raz-0

Maybe, but outside of Thomas, I don't know that there's the will to review every gun related statute out there. I wouldn't be so sure of that. At least for TROs and PIs, there's nothing to lose and fill up the docket and make angry noises about the shadow docket to gin up pretense for threatening them with court packing and such. For actual litigation though, they risk getting Bruen++ at worst, and nationwide binding precedent at a minimum. Which SOP is to ask the circuit states to fall on their sword and take one for the team.

NY did it at SCOTUS.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think this is going to be good news in the 2nd circuit. When you are willing to abuse the legal system to get away with as much as you can, you don't accept "you're screwed" and give up. You drag it out. You bundle things up like this to try something novel and shitty to see how much you can get away with before being told you can't do that again. I suspect they are also hoping that some of it wills tick because SCOTUS will make good on not wanting to review every single case of the lower courts. But I could be wrong.

My read is the state is pretty taking it that they will come out on the losing end in the PI, and are trying to break it up into separate hearing for separate parts to drag it out. Unless they are stupid, they do not expect the 3rd circuit to be as accommodating as the second, and the second just got warned really hard. I suspect (and I would be shocked if they didn't as well), that SCOTUS won't differentiate between the 2nd circuit ignoring their warning and the third circuit ignoring their warning. So even if the 3rd carries water for them, they will run right into Alito looking to fuck them up bad like. So yeah, it's clearly a delaying tactic to some degree. If they get it it buys them time, and possibly a small victory they can attribute to their strategy if any of the bill remains intact. But I'm not buying the goal being to maximize their ability to say "we did what we could". I wouldn't put big money on it, but I think we are in for the newest grabber tactic that can only be done in places like NJ where it is essentially a one party system with no way out in the near future. I suspect the next dirty trick we will see is a constant flow of new legislation to moot existing cases hoping to leverage bias in district and circuit courts to avoid being penalized for it and dragging that out as long as possible.

OK, if we are getting pedantic, neither district courts nor circuit courts, nor scotus make decisions on state laws. They make decision on federal law and state laws in so much as they violate federal regulations, the constitution, etc. Case in point, their eminent domain decision that said clearly that as long as there is due process and compensation compliant with the taking clause, it's a state law issue. If it is GENUINELY state law, then the STATE supreme courts are the last word. District, Circuit, and SCOTUS are all just arbiters of that. SCOTUS being the ultimate arbiter of that. So "gatekeeping" isn't well defined. You may be using it differently than I am. But what is a matter of state law is ultimately decided by the plaintiff giving up, or SCOTUS. That's it. That is how I am using the term gatekeeping. They ultimately decide what passes through that barrier of being a federal matter or a state matter. The district and circuit are there to weed out the obvious shit, and when they do that properly, SCOTUS effectively just rubber stamps it and tells the plaintiff to pound sand.

SCOTUS is 100% the gatekeeper of state laws when they violate civil rights. They are also the gatekeeper of errors of law at lower courts. That is in fact their job. But that does not mean they decide how the courts work in terms of process, and it does not mean that being denied a a TRO or injunction is a misapplication of the judicial process. This particular suit has a lot of issues. At least from the bits I've read, and temper my opinion with the fact that I haven't been watching the wrangling on this one, so I may be missing a lot of stuff. So first up is the question of standing. Standing, unfortunately, requires harm. In the case of civil rights stuff, the fact the law is clearly harmful often isn't sufficient, you have to actually step up and be harmed in most cases. TROs and injunctions do tend to deal more with unavoidable harm, but you still have to demonstrate that you will be harmed, not that you might be. So first up, like half the arguments are that you can't regulate us like this because 2A. I doubt the court is going to see that the state does not have great leeway in regulating the operation of a business. If regulations are going to get canned over the 2nd, it's going be because they infringe the rights of an individual in the end. An example of a shit claim in the case: NYS can't require a POC implementation of NICS. NICS is a federal law and very clearly allows for a POC implementation. That would be a totally different suit and I'm not sure why it is even here. A more ambiguous claim in the case: They are creating a registry and the 2A and 4A says you can't. Well, is there actual case law on this. There are opinions, and legislation around said opinions, but not case law. It's a valid challenge, but do the FFLs have standing? Have they been harmed? More importantly is that harm irreparable? A registry can be destroyed, and if actually destroyed, the harm it does is gone. You are not likely to win a case with the argument that the people running the registry are scumbags and can't be trusted to work that way. A different ambiguous claim: That the laws will put them out of business due to cost. While one can argue that unlike the other amendments, the 2nd really does kind of require commerce, so things that effectively forbid a commerce in arms can be infringing. The suit claims that compliance will cost $200,000-$1,000,000 to comply with, and I have yet to see where they get that number. From what I've read, it sounds unlikely to be accurate. So they may have standing potentially, but have they demonstrated inevitable harm? A lot of things on the list likely ARE 2a violations, but the winnable case is going to come from the customer side of things, not the business side of things. It does not strike me as a particularly strong case in general, and specifically I don't think what merits it does have lend themselves particularly well to winning TROs or injunctions. I mean really, are security systems expensive to the degree that it is an existential threat to anyone being able to operate a business? Is there something special about that requirement with regards to this law that makes it move from something private households and small bodegas can afford, but not FFLs?

Yes. Now put on your thinking hat and ask how renewals will work. You wait until it is expired and it takes??? Or you start the process how many days before it expires ot avoid the state dragging their feet? How many days will that be?

I mean that's still bullshit. The thing expires every two years? It can take 120 days to approve (We'll see if they actually manage to abide by their own laws). 14% of the rime you have no right to carry. Sounds legit.

I mean at the end of it, the dude was probably dead at that point, or as good as. But legally the answer is probably that you aren't qualified to assess that. Even then TX has abuse of a corpse which is a felony under most circumstances.

The 4 extra is easy. "I was focused on the shooter and did not see the gun fly out of his reach. To the best of my perception he was still a potential threat with a weapon within reach. It was a very short period of time." The last one is the tricky one.

Try that. redditsave.com_taqueria_customer_kills_robber_houston_tx-o47h4h3x9qaa1.mp4

Not saying I disagree, but you don't say that in court.

I don't totally disagree with you, but from a defensible standpoint, one could argue he didn't see the gun go flying and thought he was still a threat. But you can't argue the shot/nd as he had the fake gun in hand at that point.

Nah just politician weasel words. Defendable. They'll show up and defend it. That doesn't mean winnable.

I mean it was the 5th circuit. So they have to address it, but they are not bound by it as precedent.

The full video is out there. He shoots him while he is down, which is fine as he was still holding the fake gun and was still potentially a hazard to life and limb. The problem is that when the defender picked up the fake gun, he shot the perp again. To me he looks kind of startled when that happens. I'm guessing he kept his finger on the trigger and jacked up on adrenalin and panic, when he was executing fine motor skills to pick up the perps fake gun, he squeezed the trigger and blammo. At that point he could be fucked and likely knows it. Hence the rapid departure. There's a bunch of new youtube bullshit going on with monitization, so the youtubers are being very cautious.

1) It's sold as a comp. 2) It's design would not do much to abate muzzle flash. 3) It probably doesn't actually function as a comp either based on the design. It's basically an overly complicated thread protector. I wouldn't concern myself if I were to put it on an AR build. I wouldn't because of #3, but not because I'd be legally concerned.

Except that the FPID/PP exists in conjunction with the GCA of 68. This means that unless you get willed it, or had/have a residence in another state, you cannot own them without getting a permit. NJ has always been run by statist scumbags. We'd still be a colony if NJ determined how the nation was run.

My spare parts pile is dangerously close to critical mass. It has some good stuff in it.

Sometimes they just turn money into guns though.

Spare bolts? Yah. WHole spare BCG... not so much. Although if you like building ARs, you eventually wind up with them. No, Carriers and bolts are not universally interchangeable across all ar-15 pattern guns. 5.56 and 300 blackout guns use the same bolts. 7.62x39 and 6.5 grendel use the same bolts. (bolt face is .445" diameter) 6.8SPC uses something real close to the bolts (bolt face is .442" diameter) Then you have pistol caliber BCGs which don't have a bolt, and are very different from a standard mil spec 5.56 BCG. Then you have annoying bullshit like wonderbolts and other things that start messing with the lugs and have to be headspaced different or need special extensions. Avoid them. As for the BCG, all those bolts will fit in a standard carrier. But if your gun is a piston/op-=rod gun and not a normal direct impingement gun, the BC is non-standard. Additionally if your gun is set up with a roller camp in (this is a POF gun thing), you can't use a normal carrier with a normal cam pin. This stupidity looks like this. I mean it works, but it fixes a problem that doesn't exist and creates proprietary uppers that don't work with standard BCGs right. Headspace is the measurement telling you how the bolt fits to the chamber/barrel extension. Too much and too little means the gun will have issues, potentially catastrophic if it is too far out of spec. Hence go/nogo gauges. In spec bolts will generally mesh with in spec barrel extensions and everything will be fine. If you want to be certain it is fine, you get go/no-go gauges. You can also do a ghetto version of this by using an in spec round and a couple pieces of masking tape. As mr. google about that if you need to know. Typically what fails is the following in the BCG area. 1) Bolt cracks at the camp pin hole. This is the #1 failure mode over time... by a lot. 2) Bolt sheers a lug. This is what everyone worries about, and is much less common. It happens, but typically the gun will keep running, possibly less reliably, but keep running. It is an inevitable failure mode over time, but the reality is you usually never get here because of #1 unless there is a defect in your bolt. 3) Gas key comes loose This isn't a common long term failure mode. It is however something that can happen because the BCG wasn't built right or something was defective. This will usually happen fairly early on if it is going to happen. 4) Gas key cracks or is eroded. This is a longer term failure mode. It is the result of the gas key and the gas tube not being concentric, and is typically due to an assembly error on the upper, or a seriously out of spec key on a carrier. But the tube and the key rub when the BCG goes into battery, and if that wear is not symmetrical, you can chew one edge of the key or tube away and get a gas leak and the gun doesn't run reliably any more, or at all. Worst case is asymmetrical rubbing turns into impact rather than just rubbing, and this can damage the gas tube, or crack the gas key, or cause the gas key to loosen. Spares typically don't help here because the root cause is typically a misaligned gas tube, and the damage occurs to both the gas tube and key so a spare BCG is insufficient. This is a solid list of spares. I'll just add that you can buy bolt rebuild or bolt spare parts kits that are basically all the BCG bits of this in a container. I will also add that a lot of fancy BCGs are doing something where the tradeoff is less reliability. I agree with you and the keep a spare, fully populated bolt in your kit idea. I do that as well as keep a box of replacement parts. Aww.. you should give your opinions on coatings. That's the kind of stuff we are here to argue about. I will. COATINGS ARE BAD. SURFACE TREATMENTS ARE GOOD. Coatings sit on top of the metal. Surface treatments basically become one with the metal due to chemicals transformation. Also "nitrided" is an ambiguous term, and it has started to be abused in the retail sector. Mil-spec phosphate is fine. It is a surface treatment. IMO the only improvement on this is going to a polished, melonited carrier. This may also be called a nitro carburized, QPQ, or nitrided. Why is this potentially better? There are only really three ways to mess up a mil-spec carrier. 1) machine it out of spec, and this isn't really something you can tell from advertising, and is an issue of QC for a given brand. 2) Attachment of the gas key. Which is once again a QC issue, but if the marketing pics don't look like they did a good job, they probably don't do a good job. 3) Do a poor job at applying the chrome coating in the inside of the carrier where bolt goes. It's part of the mil-spec requirements, but just by it's nature there's minimal room for error, and chrome is chrome and can fail in addition to the channel being machined out of spec, or the polishing step being done wrong and driving it out of spec dimensionally. For a melonited carrier, the coating can't fail. If machining and polishing were good, melonite won't alter the dimension or finish. And polished melonited carriers are easier to clean than phosphated. Also polished and melonited can't hide any sins in machining or surface prep. The matte phosphare can to a small extent. Things like TiNi, Ion bond, NiBoron, etc are coatings. They can flake off, and potentially interfere in the smooth operation of the gun. This is primarily a concern of chrome and nickel boron as they are thicker coatings, and one the coating is compromised, the damage will likely spread. TiNi, ionbond, and many others are PVD coatings, much thinner, and damage is less likely to spread. They are probably ok, but why pay for them when the better choices are cheaper? Unfortunately some PVD coatings are black and contain nitrogen and will be referred to as nitride. So do some digging. Personally I've been very happy with BCM mil spec BCGs, JP, PRI, rubber city armory, and spikes melonited BCGs. As for bolts, I just buy JP bolts and let my wallet complain. They are the only company that puts extra meat wound the cam pin hole without doing something else stupid. Their QC is excellent and they insist on pretty tight tolerances. Many of the good, more boutique barrel makers head space to their bolts because of this. And their warranty and CS was good 20 years ago and is still good today. That's from personal experience. I know a lot of people who use their stuff, and I've never run into anyone with anything bad to say about them. They are pricey, so I don't indulge in everything they make, but their bolts are worth it and I've just stopped dicking around with anything else.

So make an emotional appeal. In the case of the wal-mart shooting, why did wal-mart once again fail to provide sufficient security to it's employees? Why did government policy continue to fail to address the root cause of XXX that lead to this violence. The main problem with this is it would require the GOP to possibly endorse some form of funding a functioning social safety net.

As the youth say today, it glows.

Ooof. California was already getting hosed due to insisting on special blends, those were expensive because they were only being made in CA refineries. Guess $7 a gallon + is back on the table.