raz-0

protip: SCOTUS is not big on hearing all viewpoints, that's what the paperwork is for. Most people who want to speak during oral arguments are told to go pound sand. The solicitor general gets to. It is literally his job. The solicitor general LITERALLY has an office in the supreme court building. They also appear before the court more frequently than anyone else. Saying that because the solicitor general gets to speak, we need to hear out every fucktard who can file an amicus brief is stupid. It's stupid no matter the subject matter of the case. It is nearly as stupid as suggesting that because there's a conservative jsutice showing up and speaking, that we need to let all voices from the left be heard there. You can read the pile of shit argument here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/112062/20190812163502955_Amicus Brief of Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts.pdf I will put forth as something to keep in mind with regard to their argument this question: Do we generate more documents, especially the government, with regards to the machinations of war, or with regard to Farmer ted running around with his hunting rifle? Because the entirety of their argument is that because the majority of written use is referring to one context, nothing written down could be of another context. Despite the fact they slyly admit that not all usage was referring to a military when discussing the bearing of arms. It would be kind of like me arguing you can't be an artist without being famous and citing as evidence the sheer pile of news, media postings, etc. that refer to famous musicians and actors and such as artists and then saying there are lots more of those occurrences than other uses of the word artist. Thus, first amendment protections on art as free speech should only apply to artists that are famous because that is the most prevalent use of the work and thus its dominant meaning in all cases. Which is total bullshit. It's a gun grabbing academic smelling their own farts and telling you they smell fine. It also completely ignores the fact that even if you do accept that bearing arms was primarily used in a context discussing military entities, you are talking about the context of a document written at the time where the only military was supposed to be the people. We weren't supposed to have a frikin standing army. So what frikin military were they reserving that right to?

Everything you wrote is bad and wrong. It creates nothing but problems. I will also point out that it's not a problem that needs solving. The defense's argument wasn't "but we didn't manufacture them." BATFE did not drop the case because the definition of manufacture was in danger. The argument was that what they had done would have been illegal if the product actually met the definition of a receiver. It's pretty easy to argue to a judge or jury that manufacturing is not just pressing a button. We don't claim if I get a candy bar from a vending machine that I have manufactured a candy bar. In the case where the labor taking a firearm precursor to the state of being a firearm is performed by an automated manufacturing process, the manufacturer is whoever enabled that process to succeed through interaction with the automated equipment. So not only the button pusher, but the person who set up the machine and gave it the g-code. Once you start clamping things in and setting things up, you aren't just renting a machine shop.

And you know what? It's a legal defense parsing the defendants words. Was it a deeply stupid claim? Yes. But does it bother me that much? No. Because it wasn't a court, and because he got impeached anyway. Also, it wasn't splitting hairs over something that was actually a product of the court. It was splitting hairs on how behavior that was subject to a trial of sorts did or did not fit into that legal definition. This is some bullshit on someone telling the court what they said.

Where you seeing high prices for used guns? Most things I have seen go by on the classifieds here are reasonable. The ratio of reasonable to WTF doesn't seem any different than in the past. Retail used prices, can't say I've looked much. If they are up, the answer is likely two things. 1) an election is coming. Which means you might be able to get that margin in the next year. And if you haven't folded yet, you can probably afford to have patience. 2) Lots of places got kicked in the nuts by the slowdown in sales with Trump's election. I've seen some places that have shifted from selling used to having their used stock be consignment only. Unless the store actively discourages stupid pricing, that usually winds up in stupid pricing because the owner is like $XXX is fair and picks a used retail price, and then the stores cut gets stacked on top. The net result is stupid. The only thing new is more places are doing consignment only rather than buying people's used guns cheap.

Having some idiot with a PhD tell you what the guy you had extended conversations with about the ruling meant in the ruling might be viewed with a giant mug of STFU by certain members of the court, and they might not all be pro-2nd justices. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of them want the world of post-modern, deconstructionist academia taking root in dissecting legal rulings.

Except the first. And the 14th for certain issues. But that’s almost like never.

Dremel and a plus whatever base pad after trashing the old base plate?

The story is likely bullshit. Aluminum-air batteries have been around since the 80s as ev batteries. if problems can be fixed with them without negatively impacting power density, they would have longer range at the same weight. that being said, right now there is a ton of money being thrown at differing chemistries by auto makers, data centers, etc. If this didn’t have real issues people would be throwing tricks of money at buying him out rather than shunning the guy.

No they can't adjust headspace on an installed extension. I would also argue that the bolt is more likely to be at fault than the barrel extension, at least from any reputable company. This is because the race to the bottom on the sale of cheap bolts is WAY ahead of the race to the bottom on the sale of cheap barrels. I would further argue that more likely than either of those is that an inexperienced user is going to do it wrong and get funky results. The internet is full of stupid suggestions on how to complete it. Like right now I'm looking at one that says you should do it with a min and max gauge, except it treats them like a go and no-go gauge. Which isn't correct, as the brand he is using, the go = a .223 GO gauge, and the max = a 5.56 Field gauge. YEs it shouldn't close on either a no-go or field, but starting on afield from new you may actually be able to close on a no-go. I'm also looking at another one that talks about owning one gauge and a piece of masking tape. And another that is making due with masking tape. bolt needs to be disassembled and cleaned prior to check. Barrel extension lugs need to be cleaned out too in case anything is hiding there. The dudes at an iso 9000 certified factory with CNC equipmetn, experience, and a QC chain that has the right headspace checking tools will do a better job than you more than likely. If you are checking, you should probably also just call/email the barrel maker and ask what bolt they headspace to. Then don't cheap out on the bolt.

I kind of want one. It is simultaneously completely stupid and awesome.

They can try and pass all the laws they like. If they keep losing, regardless of the presence of the law in the statute, it will likely be effectively mooted by the administrative code on how to interpret the law. NJ has a number of laws on the books that have been ruled against, yet not removed from the statutes. They are effectively mooted by the administrative code or the AG refusing to prosecute if they are losers due to court precedent. You will note how, by and large, most of the gun grabbing stupidity that goes anywhere avoids semi-automatic handguns. That's because they are specifically mentioned in Heller as protected and not unusually dangerous. I think that if strict scrutiny falls, you will see laws that put forth abusive background checks as well as painful exclusions to carry and probably registration schemes. It would not surprise me if we got strict scrutiny handed down and NJ gets smacked with regard to carry that we very rapidly see shall issue, but with a very high fee, abusive disqualifiers like if you have ever been fined or had a moving violation, and a gross litany of excluded places. They may also try things like mandating training for a carry permit. Just make it training from the state police, and offer it in one place a couple times a year, limit class sizes, and make sure it's just always full with guarda employees for the next 50 years. Because those are likely all things strict scrutiny won't prohibit completely, and thus will have to be argued as to what is a compelling interest and what is the narrowest means of achieving it. But if we get strict scrutiny, it will be hard for things like the AWB and mag capacity limits to stand. They effect large swaths of people and have had no demonstrable effect of achieving anything other than burdening law abiding citizens. IT can't be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest of the state if it doesn't do anything. The only thing it does that is a state interest is reduce the number of citizens exercising their right. And that doesn't fly in terms of a compelling state interest. That is if they choose to be a pain in the ass by the least hazardous means. If they outright ignore it, SCOTUS can find individuals in contempt. At that point it is a matter of who controls the executive branch and thus determines the nature of the AG. The AG can bring charges directly to SCOTUS if they desire. The AG can also bring it as a civil rights case, or a RICO case.

There's kind of two exceptions to this. 1) You can definitely make a loud brake that is not very effective. 2) Given two similarly effective brakes, one can seem quieter. This is usually due to the design of the brake and if it makes the muzzle report higher or lower pitched, and also how much it concentrates the sound in one direction. For example there's the JP bennie cooley brake and the miculek brake. They perform comparably, but I'd rather RO people running the JP brake as the miculek is much barkier and seems a lot louder. To the shooter the difference is less pronounced. As a note, I like the viper venom brake for a NJ build. In QPQ black it is $30, it's effective, it's not too barky, and it gives good access to the crown so you can take care of carbon build up with it permanently installed. The design is also strong and not prone to erosion.

no.

I've said elsewhere that the interesting thing is pretty much all handguns have a similar problem.

We haven't had a 2a case get cert in a long time. We've also had similar cases to ones that they keep kicking the can on get dropped and thus upheld. So why? The new court composition could be willing to play referee on every minute firearms law in total contradiction to their previous statements that they didn't want to do that. I don't see the court composition shift making that kind of change. Therefore when having granted cert, they must have been intending to provide a ruling that would alter the status quo. But how? 1) The unthinkable has happened, and they are going to nullify the second with a totally shitty decision by officially lowering the bar to rational basis. For this, you need Roberts, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh to side with the lefties on the bench. To which you will probably go "don't trust Roberts, obamacare... grumble grumble." Yeah, he's the least hard to envision flipping, but I don't see that happening. The 2nd is an amendment, and the core tenants of obamacare are established case law, namely that the government can tax you, that they can regulate industries, and that they can provide health insurance to the public. Essentially eliminating an amendment wholesale is not his shtick. This is possible but not probable. For it to be probable, you would have had to have Kennedy being solidly aligned with the right side of the court in previous events, and every legal scholar being wrong about him. 2) Fully endorse the dressing up of rational basis as intermediate scrutiny. NY wins, and wins more than accepting mootness would do. This is basically a slightly different version of #1. You'd have to have events since granting cert flip someone. I would argue this is the more probably version of bad news than #1. I still consider it unlikely as I'm pretty sure there is enough dislike of how the court was treated in this case and with the lower courts thumbing their nose that you could build coalitions to grant mootness. I honestly don't see the left side of the court wanting to do this because it undermines the law and can be used against the rulings they like. If they can't get #1, I'd see them preferring #3 Whoever caved from what appears to be a solid 2a 5 vote block would probably prefer #3 too as it would have all the effect they want and much less chance for backlash. 3a) Tacitly endorse the dressing up of rational basis as intermediate scrutiny, but only for the 2nd amendment. Basically this would be that coalition building from #2 to avert disaster. We "win" small but lose big in the long run because they accept mootness at oral arguments. The 2nd would be dead absent resorting to the ammo box in dealing with an out of control government. 3b) They will leave the bar where it is at intermediate scrutiny, and just decide this case without moving the bar at all. Except why do that? You could have just upheld it or accepted mootness. I regard this as the much more likely outcome of a judge flipping and needing to mitigate crisis. They vote for a win, but a very, very small win. One can argue that this is how Kennedy fucked RKBA in the past. To wind up here you have to flip someone or it was really Roberts fucking us. Either way we are screwed long term except in the most egregious of cases. Those will likely never go to court but be pushed back saying wrong conclusion try again. 4) We win. They hold the line on intermediate scrutiny, but to avoid endorsing the ongoing fuckery of the lower courts they provide a legal test. This could swing anywhere from a mild win to a big win. It all depends on the test. IMO this occupies the middle of the bell curve of probable outcomes. Worst case we get a test that really only provides strong protections "within" the home. So lots of ammo for purchasing and possessing, but not carrying. Bigger win is it would clearly and soundly apply to bearing arms outside the home in a positive way in addition to purchasing and possessing. 5) Kennedy was a bigger problem than we knew, and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were bigger wins than we thought, and Roberts isn't being blackmailed and is a bigger friend to the 2nd than was previously clear, and we get strict scrutiny. Technically any of them is possible. Like I said, I believe some variant of 4 is most probable. I believe that if we get a decision that puts forth strict scrutiny that the licensing and regulation of carry outside the home will be explicitly stated as a compelling state interest. Even if that is so, I suspect that will end the argument of "less guns on the street is best" as it is not narrowly tailored. Will it benefit NJ? We have crap gun laws, thus in theory even a legal test at the less stringent end of the spectrum, if the test is not garbage, should provide us some relief. In 4 and 5, we still have to contend with the garbage that is the NJ court system. However it may rain in our circuit court some. If it doesn't it effectively puts them on a fast track to being smacked by scotus as they can now just hand it back down saying your conclusion is incorrect based on precedent without having to go to oral arguments. things I see as potential mitigating factors even though some of them probably shouldn't be: - the mass shootings between when this started and oral arguments. -the proliferation of red flag laws. -SCOTUS being threatened by congress. -the health of RBG -The sentiment behind the slow demise of cheveron deference. -BATFE playing fast and loose with administrative interpretations of things. -the desire to shut a future court out of defining RKBA -the desire to preserve a future court's ability to define RKBA -the fact that large swaths of DNC controlled state governments are pushing laws that ignore explicit rulings in Heller.

The DNC rules are to pretend there's a process of popular selection. If you read the details of their rules, there is not. You agree to this when you pick your party. the fact people are ignorant of this isn't really relevant.

Cases can be consolidated. I doubt they will be. If we can’t win the ny transport case, we can’t win these I suspect. If we do win, we are likely to get a new standard of scrutiny or a specific legal test. At that point what would make sense is to kick them back to the lower court saying the legal reasoning is flawed and they need to redo their decision.

Interesting take. I think it was going to wind up here regardless because the question at issue isn't fundamental to any pretense that the second amendment is a right. To keep and bear arms I have to be able to own it, use it someplace, and move it around between the two places. The fact that the bar of intermediate scrutiny was set and failed to be respected at even that level means that there was a problem in need of addressing. The only reason it wouldn't wind up there is that the court was hostile to the 2nd in general or sufficiently with regards to the question posed. Once again, the question here is not some are of controversy about where the limits on a right are. It's about does it exist at all. As for a narrow ruling, the only way for it to truly be narrow is to leave intermediate scrutiny in place and just say this law doesn't meet the standard. If that was all you were going to do, you might as well just have mooted it. If they do put the mootness doctrine on trial, I would not expect a unanimous decision. Breyer is a shithead who doesn't care what the law or constitution says if he disagrees with it. Sotamayor likes to just make shit up. If RBG really were smart and cared about a liberal legacy and such. She'd rule for strict scrutiny. It would give the DNC the opportunity to drop the gun grabbing and point the finger. If RKBA was not in play, the GOP would be in deep shit. They can't afford to lose a chunk of any of their voting blocks.

I’ve only been to a couple shows there. I’ve gota mild case of tinnitus from so many shows so I have cut back a lot. I’ve seen Rollins play a lot at this point, so he’d have to be playing with a band I really want to see and haven’t.

Who is making a pure brake for .223? Everyone I have seen in the last ~10 years at least makes a half assed attempt at being both a break and a comp.

I see three options. 1) the anti option. This is a narrow ruling against the law while retaining intermediate scrutiny. We wind up right back where we were. 2) The middle of the road. This would be ruling against the law, avoid strict scrutiny but adopt a new legal test. 3) The big win. Ruling against the law and establishing strict scrutiny as the standard for 2a cases. I can't see them going to oral arguments and mooting the case there.

Yup was trying to remember what the name of that place was. I've been there a couple of times. I honestly don't remember all the acts I saw at all the places. But I saw rollins band there. Not even close to the craziest mosh pit in NJ though. Loved Birch Hill, lots of good bands there. Definitely saw Gwar more than once there. Also saw Marilyn Manson, Lunachicks, Anthrax, Life of Agony, Living color, etc. There were a good three years or so where it seemed like I was there once a month. Club Bene: I only ever saw Brian Setzer there shortly before it closed for the last time. Stone Pony: Been there a few times, only remember seeing bad religion there with (IIRC) unwritten law and dancehall crashers. Then there was everything at the waterloo concert field in Alamuchy. Saw the first lollapalooza there, so (once again Rollins Band), Ice-T/Body Count, Living Colour, Janes Addiction, Nine Inch Nails, Butthole Surfers, etc. Also saw Stevie Ray Vaughn there a few months before he died (I believe that was the locale anyway), Steppen Wolf, Nazareth, John Cocker, and a bunch of other stuff. They don't seem to do that stuff there any more. As for other places that seem to not do much if any live music anymore there's: Rutgers - they used to do lots of live bands at the RAC on livingston. Saw (once again) Rollins band there with beastie boys and cypress hill. Quite the combo. HORRIBLE acoustics in the place though. Then there was Middlesex County College. Back in the early 902 they regularly held local hardcore shows and did a big one each year. Honestly the most insane mosh pit I have ever seen. I went to one of the big ones, with Sick of it All headlining and about half a jillion opening acts. The first "band" had a drum set made up like a cymbal, a couple plastic buckets and a cardboard box. Once things got really underway the pit was HUGE. Most of the venue, and rather than just crowd surfing you had people just walking on it. It was a toss up between the pits you would get there for the bigger shows, and the one's you'd see at Airport Music Hall in allentown. Those were weirdly organized and BIG. Also saw the weirdest lineup there. Danzig, Soundgarden and (IIRC) Manowar subbing for Corrosion of conformity due to some illness or conflict. Oddly, only Brian Setzer seems to grasp that NJ is highly interconnected, has parking, and has about 16 million people within a couple of hours to buy tickets.I had to go to NY or PA to see so many bands. Honorable mention goes to The Red Spot and On Stage in staten island. They got a lot of the overspill for when the limelight got shut down in the early 90s and were much cheaper and easier to get to. Saw type o negative, gwar, prong, corrosion of conformity and a bunch of others in those two places. I believe it was on stage with the worst bar idea of all time. IIRC it was called Quarter Power Hour. 15 minutes, $0.25 shots. Drunkest mosh pit I've ever seen.

Nice. Given that you have articles by people who told them to moot the case asking if the state law could be used to re-implement the same restrictions, I don't think that is going to go well for them.

If you count 12ga as a caliber, I have eight, use four.

cheeseman v polillo https://www.notion.so/Cheeseman-v-Polillo-2299273dba924300a95197d2776a39ba ciolek v New Jersey https://www.notion.so/Ciolek-v-New-Jersey-e4fdd4db914a4a2a8402affa4f2e6a73 Rogers vs. Grewal https://www.notion.so/Rogers-v-Grewal-88478f2a38af4a1787bd504c5eb11c2e To go with it, there is also Gould v Lipson, which is may issue in Mass. https://www.notion.so/Gould-v-Lipson-306f04b9820a453191850443343412a9 My guess is they all get redistributed for next conference. Either because the NYS one might influence, or because they know it will.