Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/02/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Some post argument analysis by Stephen Halbrook (https://www.stephenhalbrook.com/):
  2. 3 points
    Well, I'll just wait for the conclusion before I go out and set my hair on fire.
  3. 2 points
    @raz-0 Thanks for both posts above. I should/may to look into that 54c law further, but I see your point. One thing for sure, the wait for the announcement of their ruling is going to be painful.
  4. 2 points
    My interpretation? The talk of financial damages are due to the fact a significant portion of the court does not want to moot the case and believe it deserves a ruling. However, if you ask the court if they want to rewrite the law and precedent on mootness, you will not get a differing alignment of numbers and opinion on what could be perceived as justified. It is my opinion that what you saw here was a significant throwdown on that issue and it revolves around that 54c law they mention. Basically one side said it's moot, and if you find it isn't moot, you are saying that there is very little room to moot a case by altering a law rather than fully repealing it. The other side said no, this requires no expansion of the doctrine on mootness because they could seek financial damages and since 54c says that financial damages are no inherently tied to your initial request for relief, that it is still in play. To which the other side basically said than anything with conceivable damages attached can never be ruled moot. So there is now a conundrum. Essentially declare that 54c thing null and void, make it's application arbitrary and capricious, or essentially say that an argument of mootness very limited in the scope in which it can succeed. All of that hinges on those financial damages issues. Upon further reflection I think this really is the big fight. Outside of Breyer's bullshit statement that heller was and is wrong, none of the liberal justices argued the law was constitutional. They argued, at best, that travel restrictions could be placed without infringing on the 2nd amendment. Not that those that were placed were constitutional. They want to avoid that question. I suspect that given the way in which gun control has been treated by lower courts, the right side of the court is like... fuck it, you are going to bring every case in front of us anyway because you don't abide by our rulings, so lets turn this shit up to 11 and make every portion of case law start looking like how the 2nd has been treated. I think a lot of what you saw today was people posturing about what they ware willing to blow up to get their way. At the end of the day I think, somewhat surprisingly, that the issue isn't going to just be how Robert's feels about the above, but how Ginsberg feels about it as well. Also, unlike a lot of people whining about this, I don't think mootness would provide any cover for similar laws being enacted elsewhere. If anything it makes laws like this the third rail. What it does potentially do is give gun grabbers a new tool to fuck with us. We have all seen them pass laws they know won't stand so they can get a window of harassment. Mootness arguments like this, if they succeed, give them a lot of ammo to move the goalposts repeatedly on bad legislation and potentially extend that window of harassment forever. Which might be our key to winning. If the grabbers see this as easier than winning a case, it will be the go to move. If that is the case, then we have 4 very solid votes to hear every damn RKBA case and watch it happen over and over and over again. I can't see Roberts accepting that that is the future of how the court works. Of course every RKBA case going forward will attach claims for damages at step one, even if the claim is minor. I'm sure this very day, the NJ magazine ban case has people discussing attaching monetary damages on the appeal to avoid this shit and having NJ put back the 15 round restriction to render the suit against 10 round mags as moot. Well no.. we paid for blocks, or destroyed mags, or paid for storage out of state.. so that would not make us whole.
  5. 2 points
    Yes, they can walk away from the case by declaring it moot. There is longstanding doctrine that there must be an actual case or controversy for the SCOTUS to decide. If they find it moot, they will dismiss the case without a decision on the merits. There would most certainly be a majority or plurality opinion addressing mootness as well as a dissent by Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and likely Kavanaugh though I can see Kavanaugh vote mootness if he knows the Chief is committed to that position, just to avoid further leftist criticism that he's in the tank for the conservatives. If they vote mootness, however, they still have to act on the petitions they are holding for Rogers, Gould and Cheeseman. If they grant cert in any of these cases, there's no way NJ or MA is going to moot the case by suddenly eliminating "justifiable need" for carry permits. I read the transcript. In my view, the Chief is going to wimp out and vote with the liberals on mootness and thus kick the can down the road once more.
  6. 2 points
    I quickly scanned that transcript. WAY too much focus on "mootness" by the liberal judges to suit me - pages upon pages of (in so many words), "gee, why are we even hearing this?". And there seem to be a LOT of interruptions showing great haste on the part of Sotomayer in particular to PUSH that point of view. To those of you more familiar with this process, help me understand... is that "issue" (mootness) still on the table? Can the judges merely say "we think it's a moot issue because the state has already tossed out that city law - therefore, we'll do nothing on this case"...? If they're still allowed to do that at this stage... it's seems like such an "easy out" - such a perfect dodge - for a big ol' squish like Roberts. Frankly? gun rights are so controversial these days, I think we need a 6/3 court so Roberts' squishiness is nullified in a sense. But, I guess we'll see what happens!
  7. 2 points
    Read the transcript. It is mostly the wise Latina saying stupid shit like... how could you be harmed by that part not being addressed by the new law? How would they even know if you had a gun in your car? Kegan steps in and say NY has a premises permit and a carry permit... if you wanted to transport your firearms why didn't they just get carry permits. "Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying." It's a bunch of bullshit and they should be embarrassed at being a supreme court justice and bringing these bullshit arguments as their A game. That's some I failed out of forensics class and tanked the LSATs kind of arguing there.
  8. 2 points
    Hey, I noticed a lot of you over the last few weeks are starting to put gun-related topics in the General Discussion forum. That's not what it's for. So, I'm doing a little "housekeeping" and moving those threads to other forums (with a directional link left in there so you can find the new location). Going forward, if it's a post that relates to some kind of national gun law... put it in the National Gun Law Discussion section, pls. If it's about guns, has no legal story angle, and doesn't fit elsewhere (and/or is political in nature), just open it in the 1A Lounge from the get-go. Thanks, everyone!
  9. 2 points
    Audio recording of arguments should show up here (not available as of this writing): https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2019#cell02-00-2019
  10. 2 points
    Won't matter if the makeup changes, they don't decide then, they just publish then. And if you weren't around for oral arguments, you won't be on the list of people making the ruling. Transcripts of oral arguments should be available today for what it is worth. There's lots of people watching this one.
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Yea but Im too so fist two kate did 4 that
  13. 1 point
    A good summary and mostly how I read it too. Just one minor correction. That wasn't RBG, that was Alito that said that. Page 53, Line 2 of the transcript. JUSTICE ALITO: So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?
  14. 1 point
    I agree and one of them should get sent up north. Like maybe New Hampshire and as luck would have it I live in New Hampshire..........
  15. 1 point
    Yes mootness is on the table as far as I know. They aren't required to do anything until June. I'm digging my way through the transcript, and I'll try to summarize what I've read: So you have the liberal court and the city of NY arguing that it is moot because they got what they asked for in the form of the repeal of the law. You have the NYSRP lawyer arguing that they there is still an issue to decide because the state law only preempts the specific statute, thus leaving the possibility that past violations could prejudice the defendants in future dealings with regards to licensing and transport. They also left untril rebuttal stating that they sought unrestricted access to ranges and second homes and that is not what they got. Then you have the Solicitor general arguing pretty solidly that unless you want to rely on precedent that pre-dates current laws, that the defendants have the right to seek monetary damages on the line and thus mootness is off the table. Then you have the conservative justices arguing that what the defendants sought was not just the repeal of the law, but the nullification that a finding on the constitutionality would bring, and thus the results of such a finding would grant them differing legal relief than the law that the state of NY passed. The liberal side of the court is arguing that that would have to be a new case because that is an issue with the new law, not the old one. Despite the fact that the issue was present in both versions of the law. Then you have roberts sounding a bit pissed off at everyone insisting that the right parties answer the right dman part of the questions without a bunch of bullshit glued on. Then you have alito heading into the territory of asking questions about the constitutionality and narrow government interest. Gorsuch also engages in such questions. RBG is the only lefty that asks anything meaningful about the law other than mootness questions. RBG: "So you think the Second Amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit?" Alito and gorsuch basically ask what would and would not be legal transport. They ask about specific examples. When confronted with this, the lawyer assuring them that yes things like stopping for the bathroom, or food, or a half dozen other things would of course be reasonable and alito wanted to know how anyone would know what would be reasonable. To which the NYC lawyer replies that you they couldn't know the limitations of legal transport because it hasn't gone to court and been ruled on. So... they then proceed to have a mental fit when they have to confront that if you can't possess a firearm transporting it from a place of purchase to your home, then you can't have a firearm within the home, so yes the 2nd must extend outside the home at least minimally in some circumstances. At that point Kegan and Sotamayor jump back in clearly not liking that answer and do a really shitty job at trying to fix it for them. Roberts calls for the rebuttal from the NYSRP lawyer and sotamayor starts eating up his limited time saying the same shit and roberts shuts her down. NYSRP guy gets in a nice one at the end which is stating that what they sought was unrestricted travel between second homes and ranges, and what they got is not only NOT unrestricted, but the restrictions are not defined. Somewhere in that back half Breyer jumped in and wanted to make it known that he really won the heller ruling and there is no 2nd amendment right. And that historical precedent is garbage unless it suits him. He cites the fact that in colonial times the kings men in mass made them store their arms centrally... and that's history, so which history do we look to. (You would think if you weren't a dipshit, you';d look to the history of the nation that decided bullshit like that justified shooting people in the face.. just saying) So, overall: Left wing says MOOT and that curtailing the state in any way from regulating RKBA is bad and that they got everything they sought if you squint hard enough and that there is no amendment not subjected to squinting. Right wing says not moot and not constitutional and that the right extends outside the home. They really focused on that "reasonable deviation" type language and railed on NYC to tell them what that means and their lawyer eventually said that that would have to be decided by courts. More specifically Roberts seems kind of annoyed and was doing his usual trying to run the court without seeming biased. Although he did seem to basically tell them to ignore sotamayor's continued intrusion into their rebuttal and get on with the business of the court. Alito and Gorsuch clearly do not think it is moot and do not think it is constitutional. Sotamayor thinks it is moot and could be constitutional Kegan seems to think it is moot and the new law is constitutional. Breyer thinks his dissenting opinion in heller is really what's binding and further holds the notion of history and tradition in contempt despite leaning on it in other cases and wanted to point that out a couple of times in the arguments. He just sort of pontificated to the other justices. RBG seems to be toeing the line on mootness, but her only real question is basically asking what possible standard the law could have met. Possibly because she is the only one on the left who thinks laws mean anything and would like at least some ammunition to argue the merits in a non-mootness scenario. Roberts kept things very formal with the exception of reigning in sotamayor. We have no new ideas on how he might vote. I didn't see Thomas or Kavanaugh in there. Based on past court cases, Thomas is likely safe on both mootness and constitutionality. Kavanaugh's previous rulings are in line with accepting Alito's arguments for unrestricted transport of an unloaded firearm as being unfettered. Honestly, I think the only thing in the whole transcript that really stands our is RBG's question. Which was asking the NYC lawyer about the point of the law and asking how the law made NYC safer if it required a gun owner with multiple residents to purchase one gun per residence and expose more guns to more time in unsupervised storage and thus potentially more theft. As asked and with the limited reply it got, it boils down to " what is the states narrow interest in this law that is specifcally served by it?" Her own argument implies she doesn't accept the safety argument if it means more guns at more risk of being stolen. Standing out to a lesser degree is that Alito seemed to allude to the fact nobody could tell what the law might cover without some sort of test. Reading between the lines both Keegan and Sotamayor both essentially contradicted themselves. They said that the case is moot because they got what they wanted and that if they wanted AND that they would have to essentially go right back to court because they couldn't foresee this particular brand of bullshit being dropped at the last minute and didn't phrase their argument exactly right to avoid it five years ago.
  16. 1 point
    Sounds like good job all around. School had an SRO in place, and seems like procedures as well. Student reported the gun to the SRO. SRO immediately did what he was there to do. The "good people" all go home safe. The question now is how did a 17yr old get procession of a handgun? I may be in the minority here, but if it belonged to a family member and was not secured, that family member needs to be held responsible.
  17. 1 point
    Ah, but who knows what political pressures can be brought to bear over the course of one month? I'd imagine a lot. Let's see what happens though... we don't know until we know. In the meantime, I can see that a steady, never-ending trickle of new lawsuits will be critically important to keep the pressure on and to increase the chances of one of them going to SCOTUS (particularly if they ever replace another justice and skew MORE even pro-2A - dare to dream!) So, in this season of giving... donate to your 2A orgs!!
  18. 1 point
    I second using those signs. I would just staple my target to the coroplast. It was always windy when I shot R14 and those signs would just wave nicely. I went through the trouble of making a pvc target stand, one day got it all set up just to have it blow over once the range went hot. Had to wait 20 minutes for the cease fire. While waiting looked over to the guy next to me with his targets all set up on those wire based signs and that was all it took.
  19. 1 point
    The latest episode of the mandolarian was pretty good. I like the Jack Ryan series. The first year was great..I'd say this second one is pretty good..it seemed a little short to me but worth checking out IMO
  20. 1 point
    Transcript https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-280_m64o.pdf
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
    No worries, figured you were talking about someone else.
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    I can't see how any rational person can buy their case provided that person doesn't have an agenda. We know the lib members but Kennedy is not a moron. We better hope the other justices convince him to not be so stupid and gullable here. I mean at what point will Americans start shooting at these guys as a last resort? If people feel desperate enough, and there are people like this out there, what is their avenue to vent other than to start shooting justices and lib politicians? Those shooters will have sympathetic ranks I believe
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    CJ has nice facilities, but I wouldn't count their indoor range among them. Unless the redesigned the redesign, it's something like subsonic lead pistol ammo only. Before plunking down the coin to join, I'd go to a match on a weekend to observe and take a look around at what is busy and what is not. There are usually some pistol pits and one of the 200 or 300 yard ranges available most weekends. They definitely do not close the range in winter, although the weather (i.e. snow) may make it inaccessible for periods. The downside of CJ is that there's a lot of internal politics that are just a waste of everyone's time and sometimes money.
  27. 1 point
    Never seen one of those. I’d expect a lot of pushback in NJ. I’ve seen a bunch where the target is a life size turkey head molded from plaster. Bust the head (50 yds for pistol) and win a frozen turkey. The Pardini free pistol worked really well for that
  28. 1 point
    I have an AR-308 upper/lower set I've been sitting on for two years now. Have not settled on a cartridge for it, but if some great deal in .243 or 6.5cm comes along, it may get me to put that bitch together. Also looking, mostly window shopping, for a thermal scope with 640 lines, at least a 25mm objective, 30hz or better and a minimum of 10x magnification. As soon as I see one with good ratings with a cost around $3,000.00, I'ma jump on it. I really Really REALLY want to do some night feral hog hunting.
  29. 1 point
    We use their targets too, and just staple splatter targets on top. Ha... don't worry, if you make a minor mistake, the tower Nazi will "remind" you, we've all been there... that's why he makes the big bucks! Just buy theirs, it's also probably easier for the RO when he's checking the line, it's what he's use to looking for, versus some abnormal flag.
  30. 1 point
    Sunday January 26th is the Hunt. I'll be in the area on Saturday the 25th for frolicking at the winery tasting & the historical restaurant before hittin' the sack at a B&B in Mount joy, PA (about 15 min. from the boat ramp). Rooms are still available & the breakfast can't be beat! Wear yer sidearm at the dinning room table!
  31. 1 point
    Best you should stop holding your nose then and be tickled pink you have the honor to vote for Donald Trump!
  32. 1 point
    I've been struggling to find a nice weekend when I'm not busy to go. Usually try for 8-9 AM arrival time cause it can get crowded. Still need to get some chronograph time in.
  33. 1 point
    And it turns out the suspect just got out of jail on a terrorism conviction. Great idea just letting his back to roam the city!
  34. 1 point
    You can buy fancy chamber flags but their zip tie flags are just fine. I prefer the zip tie flags because I store most of my firearms flagged. They are cheap and the flexibility lets me close the action most of the way or all the way on many of my rifles and shotguns.
  35. 1 point
    My county is having a vote on this on 12/9. The turnout is huge at 2A events here. Our Sheriff (and all of the others in the Shenandoah Valley) fully supports the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement.
  36. 1 point
    Load that table up. It's yours to do with it as you please. That guy on the mic is funny. But yea, he'll be quick to call out anything stupid. I use one of their targets, but I staple my own splatter targets over it so I can better see where I hit. If it's not windy, they work well. If the RSO knows you are picking up your own brass, they've sometime swept up my used brass into a pile behind me to make it easier to pick up. Cool folks. Red = Range is hot Green = Range is clear
  37. 1 point
    One more suggestion. Keep in your lane when you put out multiple targets. What looks like is in lane when you are down range can end up in your neighbor's lanes when you get back to to the line.
  38. 1 point
    Ditto everything Scorpio64 said and add some chamber flags. Whatever is on the table needs to stays open, saftey on with chamber flag inserted when cease fires are called.
  39. 1 point
    If Marlboro is close by then give @Steve from Monmouth Arms a call. He's a forum sponsor, local retailer, does NJ compliance work as well as my go to FFL.
  40. 1 point
    Plan ahead for cease fires, have all your targets and related gear off the bench and ready to go when they give you the green light to head down range. If you touch anything on the bench during a ceasefire, be prepared for a dressing down. If you are shooting out at 200 yds, put up multiple target stands. For rifle, I bring two 2'x4' sheets of Coroplast (corrugated plastic) and staple them to 5' landscaping stakes, driven well into the ground. I can put 4 to 16 targets on each. Coroplast holds staples very well but I prefer adhesive backed splatter targets with adhesive hole covers for speed. 200 yards seems like 2 miles when everyone is waiting for you to check or set up targets. I don't recommend their targets on a stick, the ones that you have to use a post hole digger to plant. They suck in so many ways. Difficult to see hits and half the time the wind rips them off the stake, or blows them over. All of their other targets are good. Those signs you see all over, on the sides of highways, the going out of business sale, I buy junk cars, political signs etc., they are made of coroplast, and make great target stands, especially if you hunt small game. Don't rent their spotting scopes, they are cheap to begin with and have been abused. A Harbor Freight el cheapo scope works better than theirs. If you save your brass, do not pick up anything over the red line while the range is hot. You can only pick up brass that lands over the line during a cease fire. After you check your targets, pick up brass before you cross the line and post a red flag. or is it green flag? fuck, whatever. Just pick up brass on the pad and on the dirt at the appropriate times. EDIT: You can shoot water filled containers. Seeing them explode at 200 yds is a real hoot. You can't shot soda bottles filled with soda, you can shoot a soda bottle you refilled with water. They are real strict with food targets, especially sugar. They wouldn't even let me shoot peeps bunny rabbits on a kebab stick.
  41. 1 point
    It's OK to set up multiple different targets. We set up a few at different distances, depending if it's for handgun or rifle. I also mix it up, and bring some filled soda cans and water bottles that I dye different colors. Just as a change from punching holes in paper.
  42. 1 point
    I kept looking for @High Exposureand @voyager9. Every brave soul that entered that parking lot..... @Ray Ray was like “ nobody is cumming dude “ he were right. Nobody came
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    This week on GFHR #445 Tic Toc, Monday 12/2 The US Supreme Court is hearing the NYSRPA case! Aaaaaaand, Red Flags are popping up all over! To the Supremes we go! https://gunforhire.com/blog/2019/12/01/the-gun-for-hire-radio-broadcast-episode-445/ IMG_0930.MP4
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    I left the circus tent when Bloomburg joined in . There all nuts and no democrat can be trusted.
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    my first real win at atco was on a classic car sunday. all the gamblers race regulars were there. first round I lined up next to this amx. he'd put me on the trailer a few times on gamblers race night. anyway.... set the delay box, staged, got on the trans brake, and as soon as I saw his stage light on, I was up on the 2step. tree came down, and I was gone on the flicker of yellow on the last yellow. near perfect light, ran my number dead on, and put his ass on the trailer. I made it to semi's, and ran out. by almost a full tenth. that sucked. but I was happy as shit to have made it that far. speaking on gamblers night. you ever drive a 9.9 car, and have to handicap a bone stock 1989 crown vic? I did. know how fucking long that 9+ seconds feels?? depending on the cam, you coulda probably gotten easily into the low 11's with a 3500 stall, and a smaller carb.
  50. 0 points
    At least one of the attorneys arguing the case will be on Gun For Hire Radio on Sunday if I remember correctly. I will be listening with a glass of Balvenie in hand (unless we do a do-over for the shotgun meetup.) @Krdshrk

  • Create New...