voyager9

With extra pineapple? More likely the media hyping the hot topic. They did the same thing with railroad accidents after Palestine.

Did your dog take a dump in an oven pan?

Jus sayen

Report of three injuries, possibly By ricochet and CBS is on location before the ambulance leaves. You know they were hoping for a bloodbath at a NJ range.

Golly, Tex Finn here.

It’s not the only new account with the <word><number> format with semi-on topic but completely pointless comments. My guess is they’re dumping the subject into an AI tool and posting the result.

More info and video of the strike Calling it a “hit” is an understatement. Bridge is gone.

Same shit, less corn.

I don’t know. Maybe state charges were also filed but this case was only challenging the federal ones. Maybe the state was holding off and will continue to do so given the federal court ruling. Since none of it directly applies to us in NJ it’s all academic anyway. As you said, let’s wait and see. More waiting on the court. As is tradition here.

He was charged under the federal statute.

They don’t need them to come true. They just need to make it sound like they could and let the media and sheep slurp it up.

The state admitted in court that they had no data showing CCW holders commit more crimes.

Technically it’s not precedent now that I think about it. The ruling is “as applied” so only applies to the subject of the case. It doesn’t invalidate the federal statute though can be referenced in other cases with similar challenges.

Probably because the case didn’t challenge purchase/FOID, just the possession statute he was charged with.

That is how it is now and this case doesn’t change that. The case was about possession not purchase. Illegal immigrants would be denied a purchase via FFL because they couldn’t pass the BGC. My point/question is the possession case verdict gives precedent to challenge that.

To your point, though: now that precedent has been set, could an illegal immigrant challenge IL’s FOID and Background check? Could make a case that their rights are also being denied since they can’t purchase. Cries in Red Flag laws..

The case declares the specific statute prohibiting possession. It had nothing to do with purchase.

I didn’t say I was against it. I think the Bill of Rights applies to all. They are natural rights. That isn’t necessarily true for the Constitution at large. There are powers that are afforded to citizens.. voting for example. Note that this case is for possession. It would be very interesting to apply this precedent to purchase. Someone in the country illegally cannot pass a background check. Are they being denied a right?

https://thereload.com/gun-ban-for-non-violent-illegal-immigrant-found-unconstitutional/

I thought the beginning was good. The “examples” read more like a set of test questions with no actual examples.

What an asshole.

Jinx

Reminds me I have to get some seed. Problem is the bare spots are in the shade and between flooding, kids, and dogs there is almost no soil left, just sand

Even if the technology can be used to trace a shell to a firing pin, it completely fails any realistic reliability requirement. Platkin can stick his microstamp up his macroass.