raz-0

Right now we have three main contributing factors. Expensive fertilizer and the decisions made on that, drought and or water controls that can't support agriculture, ESG which simulates both prior points "voluntarily". There is magic number 4 which is more regional, and that is that food prices aren't inflating fast enough to keep them viably competitive at ports. Like pistachios have gotten cheaper, probably partly from boycotts because water use, but also because lots of nuts are sitting around and not shipping through ports because a container full costs more than the profit that would be made. I don't know of any place that isn't predicting at least 20% reduction. CA really needs to stop blocking desalination plants.

Show me any history of capacity bans at the signing or during reformation? Or even prior to the 1990s. ETA: The gatling gun was invented 1862, existed pre reformation, and had magazines from 20-100 rounds. And anyone could buy them. They can still buy them.

True, but my 1.5moa general experience is extreme spread on a 5 shot group. I think the main thing is that plinking ammo gets a bad rep because it's cheap and those who tend to buy it are 1) cheap and shooting it out of a cheap gun. 2) shooting volume rather than accuracy, and may not have skills for shooting accurately. 3) dealing with the reputation of the past. 4) The first place QC slips when we have mass buying panics that strain the market. Modern manufacturing makes it much easier to automate consistency and QC. I mean jsut look at bolt action rifles. They are pretty much ALL sub moa guns even at $400.

Sorry, you are correct. Bullet plus barrel is 4moa. The reality is closer to the gun is built to better than 2 moa, and the ammo is built to better than 2 moa, so what you wind up with is better than 2 moa. m855 is inherently more problematic for accuracy because it’s three components more or less press fit together. Which makes it less likely to be concentric. Then there’s the quality of civilian market m193. The vast majority of it is first run quality ammo that is just built to the m193 spec by companies that aren’t running lake city. Then there’s xm193. Which is excess. Could be qc rejects, couldn’t be surplus ammo, could be surplus components, or could be the most common which is excess capacity. I don’t believe we get the first two any more post Obama. Iirc everything loaded has to be pulled down and surplused as components. But before then, qc rejects we’re usually bulk bagged and actual surplus was boxed in the brown cardboard 20 rd boxes with lc headstamp. The majority is just excess line capacity. Built with the contract holder’s components using the lake city equipment. It’s first run ammo built to spec and with the same qc. In my experience with a decent chrome lined barrel that’s about as rigid as mil spec, it’s about 1.5 moa. About. And that’s at 100 and in.

Ah retards. I don't think they get something. Every time you try to scare people into compliance by criminalizing them, you might get some success, but you also get more criminals. I don't think they realize they pushed that line past the point where a significant number of those folks have the ability to manufacture the things you are banning. I don't think they get that compliance is always voluntary. Yelling comply or there will be violence only works up to the point where the people you are yelling it at accept your terms and choose violence. You would think with congress being made up of people older than dirt, they'd recall such classic hits as the IRA and the troubles, and the intelligence report on just how not armed up they were relative to the level of violence.

Cool, did you get her name? I'd pass it on to ANJRPC specifically and mention that the clerk said people who were complaining were singled out for delay.

Keep in mind a lot of people didn't have a carry gun and are waiting on permits to buy one. I know of at least three people in that instance. Then there's people like me where I have something I could use, but not what I want particularly. Additionally, I figure there will be lots of fucking around by the state. I'll let you guys figure it out and just gave money to FPC and ANJRPC instead.

The history of SCOTUS GVRs is not typically about a procedural error. It is very often about precedent. I would argue on your last point that a huge portion of Thomas's ruling was saying that all this intermediate scrutiny stuff that keeps coming to them is a misunderstanding of heller, and they can all now go fuck right off. So arguably procedural? The majority of GVR are due to a decision from the docket informing the matter of a case pending cert. There are multiple papers on this. The peak year I could find for atypical GVRs, with the addendum that most papers admit that tracking of GVRs is broken to some degree, was 18% being due to procedural error, statute, change, etc.

Maybe? We'll see. Bet You $20 to an RKBA org to be named by the winner that it goes back to the district.

remand verb (used with object) to send back, remit, or consign again. Law. to send back (a case) to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be had. (of a court or magistrate) to send back (a prisoner or accused person) into custody, as to await further proceedings.

No, not really. A remanded case pretty much always means the court finds the legal reasoning to be wrong. That takes two flavors typically. First, where the conclusion isn't necessarily disapproved of, but the legal reasoning is (or less common, some form of error has been disclosed in the interim, or change in the law.). Then there's the other, where the legal conclusion is garbage because the legal reasoning is garbage. These were GVRed because they could not be consolidated. They just aren't similar enough. Given the volume of the cases vs the fact we still have one court and a growing legal system, GVRed is typically used for when a case has been impacted by precedent they just set with a similar case. In the case of Bruen, they have stated clearly you cannot get to your conclusion via the method used in every one of these cases. They are very much "you can't get there from here" situations. They will have to start their reasoning over. They are free to try and get to the same destination, but it's going to be really hard given the constraints spelled out in the ruling.

Scotus remanded the case to the circuit court of appeals. Rather than change their ruling in any way, which they could have done, the circuit court recalled their decision and awarded the plaintiff their costs for the appeal. They then remanded it back to the district court for a ruling. That's what it says.

What do you think remand means? It means to be sent back. You can't send the case back to yourself. It's been remanded to the district court.

It depends on the specific lottery, the state you win it in, and what probate law is in the state you die in. Don't count on the annuity paying out properly after your death. For example the powerball and mega millions seem to have adjusted theirs over the years, likely due to the large jackpots. They try to cash it out on death and hand it to the estate as a lump sum. Which may not be legal in every state. Some will pass your annuity to your next of kin. Which if you are old and married, may be your spouse who kicks it shortly after the first new years after you die. Then the state keeps what's left as the annuity in that case was property of the estate and can not be passed on by the inheritor. You gotta read the fine print every time. Assume they are planning to fuck you over.

The annuity goes to the state if you die. It's pretty much why everyone takes the lump sum.

Cool belief. Too bad they already did. It’s literally the op this thread. That’s what that says. The circuit court (i.e. the federal appellate court) is remanding it back to the federal district court. Scotus gvred the case. The only thing the Sprite court is compelled to do is to not stick with their original ruling and reasoning.

Not anywhere i read. There was a warning about slow walking ccw permits specifically to deny rights. The upside of the mag bag cases is that the delay can only be so long unless we ares screwed. DC has a case, and its path To scotus is shorter.

That’s a different suit.

What this says is that the circuit court isn't deciding on this. They have passed the buck back down for some lower court judge to put their name on a bad decision. Then it will be sent back up. Then they will likely pull a panel of three that will say yeah a mag ban is no bueno. Then they will say but no... and call for en banc. Then they can proceduraly drag that out for years. Then they will say mag ban fine. Then it will go back to the supreme court. I'm hoping that's not the way it goes, but it sure it looking like it. California will get full cap mags before we do... cause they are doing the same thing, but that means it is going back to St. Benitez.

We can't have anything yet. This is a delaying tactic.... unless the lower court just says yup, the ban is dead. But we all know they aren't going to say that.

So ca awb one just got handled. I’ll bet it’s the playbook for every one that got vacated. They remanded it back to the lower court. So either way it has to be appealed back to the ninth.

Those look just barely flush. After a good whack from the firing pin. I'd check how well seated the unfired ones are.

They look like solid strikes, which is why a profile shot would be useful. If they are proud at all after that hit, the issue is how they seat. If they are just flush after that hit, possibly the same. Like if I try to prime on my lee cast press, you don't get full depth seating. It'll work for most things, but sometimes not. So when I was using that for handgun ammo, I'd prime off press with a hand primer. The anvil needs to be braced against the bottom of the pocket. I'm suspicious of any primers that retain the profile they had in the box 100% when seated. They probably aren't seated well enough.

Probably, oh well.

Hmm both young and ANJRPC have a docket entry on 8-1. It may just be some form of book keeping. I doubt they did anything on the same day.