consequence of Heller (that decision wouldn't have bothered talking about "sensitive places" if there weren't an operative right to bear arms outside the home). The pronouncement with respect to open carry is a prediction of how the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue of carry.


The problem with mrrabbit's claims is that they have logical consequences that contradict his very claims.

I intend to go over all that in the thread I've started here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=22712077
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 03-05-2019, 6:34 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 190
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
The difficulty is that he might convince someone who doesn't understand that law enforcement and the courts will not be at all happy if you open carry in this state except under very specific circumstances.
No big deal, just explain at trial that they haven't established "Joinder" between you and your legal person. That'll set 'em straight.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 03-08-2019, 11:52 AM
Saudade's Avatar
Saudade Saudade is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What are the chances of NYC repealing their long gun permit requirements with this happening?
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saudade View Post
What are the chances of NYC repealing their long gun permit requirements with this happening?
Since this case is about a statute barring the transport of firearms out of the city and not the city's permitting requirements, and since NYC is the acme of anti-gun fervor, the odds are exactly "not a chance in Hell."
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 04-12-2019, 1:29 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...VtjwvZ8Rz96VXg


stay requested by the Supreme Court
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 04-12-2019, 1:38 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow. NYC tries to moot the case.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 04-12-2019, 1:45 PM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 374
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not surprising.

SCOTUS should grant cert to Pena.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 04-12-2019, 1:46 PM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow. They knew they would lose and then pull this crap.

What are possible outcomes of this? Can the SC just ignore because they know the shenanigans they are trying to pull?

Even if NY holds this bullsh#t meeting and adopts the new rules can the SC still rule on the case for national implications?

So many questions!!!
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 04-12-2019, 1:52 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,602
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Missing a few other locations in the “new” NY rule — like to a friend’s house, gunsmith, gun store...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________


NRA/USCCA/DOJ instructor, NRA CRSO, Journalist
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 04-12-2019, 2:00 PM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 374
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I hope SCOTUS proceeds with it. A bull**** list of places allowed doesn't make this OK.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 04-12-2019, 2:11 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I note this bullsh*t, er, somewhat contradictory statement: "The Police Department has strongly believed, and continues to maintain, that the present Rule furthers an important public-safety interest." So the Police Department believes that the rule fulfills an important public safety interest, but they're going to repeal/override it anyway. What kind of bull**** is that? "Well, the public doesn't need to be THAT safe, I guess. That was just an extra super-safety layer of infringement. If only a couple hundred more people a year are subject to gun violence, that's no big deal. Go ahead, take your gun out of the city. Or something."

Edit: to add emphasis

Last edited by surfgeorge; 04-12-2019 at 3:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 04-12-2019, 2:48 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,292
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

so what does this mean ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 04-12-2019, 2:57 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,605
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

NYC needs a spanking - let's hope they get it
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 04-12-2019, 3:12 PM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 374
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'll ask here so I don't cause heart attacks by bumping the Pena thread- when can we expect to hear back on Pena? (Whether grant, denied, or delayed).
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 04-12-2019, 3:18 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meanspartan View Post
I'll ask here so I don't cause heart attacks by bumping the Pena thread- when can we expect to hear back on Pena? (Whether grant, denied, or delayed).
Monday morning, I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 04-12-2019, 3:43 PM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 691
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Dude. If they let this walk and don't take up any other case that's at their doorstep, it's clear we need to replace 1-2 more.
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 04-12-2019, 3:46 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meanspartan View Post
I'll ask here so I don't cause heart attacks by bumping the Pena thread- when can we expect to hear back on Pena? (Whether grant, denied, or delayed).
Reminds me of an old bill collector joke.

"Sir, your account is 90 days past due, when can we expect to receive a payment?"

"You can expect to receive a payment whenever you'd like."
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 04-12-2019, 4:38 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
Dude. If they let this walk and don't take up any other case that's at their doorstep, it's clear we need to replace 1-2 more.
Let's hope they take Mance instead. Federal statutes are far less likely to get reversed on a whim.
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 04-12-2019, 5:11 PM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 374
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ya I'm worried they took this case because they can then say "see we did a 2A case!".

Sure this restriction sucks but unless they lay down strict scrutiny, it wont make any big change nationally.

They better take Pena...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy