raz-0

FYI, literally at worst about 32 seconds. make the call.

OK, my memory is bad. It was 5 cities, and criminal record did beat out gang affiliation for totals and correlation. and for some reason I can't find the CDC document, they appear to only ahve an executive summary easily findable anymore. But another way to go on it is this link https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems They list for 2010 a total of 2,020 gang homicides. CDC for 2010 has firearms deaths as 606 from accidental discharge, 19392 from suicide, 11078 were homicide. THe homicide total for all cuases was 16,259, so about 12.4% of all homicides were gang related. Assuming that gangs have the same distribution as all other groups in how they commit homicides, that'd imply that about 1373 were gang related. This is a sketchy assumption. That leads to the question of do you trust those numbers. To answer that, lets look at chicago. the city itself claimed 80% of homicides are gang related. the national gang center claims ~50%.

Your intuitive math skills are bad. Taking the gun grabbers numbers (i.e. not favorable to RKBA), about 20% of the populace owns a gun. That's over 6.2 million owners. at 19,200 per year that's 3269.8 years to go through them all. There's also jsut short of 4 million annual births (and the rate is falling), but if 20% of them turn out to be eventual gun owners, you are minting about 790k new ones a year, so 3.2 millenia won't quite be enough to get through the problem. Even at 2% you are about 4 times replacement.

His stats are form the CDC. The problem is that the gang related numbers are an extrapolation from a study done that collected data from 12 large cities. I think anything that tries to put out a meaningful number that applies across the board is not engaging in sound math. At the same time, the results of that study are statistically meaningful that they should not be ignored. The important take away is that once you pass the level of simple assault, violent crime is heavily co-exhibited with other criminal acts, and that gang affiliation correlates significantly more strongly than simply looking at the criminal record of the perpetrator. IIRC depending on city, the range for correlation of homicide with gang affiliation spanned 60%-79%. Having a criminal history was something like 6 times more correlated than having no criminal history, and criminal history with gang affiliation was 3 times that of just having a criminal history. The 60% of firearms deaths are suicides thing is generally accepted though. IIRC it has spanned like 52%-64% with the majority of years being between 58-60%.

Yes they can opt out, but that would mean that effectively the ruling can be ignored. When dealing with say a 20 year old precedent set by a previous composition of the court, that may be a convenient option to essentially say we didn't like the reasoning there, lets see what current situations shake out and see if we need to hear the issue again. With something 4-6 years old depending on how you look at it? Not so much. Basically they had 2 cases regarding the mess that is legal rights regarding 18-21 year olds. It isn't just a RKBA issue, and it has existed for a while. Add to that that the prime violent criminal demogrpahic is 16-28 years old, and there's all sorts of reasons you might not get enough buy in to get it heard. Then you have the lane case, which asks a pertinent question regarding having rights abridged by local bureaucracy affecting the means of exercising those rights. The net result of which would have ot be either saying you aren't necessarily entitled to your rights thus undermining their own recent decisions (not likley to get traction for those who ruled in the majority for heller and McDonald), rule that basically all the existing BATFE regs regarding sales have to be thrown out (which is not a decision you would like to make if you believe the government has any regulatory authority, and thus isn't likely to get sufficient backing from either side), or to compel someone to be in the business of being an FFL (would you really like there to be precedent for SCOTUS to compel someone to open up shop, or for the government to be your FFL?). On top of that, this is really only a practical issue in DC. Everywhere else you have options within driving distance. If there is indeed feeling that BATFE has overstepped their bounds as set forth by laws passed as congress, odds are you could get to address them via Abramski vs. the US. So not only would the pro RKBA people on the court see a potential second opportunity to address what they have issue with, they may regard it is more appropriate overall. Then you have drake. Which deals with the fundamentals of the 2nd. There's three things to address. The militia bit, the keep bit, and the bear bit. Until you have established where you stand with those bits, everything else is getting the cart before the horse. The argument for drake is SO badly done that the SCOTUS could clarify their scrutiny standards to give lower courts less wiggle room and breathe new life into every case that has hit the circuit level as well. The potential downside is that the peruta case is out there, and might be a better fit if you want to declare that you can pick and choose between CCW and open carry and be compliant with the bill of rights. That gets maximally messy if the CA isn't planning on challenging it, but if the court or portions thereof want to wait on it. You also have enough states signed on as amicus to the SAF side of the argument to hold a constitutional convention. That sort of says something right there. It's messy and complex. Unless getting enough votes to hear it was a slam dunk and it is just waiting until April, I'm sure there has been spirited discussion over this. IMO if drake gets challenged rapidly, en banc hearings are refused, and they know it is coming on the docket, they may drop drake to avoid playing politics during the mid-term elections to hear Peruta instead. If not, I don't see the proRKBA side of the court feeling they will get better options soon, so then it may come down to what are they willing to horse trade votes on in terms of OTHER cases. Which is all serious guessing, because SCOTUS keeps the politics of their workplace a very opaque black box.

Or if you must store something that isn't just rotating inventory, beans, rice, and water will get you pretty far and are readily accessible.

You got the invention that plows mud and gravel? It's not paved. Indoor range gets cleared. It is paved.

Actually some of them have what amounts to a constitution with rules on settling property disputes and other items we would consider matters of civil law. Not every answer is kill them. Total anarchy doesn't tend to work for much.

A classifier match requires approval. Probably could get it, but like I said previously the primary obstacle is access and parking. If it is still remotely like my back yard, we aren't getting people parked and the buggy moving.

First he easy answer. yes it has to be pinned otherwise you add a threaded barrel to the list of evil features. SOme might argue otherwise, but it is my opinion that although logically it either has one or the other at any given moment, the prosecutor will not care. An actual compensator cannot mitigate flash as much as a dedicated flash suppressor can. Referring to smart designs of both and not a piece of crap engineering. A flash suppressor works by doing three (or less, not all are really good designs) things to the gas that all boil down to taking energy out of it. 1) they diffuse the gas exposing more surface area of gas to the ambient air to cool it quicker. 2) the suppressor maximises the surface area of the device exposed to the gas and is thermally tied to the mass of the whole rifle so that it acts as a heat sink to cool the gas. 3) The muzzle device acts as a tuning fork to turn some of the gas's energy into sound. A well desinged version will do the preceding while directing hte gas out of the line of sight of a shooter operating the gun. A comp when you get down to it uses the redirection of gasses to control muzzle movement. Those gasses have to go someplace relatively quickly over a very short period of time and you more or less want to turn the maximum amount of energy into motion in a favorable direction. YOu do this by either trapping the gas ina high pressure chamber with holes acting as jets, or you let the muzzle gas strike a baffle to redirect it. A comp like the JP tank brake, or the titan compensator are VERY effective and designed for shooting games in daylight conditions. They don't care about keeping the gas out of your line of sight and any diffusing of the gas is coincidental. Then you have things like the battlecomp, which is nothing but a high pressure chamber with a whole bunch of little jets. It both redirects gas, and diffuses gas, making the muzzle blast less flashy, but still WAY brighter than say a vortex flash suppressor. A number of comps do make a nod to varying light conditions and at least try to jet the gasses out of the shooters line of sight. The BCM gunfighter brake is one of them. It uses sort of the opposite of a velocity stack as as the striking face for the baffle, diffuses the gas through long slots, and directs the gas in an upward and outward V pattern outside of the operators line of sight. IT also has some minor nods at heat sinking in the design. IT does not mitigate flash more than a battlecomp or dynacomp from the side by side tests I have seen. Is it a better comp than them? Maybe, if so not much. Are the gunfighter, battlecomp, and dynacomp all inferior to say a titan in terms of compensation? Definitely. Unfortunately it appears to be lost to time, but there used to be a video of the JP tank brake on a full auto AR pistol build being shot one handed. The fireball it produced was impressive as was the recoil control.

Well 1 is essentially the same for the CA law as the NJ law. The only difference is that in CA it is the sheriff that decides on that, and and NJ it is the judge at least, and likely anyone who can step in and testify to him that they don't want you to have one, which I assume means at least the local LEO structure is represented there. Those are really just details. Structurally the mechanism being scrutinized is the same. WE just give more people a chance to turn the crank of that mechanism. As to 2, I'm not familiar enough with CA law to know if it is structured in as abhorrent a manner as NJ law that denies the right to everyone and than grants it back in bits and chunks. In part that is why I would prefer that NJ's case be heard, because it gives the SCOTUS opportunity to comment on that. As for 3, you need to take your meds or something. If you think that is something you worthy of discussion on it's own rather than an artifact of no feasible carry option, I don't know what to tell you. As for being able to cry about it more than CA, you can't. They have basically the same provisions with exceedingly minor variations.

The more the government tries to force everyone to do as they say when they say about everything, the more benefit there is in behaving like a criminal. Look at gangs. They are generally depicted as lawless thugs. Most of them have all sorts of rules and laws. They even write them down. They control neighborhoods and keep the police out. They are a competing form of government generated by a set of rules that did not work well. The government pushes more and more people onto the other side of that line. We exist at the point where everyone is guilty of something, you just probably don';t know what it is and it probably doesn't make much sense, but push comes to shove the government can come up with a charge that will hold water that can put you in jail for at least a year. It's been like that for a while. We are just getting to the point where more and more people that we have trouble seeing as lawless thugs rather than as productive members of society are being forced to make the choice to live outside the law or suffer substantial personal harm immediately. It is human nature to defer that harm as long as possible.

Well translating, you can call your insurance company and ask them who is approved windshield replacement service in your area.

I smell senators.... yup there he is at the end of the article. The guy need to change that appointment on his calendar from repeat every two years.

Well far side of PA was like $34 a few years ago. Sending it to washington state with two guns witha declared combined value of about $4200 ran me about $150-something. SO maybe a tad high for a used glock. SOund about right for a gun over the kilobuck mark with insurance. Sounds underinsured if you shipped it in a needlessly large box. I do next day saver in the medium box with a hard case that fits unless it is warranty work requiring the factory box be used. TO big to stuff under a jacket, but keeps the price down.

IT got approved. Where can you buy one. Personally, I say go ahead and activate it. I welcome stupid indefensible laws.

HAve you looked at what our senate and assembly churned out in the last 10 years or so. They don't have smarts or knowledge, they will turn out nothing solid. Yes, they could do something stupid like requiring applicants have never received a moving violation or parking ticket. DO you really think that would stand?

OK, shoveling it is !!!!

They aren't moving, they are expanding outside the state. Which will follow by either 1) reducing manuffacturing capacity wih employee attrition in NY, or 2) shutting down NY once sufficient capacity exists elsewhere that having management so geographically separated is no longer sensible for whatever reasons. Option 1 is the decreased sales path, option 2 is the increased sales path. In the meantime they will enjoy the NY tax incentives on what they have there.

YEs, but even going by my short list, that's only 6 dudes that do't let it go per department, and I suspect that list of about 200 is short. The number is not right.

Except one battle has already been decided. There is SCOTUS precedent for the question of restricting right to us citizens simply because they entered another state. Keep in mind the 2nd was affirmed as an individual right, and has now become an incorporated right. It applies to all states. They say the right to carry in some form outside the home exists, it exists in all 50 states. For California, with no reciprocity, and a law that forbids issuing to non-residents, they'll have to fix that. For NJ, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the permitting process is available to anyone from any state. They'll tell you no, but you can apply as far as I can tell. In theory, if the states play stupid on the issue, it should not have to go back to SCOTUS and should be sorted at the circuit level at worst unless the circuit courts are going to ignore all sorts of precedent and put many other decisions in peril.

like new in box unless it is a scope without an integral mount. You put a scope in rings badly, and supid can impact function without minimal cosmetic harm. Also you tell me a scope is new and it has mount marks even if it were installed correctly, and I would not be a happy camper. So like an aimpoint pro you took out and spun the knob on the included mount to mount it and took it back off ASAP? LNIB. A burris 3-12 scope where you have to put it in rings, I want to know it was mounted, and once mounted = used. Feel free to explain the use is light and it is mint/near mint, but I want to know it was mounted.

Ditto. Anyone can shove a bunch of crap ammo in an open box. Specifics would be good. ATK is a big company, with fancy machines. The box contains a mixture of swaged and reamed primer pockets. They would have to actively go out and handmake that crud in order to mistakenly put it ina box. Which isn't a mistake. Which leaves deliberate sabotage of retail ammo, someone making off with some box material from ATK and trying to make some esxtra cash with it by filling it with reloads, or someone obtaining retail ammo and swapping out junk ammo for good stuff for some other reason. All of which I would classify as low odds relative to someone wanting attention on the internet or trying to make trouble for a company. The only thing I would put even remotely close is someone bought hard into reloading with zero skills during the panic, made a pile of crap, and decided to rectify their mistake by carefully opening boxes and swapping their stash of crud for the real deal and making up the difference reselling the resealed boxes. Which leads me to the question of the plastic inserts. My federal boxes that are the brown cardbord 20 rounders have cardboard inserts to separate the shells. Has that changed? (mine are a couple of years old).

Stupid poll as I guarantee you the vast majority of the those responding don't understand the content or implications of the law being discussed.

The primary obstacle is parking. That has to be viable to do something. Even if it all melts, the ground may be too soft.