Leaderboard

Mootness denied! https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

Hang on now. Bench shooting or shooting at distance is one thing - you are shooting a single 223/5.56 round at a time, at a slow cadence, from a supported position. If you are carrying a .223/5.56 rifle for real world use or are conducting tactical shooting drills or competition type shooting, the use of a brake/comp is absolutely beneficial -you are shooting strings of multiple shots, fired very quickly, generally from a standing or unsupported position. The rapidly repeated blast and recoil, that was minimal for each round starts to stack and that muzzle can move around a lot. The addition of a quality brake/comp during these types of shooting events can be a real advantage. I guarantee, if I put you at ten yards and had you fire 10 rounds into a B8 Target in under 2.5 seconds, with two different rifles - one with a brake/comp and one without - you would see the difference. Manufacturers that provide materiel support to rifle carrying professionals have been looking for a “best of both worlds” solution for a long time - combining the effectiveness of a brake/comp with the signature reducing properties of a flash hider. If the benefit of a brake/comp was artificial, I doubt they would be eating time and money on the research.

Once again, AVB talks the 'party' line, and has no idea what he is talking about. The Obama-Biden "policy" (executive fiat, really), was that everyone who was check-marked (NOT "adjudicated", as AVB asserts) as needing assistance managing their affairs was unilaterally moved into the prohibited category. Unlike AVB, I KNOW people who were in this category. These were administrative decisions-not an adjudication-where an injury was in a certain category, such as a head injury, was required to name another to "manage" their affairs. Most did not need a conservator, but they were forced to identify one or risk losing their Social Security benefits. These were bureaucratic decisions based on a check in a box or checklist, NOT the result of either court or professional decision-making --- even more egregious than the current "Red-Flag" laws! These were largely implemented so that the SSA could cover their own asses and have someone (other than themselves) to blame in the rare cases of patient abuse. The Obama-Biden fiat was CORRECTLY tossed-out as unconstitutional. Use some of that advanced education you regularly pat yourself on the back over, AVB, and educate yourself BEFORE you pass judgement.

I’m not going to quote AVB since it’s bullshit in its entirety. PLCAA does not protect gun manufacturers against negligence or defects in design. In those cases the manufacturers can still be Taken to court and found liable. PLCAA protects them against lawsuits stemming from the illegal use of their firearm. You could argue that no other area has those protections but also no area has needed those protections after the organized and tactical lawsuits in the 90’s that still continue today

The road to hades is paved with good intentions. The goals you state are admirable; but nothing you have proposed will change the direction you are headed.

@AVB-AMG Please note I did not mention you in my post about Greenday! I don't believe you are a paid troll. I believe you are a misguided victim of our higher educational system! Too many liberal professors that brainwashed you into believing that Socialism is a viable form of government! I am sad for you that can't see beyond that false panacea and instead, I wish you would have the wisdom to look at history and learn from it!

Thank you, AVB, for confirming what I have suspected for awhile. Your "250 mass shootings" is straight from the "Gun Violence Archive", which has its own definition. The FBI's definition counts 31. You're another one who's 'drank the cool-aide'.

I understand your frustration, but comments like that don't do anything to advance the dialogue. I admire AVB and Greenday, even though I rarely agree with them, because they continue to come back here to provide opposing views in the face of nearly universal hostility Without them, we would all be in near total agreement on most issues, and the discussions would be a lot less interesting. That is my understanding of it, yet the anti-gun people continue to obfuscate, and conflate manufacturing defects with intentional misuse of a product to claim that the firearms industry is the only group that is protected from liability lawsuits.

///

So, Biden wants to sue gun manufacturers for what end users do with them, But he won't answer the question if car manufacturers should be held to the same standard. Hey Joe, how about doctors, when they kill you in the O.R.? Hey Joe, what about Anheuser Busch or Seagrams? Going to add McDonalds to that list, since cheeseburgers cause heart disease/death? Might as well add stairway manufacturers to that list, too, since people fall down the stairs and die all the time. Hey @AVB-AMG, what do think about this proposal by your Number One Boy??? During the MSNBC / Gabby Giffords / March for Our Lives gun control forum in Las Vegas, Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden contended that it is time to use lawsuits to rein in gun manufacturers. Biden stressed that if he were granted a “wish list” for gun control, the first thing he would do is repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005). That Act protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits tied to firearms that were legally manufactured and legally sold. He said, “No other outfit in history has gotten this kind of protection,” and he claimed the suits would result in “change overnight.” Biden did not say whether Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Ferrari, or others, should be open to lawsuits when one of their legally manufactured and sold products is stolen and used in a crime. In addition to suing gun manufacturers, Biden wants to ban the manufacture and sale of AR-15s and require registration of the AR-15s that are already in circulation. Breitbart News reported that Biden also wants to register ammunition magazines. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/05/joe-biden-time-to-sue-gun-manufacturers/

And there we have it. It's been a multi-generational move to make all firearms related experiences as "bad" so as to lower the eventual resistance to the apathy we see today. Can you imagine the current crop of congresscritters serving during, say, 1946-1952? There would have been an armed conflict! We are only one or two generations removed from the "Greatest Generation", yet here we are watching our rights go down the tubes. Sad.

I like that a lot! And will spread it all about!!

Here is my issue with the "we can't just do nothing" line we hear politicians recite over and over. No one is saying do nothing, but we shouldnt do something for the sake of doing something. No one refutes that none of these laws would have prevented a shooting, but they always say its better than doing nothing. I'm all for any law that is 1) effective in its intended goal and 2) doesnt infringe on peoples rights. If it fails either of those than in my opinion it is bad policy. i'm appaled by the apathy from people who are perfectly ok eroding a right just because they themselves do not use it. And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberatarian leaning and the more statist leaning. I dont hunt but i'll defend your right to hunt. I have spoken to people who just go "well i dont have guns so it doesnt effect me, they can ban whatever they want". Sorry for the segway into a more philosophical point

Aw c’mon AVB, I know you’re smart enough to understand what “well regulated” means in the historical context of militias, that it does not mean “restricted” and that it does not apply to “the people” even if it did.

@AVB-AMG - your latest posts mention the increase in gun violence. Though every death matters tremendously, the fact remains that the US is still in a long-term "trough" in terms of gun violence - far below the last peak in and around 1992, and even 92 was lower than the worse peak in 1974. Specifically: There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974. And the rate of gun suicides – 6.9 per 100,000 people in 2017 – remained below the 7.7 per 100,000 measured in 1977. Check out the FBI and the CDC for actual facts about death by guns. Don't get pulled in by the Trace, or Giffords or the other activist sites. Here are the facts: We're at near 30-year lows in our rate of per capita gun death. We've had a slight uptick in the last 2 years, ALL of it accounted for by increases in a few major cities - with many criminologists attributing it to a specific issue in those cities - the growing pushback against police, and in turn, the police then being "less enthusiastic" about rushing into known gang territory to be surrounded by hostile people with smart phones (or worse, throwing rocks, tossing unknown liquids at them, etc., etc.) Our rate of MASS murders has definitely ticked up, after remaining virtually the same for many decades. Though, that said, it is still an exceedingly rare crime (again, using the credible FBI definition and stats). One likely cause that too few focus on: for years, experts on these issues have asked repeatedly that the media stop publishing the photos and manifestos of mass killers. Most of these experts (criminologists, forensic psychologists and the like) believe strongly that the media is complicit in spurring copycats/contagion effect when they do that. And yet, with rare exception, the media has refused to comply. They want their advertising dollars - bodies be damned! So, they glamorize these crimes, create copycats, and then rail against the "increase in mass murders". Do you see the irony/pattern of bias there? At the same time, they virtually refuse to give Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) the same kind of national-level breathless coverage given to mass shooters. Again, recognize a pattern here? If you wonder "what can we do" as a society to stop mass shootings in particular, well... we'll never stop all acts of madness... but it seems wise to heed expert advice. We should begin by pressuring our media to work with these experts to develop and then voluntarily sign on to new industry standards on how to cover these atrocities in a way that doesn't create more of them!

@AVB-AMG I appreciate you taking the time to post another one of your short novels, explaining your position. I'm not going to take the hours to respond to each one... I'll reference that first one I just reposted, as this is the BIGGEST issue in my view. Yes, there is no way ANY law will stop a deranged individual from committing the carnage he's looking for. If a deranged guy wants to kill a group of people with a gun, a car, a truck, a knife, poisons, a airplane, or even fertilizer, not a single existing law or NEW law will stop him. Unfortunately, every new gun law that gets passed, just restricts the law abiding gun owner, and never the criminals. Easily over 90% of the past mass shooters have all exhibited some sort of mental derangement or illness. It's virtually impossible to legislated away "crazy". So, the response by politicians, legislate away Constitutional rights instead... So, you can pass all the new laws you want, nothing will change if a deranged guy wants to kill people. Now, regarding all the increased gun-related deaths from mass shootings. I'm in no way going to diminish the loss of life, as every life is special. But when you step back, remove the EMOTIONAL responses by people who fear guns, the true number of people killed by "assault weapons" each year isn't even a blip on the radar, when comparing to all other causes of death annually. The Emotional response by certain groups and the media make it a lot bigger issue than it is. You know the stats, so I won't repeat them, but deaths by other causes: medical, autos, knives, overdoses, etc, by far, surpasses deaths by assault weapons, by 10x, 20x, 30x more... yet the politician completely ignore those facts... why? The politicians think putting MORE restrictions on the millions of law abiding gun owners is the solution, and YOU agree with many of them... that's just wrong and sad... Unfortunately, the "price for our freedom" includes people dying, both in wars and the military, and here at home, by the hands of a deranged individual, who gets his hands on a gun. For some reason, the country can't handle a few dying this way, but they get into a car every day, knowing that 40,000 people die in car accidents and millions more get severely injured ever year. Where's the logic there? Piling on MORE, knee-jerk, emotionally written gun laws isn't the answer. I do agree with you, how about LEOs start doing a better job enforcing the EXISTING laws on the books, and holding people accountable? How's that for a novel idea?

The noise isn’t the end of the world, it was just obnoxious to the other people i was shooting with . Not worried about the recoil, it’s next to nothing as it is

If it's a 223, what's the worry? I, at one time, had a brake with front ports... KAW somethingorother. It was awesome especially with subs. An RO came over and told me I should check for squibs, it was that quiet at the line. And recoil with a 223 AR is really nothing at all, FWIW.

I’m pretty sure @Handyman lives with @voyager9 shooting @BobA‘s 45 in a bunker. its just a theory though. sniper isn’t worth my time let alone yours

@JohnnyB: I don't think that @Greenday is a paid troll. But I no longer have the stamina or time to devote to reading all recent posts in all threads here as he and some others seem to have. I find that to be quite exhausting and for many silly topics, a real waste of one's time. As you know, for quite some time, some folks here accused me of being a paid troll. I tried to shrug it off with humor, responding: "yes, and that I am paid by the word...." Eventually, those accusations died down, especially after a number of us have met one another on various occasions for gun shooting outings, both indoors and outside. I think it is possible to agree to disagree on politics and still appreciate each other's company while discussing other things, sharing our experiences and knowledge of various firearms and mutually enjoying our interest in shooting our guns. If anyone could possibly be a paid troll here in the 1st Amendment forum, it may very well be someone who has never attended any NJGF inspired get-together and hides behind an online secret curtain of anonymity, by omitting all of their personal information from their profile here. BTW, has anyone here ever met face-to-face with @Handyman......??? Or is he living somewhere inside Russia? Hmmmmm. AVB-AMG

Avb. You are correct. I apologize. Yes i did not read through it. Ill read it thoroughly tomorrow when i have time. Thanks

Greenday is 10 times the distraction that Arthur kill was! I truly believe he is paid real dollars to do what he does here! We all joined this community because we share an interest in guns and the shooting sports and we love the Constitution of The United States of America! Especially the 2nd Amendment! Look up "Paid Trolls" on a search engine! Decide for yourself if I am right! How many times has Greenday said "i was wrong" or "you may be right"! I have blocked this troll's posts from the beginning but it does no good as most times when I check in and click on unread content, 4 out of five threads are responses to Greenday to try to convince him that his last point was wrong! So many hours wasted on responding to the troll and so few hours putting our heads together to find ways to fight the PRNJ and save our 2A rights! The troll collects another paycheck and WE LOSE! The saddest part is we let it happen! Some even welcome the debate! IT'S NOT DEBATE, IT'S DISTRACTION AND REDIRECTION! The sooner the Admins and Mods realize this and dump his ass, the better we will all be! We have lost many long time members here who, like me, are tired of the bullshit! Ask @PK90

Regardless of who gets the nomination, this will be part of their platform.

Arthur Kill?

You must have eaten the rib soup.

im at around 26 5/8 with an 11.5. . so im guessing you would just make it over 26 with a .2 inch shorter barrel

The 30 is slimmer, hence easier to conceal. Being in Jersey, and unable to carry, I would also prefer the larger frame/slide/mag release.

Remember, AVB and Greenie are just shills who are paid to be here and advocate on behalf of their masters

Oh... where to begin?! Point-by-point, I guess... I'll hit a few that jumped out at me. (Boldface added by me). @voyager9 and @Old Glock guy are quite correct, AVB. And you, in this instance, are so very wrong. Sorry!... but, the PLCAA law protects manufacturers from being sued when someone uses their product for criminal purposes. It's a pretty narrowly defined exception. It does NOT protect them from being sued over, for instance, defective parts that cause injuries - or - any other type of negligence! The ONLY reason the law was passed was because the industry was unique... in that it was under attack with nuisance lawsuits coordinated by activists who wished to bankrupt the industry. The analogy to suing a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver is EXACTLY spot-on! If indeed, car manufacturers were regularly facing lawsuits (coordinated by MADD, for instance) holding them accountable for the actions of drunk drivers, we'd need to pass a law to stop that as well. I suggest you go read the PLCAA directly - the number is: 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. The person to be blamed for the shooting is, first and foremost... the SHOOTER! Victims suing "whomever they can in an effort to get something for their loss" is a symptom of our sick, litigious society. As though getting a "cash settlement" somehow makes losing your loved one... better? Yikes. We need to re-think that. And Schiff?! Good god, AVB, he's an extremist. As stated, responsible manufacturers were being besieged with nuisance lawsuits promulgated by activists - THAT'S why the law was passed in the first place! You accuse @Sniper of "just reading and accepting the right-wing spin on Joe Biden’s stand on guns from Breitbart" - and yet, in your passage above, you directly link to information from The Giffords Law Center, a site of left-wing spin. Pot... meet Kettle! And, oh, btw, shootings deaths by AR-15s (and rifles of all types) are also very rare in this country, despite not being under the NFA. You're about as likely to be struck dead by lightning as you are to be killed by an AR-15... you're MORE likely to be beaten to death by someone's bare fists. You're buying into obvious "spin", AVB. You should be smarter than that! I suggest you avoid Giffords (and all other political sites), and go straight to credible sources (like FBI crime stats) for a clearer picture. You're getting hoodwinked, my friend! Maybe YOU don't have a problem with this... but I think you should! A number of leading organizations (including those that defend the rights of people with disabilities) certainly did! They saw it for what it was... a sneaky way to strip people of their Constitutional rights without due process. Those decisions were being made by bureaucratic administrators, not judges (based on expert testimony and all the other hallmarks of due process). Hell, it was such an egregious overstep that even the ACLU (no fan of guns!) came out strongly against it, and in fact, was one of the main plaintiffs. Judging from your political slant as expressed on these forums, I'm guessing you respect the ACLU, right? Eh, I agree with that... to a point. I enjoy Greenday's shooting threads - because frankly, I like to see people with a left-leaning slant enjoying firearms and seeing the ridiculousness of punishing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals - and he seems to "get" that point! (Progress?!) But, on most of the political threads, I suspect he's in it more for the sly fun of trolling and watching other posters' heads explode. And that's just mean-spirited... and as a result, people are now openly mean and hostile to him, too. It's a real shame. Whereas in AVB's case, agree with him or not, he actually "debates" - he builds his argument, he stays and defends it (and doesn't scamper off to another thread), and he's shown he's capable of changing his position when others present enough opposing information. At least I can respect his process, even at those times when I wholeheartedly disagree with his positions. And he also participates by bringing in other interesting threads, on any number of topics. I consider him, in that respect, a good contributing community member! Some folks on here simply can't tolerate opposing views... I'm not of that mindset myself. I personally think there's something inherently useful in hearing opposing viewpoints.

If AVB was honest I would agree with you, but he is NOT honest and twists things, etc. Additionally, he is trying to push his views and agenda on me. I don't care if he wants to turn his guns in, register them, etc. or if he gives his significant other the ability to turn him in, and if he wants to buy only one gun a month. Leave me alone, Joe and AVB. And you should think about the radicals such as Giffords that you associate with. By the way, Greenday, do you agree with AVB?

Have patience, the AW definition is being written up as we speak by the same folk (Dept of Subterfuge) who re-defined the whistle blower criteria.

Your a FUDD and you need to go eff yourself.... your a freaking commie liberal pinko SOB. We don't care what you think we dont care what you like Piss off wanker

While Joe goes out back and fires two rounds off his porch to scare off intruders that he hears in the distance.

16 hours of lost love, broken down pickup trucks and dead dogs? I'd need a bottle of whiskey on hand.

Sounds like my wife...

Nice! It’s one shooting sport I find I enjoy enough to do all day.

Virtual food poisoning.