raz-0

Having read the transcripts, I have a hard time seeing how anything Roberts did could be construed one way or the other. These headlines aren't informed reporting, they are following the playbook trying to pressure Roberts just like they did in the ACA case.

*Sigh* I weep for your co-workers. I do. So you ask a question about primers and NEVER TELL US THE GODDAMNED PRIMERS YOU USED IN YOUR LOAD!!!! For fucks sake man, work with us here. Since it is starline with the SR it's small rifle. If you are shooting thinner primers like the remington 6 1/2 primers. Don't do that. If you don't have pinhole ruptures of the primer, you will at some point given 6.5 creedmore's pressure. They will blow out on hot .223 loads and 6.5 creedmore max pressure is 65k vs 55k for .223. Here's a web page with the various primer stats. http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php Basically if loading SRP format I'd stick to remington 7 1/2 or cci 450, br4, or #41 primers, and I'd stick with the more conservative loading data. If you are using one of the thicker SRPs, then to me that just looks like you are dealing with a sloppy firing pin hole dimension vs firing pin diameter and the brass doesn't look stressed, however your pics are more like you want to have a romantic dinner with your brass rather than inspect them thoroughly. If you want to be extra careful, check your bolt face for any scorch marks/erosion. For the brass, take a paperclip unfold it and bend one end to a small L. Probe the case wall above the case web form the inside of the case, and if it feels like it catches hard in a doughnut around the case head.. congrats, you beat the crap out of your brass and should get some more and back off on the loads. But I doubt the brass is messed up given the fact that SRPs should fail well before loadings that will FUBAR your brass. Also, I highly suggest picking up the lee reloading manual and read the first half that isn't load data. It's cheap and very informative. Given 6.5 creedmore is a big case for small rifle primer, and intended for accuracy, I'd go with the remington 7 1/2 br primers. They are benchrest primers, very consistent and produce a hefty flame kernel to light up that much powder.

These days you have LED backlit LCD, local dimming LED backlit LCD, full array local dimming LED backlit LCD, and OLED. Samsung has QLED technology that is basically a different way of doing LED LCDs and I beleive at this time comes in both full array local dimming and edge lit local dimming. While it has some flaws, IMO OLED is top of the heap. If you want something cheaper than that, look at full array local dimming sets.

Bottled water won't burst when it freezes. When I have a summer match, I freeze half my water for the day and stage things so it's cooled and thawed by the back half of the day. They are all built to survive freezing, worst case they bulge on the bottom. The cheap crinkly bottles they use for cases of water don't even really do that most of the time. Especially if you ever use bottled water, if just going for a short term reserve, stack some cases in the basement, and cycle them out regularly through consumption and restocking. It's also cheap. As a plan B, a lifestraw family purifier is pretty cheap back up insurance. It's a fine enough filter to filter out most viruses. It's disposable, but only costs about $60 if you can't catch a sale.

buried in the military times link is the actual report https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1527866983.pdf

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.

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.

SCOTUS oral arguments are never like a normal court case. The stuff you would see as the normal proceedings in a court case are all taken care of in the submitted paperwork and research. Typically it is weird ass antagonistic questioning/commentary usually doing one of three things: 1) Allowing the justices to address the court and state their opinions (this is what Breyer did here, upon further consideration I'm guessing a lot of people told him to sit his stupid ass down and stop it with that shit, and thus this was his way to get on public record). 2) a justice asking both sides to try and shoot down the justices opinion. 3) a justice asking both sides to shore up their opinion. 2 and 3 will usually come off very similarly most of the time.

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.

This is a lot like what happened with the a aca case. They have stayed campaigning to sway roberts a their last hope. The question is can they?

Did you read the report? The bolt speed in unsuppressed fire was 22.3% less. That's a minimum 12.5 Oz mass moving roughly 75% of the sites of a carbine system. You notice it. Not to mention it had less broken parts and less wear. Does metal experience the placebo effect?

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.

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.

1) You can definitely feel the difference. 2) You are right about the rifle setup being of greater significance. Same here. who's this crane person and why would they be the arbiter of how a rifle feels? The carbine length gas system, is pulling gas at a really high pressure, and especially in a 16" barrel, you are getting a fairly long dose of this high pressure gas. It may be less pronounced on shorter barrels. So for example, I have a lower that uses a carbine length buffer. Put my carbine length gas system 16" upper on it and you can really feel the the buffer and bcg bottoming out hard. Put one of my mid-length uppers on it, and it gets much better. Shooting it with a red dot, you can definitely see the difference quite a bit. That being said, setup matters. If I swap in one of my lowers with a rifle length buffer, the difference in feel between the two uppers is minimal as the added reciprocating mass tames the impulse a lot. Also not all manufacturers open up the gas port to keep whiny customers who don't know how to make a gun run from annoying them and making warranty claims. Which is still part of the overall setup.

That’s not how it works. 1) it isn’t that it would not be moot only if they were seeking damages. It would not be moot because damages could be sought. It is the opinion of the solicitor general that they could be sought. 2) the solicitor general shot down the main argument of the plaintiff that without a ruling previous violations could be held against applicants in the future. He shout it down because nyc promised they wouldn’t. Which may not be accepted. If that is the case, put it in the statutes and don’t rely on the whim of administrative decisions. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a ruling that says they can’t charge you out the wazoo for licensing. Even if the ruling offers a possibility of relief there, it’ll be its own court case.

The only thing we find out tomorrow is maybe if there were oral arguments.

You don't need a button top. Some flashlights are not sized to accept them. Flat tops will work. However, make sure it has protection circuitry if you don't know that the light does. If that is what you meant, a button top doesn't mean a protected cell, and a flat top doesn't mean an unprotected cell. As for the OP, if it's a rechargeable cell, you will only be replacing it with a rechargeable cell, and shipped, lithium ion batteries will only be about 75% charged. The supply chain won't let you treat them like primaries. Honestly, I'd post a pic. 2800mah + aa on steroids sounds like an 18650, but there are lots of Li-ion cell formats.

You usually don't see the flaming balls like earlier int he video either. However, the light looked a LOT like a transformer blowing up. Maybe one got whacked by the meteorite.

The bankruptcy is done and they never got to your spot in line, so I guess they don't. Either that or they have some obligation from their restructuring. If it is a significant sum, it might be worth seeing if you can get the court documents and figure out if they are supposed to be making good on existing debts.

Very seriously. You back the DNC a lot. This is LITERALLY their platform right now. In general, I ask you to ask yourself why they do so, and if any of those reasons are really something you want to support.

They have. There was a lawsuit regarding a blind man who had his guns confiscated after injuring himself in NJ. He got them back.

Usually, yes.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/gun-from-chicago-buy-back-program-found-near-dead-gang-member-in-police-shooting/ Super short summary, guy sells a gun to a buyback in chicago, and 8 years later it turns up next to a guy the police shot who happens to be a felon. So.. that raises the question are they selling the guns to felons, or are they pocketing them and planting them on people they murder?

It's favorable as it provides a solid a argument against mootness that the plaintiffs failed to provide. The notion of mootness because the city says "oh we wouldn't do that, no sir" might be legal tradition, but the fact you had people involved asking if the same restrictions could be implemented using the states law and did so publicly would seem to indicate that have no intention of creating abuses long term.

Trying to ignore the shitshow of personality conflicts this thread rapidly became, I'm pretty much with you here. A paranoid 51 year old anti-semite living with mom and dad isn't really who I want ot be the poster boy for this, but the law is messed up. There's really only two ways to have a legitimate search warrant under the constitution. 1) have a judge sign a warrant based on probably cause. 2) a search without a warrant under exigent circumstances, also with probable cause. (the above assumes, rightly, that one's dwelling is a place you have a reasonable expectation of privacy) NJ's red flag law goes out of its way, in its attempts to avoid giving the victims of said law due process or a right to a court appointed defense, to reassure us it is NOT a criminal proceeding, but civil. I'd like to see the tortured reasoning that permits a warrant to seize property based on probable cause for an INCOMPLETE civil hearing.