raz-0

longer barrels get you more velocity. They also add weight which dampens recoil. They tend to have a larger sight radius, which means more feedback about aiming. Some people may find this to feel generally easier to shoot, but some don't and get annoyed by the greater amount of visible shake. Other things factor into that too like blade width and notch width and such. Most ammo and loads are developed for a 4"=6" barrel. Most everything I own as far as pistols go is 4.25"-5".

DC's good cause law was struck down at the circuit level, thus no relief for other circuits unless your legislature was feeling like they really wanted to get ahead of things.... which I have never seen happen with RKBA stuff, so.... We've already been down the road of radius bans on things. If it looks like a ban, it is a ban and will be struck down. I doubt we will see it, and if we do it will die in short order. Thinking about it, I have come up with what I suspect we will see. ALL signage counts. No requirements it be legible, clearly posted, in a language you can read, or whatever. Violation of the signs will be a felony and strip you of your 2a rights. It's like the texas lawsuit law, but without the money changing hands. There is no government ban, just enough prohibited places that you can't do much of anything and carry, and the government isn't even defining them. Probably see it coupled with a law making it illegal to store a firearm in an unattended vehicle as well. No idea how that would fare in court, most of the country it's all just trespass laws that aren't felonies.

Did it for many years. My main advice is rent in a big complex. The leases are drawn up by paranoid lawyers, and they know that in other places lease stipulations that forbid guns increases the responsibility of the landlord to provide for security. The lease didn't forbid guns, but it thought it was cute forbidding explosives. Ammo is an orm-d consumer product, not an explosive. Either they were not as clever as they thought, or it was deliberately misleading to make the client happy or to give them something to threaten problem tenants with. Additionally, they had a means to manage tenants refusing them entry without notice which they followed properly all but one time (they handed the keys to a town/state inspector and he through he would let himself in unannounced. I was home and he found himself going ass over teakettle down the steps when the door was made to remain close with authority). But I had an interior closet that I put a safe in and put a locking doorknob on. As others have stated, there are a lot more security options you can add on top of that.

That was the assumption at the time. The current belief is that it actually came down to Roberts being the problem. Once we see the opinion(s), we'll have a better idea, but Kennedy retiring was made contingent on a pro RKBA replacement more or less, and roberts contributions ot a number of rejections of RKBA cases seems to back up he's the problem. We will see.

There’s no further input at this point, but the court will be doing stuff in chambers. The ruling will likely come in July.

I read that. I don't necessarily agree with their take wholly, but they did bring up something interesting about Breyer that I didn't notice when listening. I took his remarks to be more of "how would you draw up guidelines that would prevent blood in the streets!?!?! YOU CANT!" Mostly because he's an asshole who believes the government can do whatever they want. But perhaps it was like Sotomayor... he was looking to steer the inevitable away from what was being discussed to and argued behind closed doors towards something more moderate. I think they might both have been trying to get the plaintiff to agree that some minimal measure would be sufficient. That would suggest either strict scrutiny or a fairly "dangerous" legal test is being proposed as the conclusion.

Unless the court gives them a time frame to comply, we have constitutional carry until they pass a new law. If they give them a grace period we have the old law until the deadline and presumably a new one then.

Well that was interesting. The usual NY/NJ argument of "if any government did it, we can do it now regardless of how wrong it may be" defense. And wanting to remand it so they can retry it or find new data or whatever, just remand it please. I think the plaintiff made some really good arguments regarding constitutionality and the nature of a constitutional right. I think he got across the point that there is no other enumerated, incorporated amendment that simply does not exist for any citizen without getting a permission slip first.

This is fun. She's not accepting that the court revised the question and wants to go back to the lower court because the question asked that she already admitted was very dangerous, wasn't part of the lower court litigation. So far it's the left leaning judges beating up on the plaintif, and the right leaning beating up on the defense.

It depends on what the lowers are complete with. My fancy 3 gun rifle lower would cost about $600 to reproduce right now as close as possible. About $450 if I made some fiscally strategic substitutions. But I can build out a $40 poverty pony with the cheapest stuff for about $120. If you just want to stash some lowers, but some lowers cheap.

GSD powder coating in keyport used to have guns on their list. That's where the modmat guys started modmat. So it might be worth calling one or the other to see if they still cerakote guns but just don't list the service on their website.

The charge TTI is much bigger. I had an original wave and it was petty much perfect. Mine got beat up enough it needs a refurb, and if you mail it in they may jsut send you a new style wave, which isn't even close to as good. I just picked up a wave+ which is the closest thing to it. It's still biggger and heavier, but really the only change in functionality is the scissors are not as good, but still good enough. Losing the deadicated phillips head for bits means you lose the ability to take small electronics apart. However, you do add bits, so if you feel like carrying a bit card, you do gain the ability to deal with hex and torx. The wave+ is better at the range than the wave was, but is not quite as good in the office or at christmas time than the original wave.

I doubt he can walk away from the financial impact of this. I don't see how he can avoid civil liability. Insurance is definitely something to watch, if their insurance coverage says they don't owe money because of the management of the set, it's probably a good indication this will get messy across the board.

The guy who ran it is retiring, that's the main cause, and the only one made public. The speculation, if you want to get into that, is that the shoot is put on by a business for publicity and outreach and that with the cancelations mandated by covid measures, they did not see an appreciable hit to the business. So once the guy who was the driving force behind the shoots is retiring, there's nobody willing to foot the cost or effort.

It depends. If he were just the dumb actor, unqualified to be responsible for safety, then no, not really. If he were the producer and effectively responsible for not having a proper armorer on set and fostering a on atmosphere where corners are being cut? Quite possibly. Baldwin was the producer and the set had problems.

Brandon lee died because the set was run like shit. They were asking the armorer to do stupid stuff for stupid long hours and he walked. They decided to amateur hour making dummy rounds form commercial ammo with a set of pliers. They left the dummy rounds with live primers. This caused a squib, and the bullet lodged in the barrel. Then the blank cause the bullet to get shot just like a real cartridge. It seems that the union camera crew walked off the set the morning before this shit went down on Rust, and one of the reasons they walked walked was the gun safety on the set. So the DP was behind the camera because the camera operator said screw you and your bullshit. The more I hear about this, the more I think Alec needs to be held responsible. Being the guy who pulled the trigger AND the guy effectively responsible for managing the picture as a whole. Or at least one of them, and on set to know how out of hand things were getting.

Criminally, at best, it would be something like involuntary manslaughter or negligent manslaughter.

Mostly speculation on my part, but given the shallow nature of the micro groove barrels, I suspect that some of the accuracy issue is leading up fast, and others come down to how used up the tooling was when your rifling was cut. That latter bit is also probably a function of how cheap marlin was being that week/month/year.

It's a nice round hampered by a lack of bullets that work well with it. You have like two choices unless you both hand load and cast. given the guns are fairly simple, I expect that ruger may have some teething issues, but get it sorted out and make some quality guns. I wouldn't mind if another micro groove barrel was never made. They really don't have a reputation of shooting well with the heftier cartridges.

Lots of prop guns are real guns. Sometimes fitted with blank adapters internally. There are dedicated blank firing replicas, but they pretty much suck in terms of looks and reliability. So it's usually real, airsoft, simulators, or rubber guns. With simulators being the most uncommon. But.... 1) There should be NO live ammo on set, ever. 2) blanks should never be fired AT someone. Usually you take advantage of the 2d nature of film and the charactersits of the lens to make it look like you are pointing it at someone. So in this case, some kind of fuckery was afoot. It wouldn't surprise me if you saw a repeat of the Brandon Lee situation, where budget issue, shitty conditions, and shitty hours left them with no armorer on set and they decided to play amateur hour and got someone killed for it. From the sounds of the news so far, it seems like they were filming a shot where the gun would be fired towards the camera, and the DP and director didn't vacate the space behind the camera.

There are some things not so much preventing it as making it a bad strategy that has played out with bad consequences from the perspective of gun grabbers. As I mentioned previously, there's the absurd suggestions, and then there's the things that are more arguable in court. Where that line gets drawn depends on the eventual ruling. For example, a $5000 fee for a permit is very likely to lose, and even worse than a ban, it is clearly exclusionary in a manner not permissible for an enumerated right. As has been demonstrated in the last couple of years, while a court case make take a long time to go all the way to scotus, a plea for an injunction moves MUCH, MUCH faster. If you float something thumbing your nose at the scotus ruling, NJ could find itself with constitutional carry for brief periods due to injunctions. And because such things are basically ways to say to lower courts that they are dumbasses fir their rulings, the liklihood is that the speed of that will increase with repetition. So the preferred way to go about it would be something more arguable in court without looking like a dumbass. What you will see will be death by a thousand more reasonable cuts, or at least something novel. Generally things that don't say no so much as fill the act with sufficient peril as to make it unattractive, much like an extension of the existing NJ laws. For example, I don't see the ruling coming down in a way that all the states that forbid carry in bars have to strike that portion of the law. NJ could extend that to any establishment that serves alcohol, which given how NJ does the math means a lot of places you go out to eat. They could also try something novel like the the inverse of the 30-06 law in texas, and state that carry is only legal in public outdoor spaces that aren't government owned, and in buildings that have posted a sign indicating it is ok to carry concealed. That would be novel, and a much muddier argument. Maybe you add something to that like making it illegal to store a firearm in a car unattended, which would make complying with the above rule really hard AND effectively bring back the burdensome travel restrictions on simple transport without a permit. History has demonstrated that scotus doesn't want to be reviewing every law, and that the gun grabbers want to force every law to go as far up the judicial chain as possible, so I highly suspect we will get a judicial test out of this. Hopefully it is well crafted. A well crafted judicial test or a call for strict scrutiny and only strict scrutiny are really the only options that aren't theater given the behavior of the lower courts to date.

If they try to limit it, this is not how it will be done by and large. Onerous fees on a constitutional right have already been litigated. NJ would lose. Same goes for impossible to meet criteria like your training. Same goes for the school zone thing. If it is a ban, it's a ban, it doesn't matter how you get there. That extends to the non-existent firearms. The DC gun laws basically went over most of these kind of things and lost. Much more realistic is doing something like shall issue, but having something like having a moving violation disqualify you. The problem there is that it would likely disqualify all their existing permit holders including armed guards. Which greatly hinders their rules for thee, but not for me approach to things. That additionally has the problem of such things NOT eliminating your right to own firearms, and partially revoking a right is something you generally don't see much of. Restriction on type or number of firearms to be carried is very possible and already exists in places with shall issue permits. I believe NV requires you to get a permit per firearm. As are the list of restricted places where carry isn't permitted. Although I do question how much you can get away with once it is deemed a right rather than a privilege. I think you will see what NJ has done in the past. They will burden it with every "reasonable" infringement and layer it up to make it an overall burdensome process without any particular step being extreme.

Is that no change, or did they laser you to better than 20/20 so it would last longer? The reshaping of the cornea is permanent, but it doesn't stop your natural progression of myopia or the onset of presbyopia. Some people have better experiences because they wouldn't have gotten too bad anyway. Timing of when you get it also helps mitigate issues. The people who make money selling you lasik say that about 35% of patients need another surgery. I would argue that that number undershoots reality as a significant number of people just go back to wearing glasses rather than pay for more surgery. Myself, I've gotten so used to wearing glasses and having a barrier between my eyes and the world, I'd probably be blind in a year if I got lasik.

Online glasses places. If your prescription is minor, you can get spare pairs for like $40. If it's more complex it may go as high as $130. Usually previous prescriptions are close enough for an emergency, but to go wit my main set I usually have a few extra pairs stashed around, plus my shooting glasses. Corrective laser surgery usually just winds up needing prescriptions again, it's not a forever fix.

With 12ga ammo there are generally 2 standard lengths. One is shorter and one is longer. I've seen people reference the shorter shells as "European", but I have found that it is independent of source of origin. But if you find your gun will get more than half-way on a 6th, make sure you check with both long and short shells. You may be able to fit 7 with the short shells if you got to 6.5+ with the long shells. Mini shells are a different matter. They generally don't work with any semi-auto that wasn't made to use them. I don't even recall any mention of someone modifying a normal 12ga semi to use them. Heck, even a lot of pumps won't run them without modification. You could pour a couple hundred .22lr down the tube, the guns not going to fire them and it's not a 200 round magazine tube. Also that piece of pipe left over from plumbing that will fit several shells in it isn't a magazine either. At some point to be a magazine you have to get specific about what it is, and the NJ law on the books that does that speaks to this situation. Just because during the AWB you could fit more than 10 9mm rounds in a .40s&w magazine, it wasn't a hi-cap mag. It wasn't built for that, and it didn't work very well, even if you could make it work sometimes.