Xtors

I went last year. Enjoyed it a lot. Lots of cool stuff to check out. Parking is a hot mess though. There are dedicated off-site lots with bussing to the door, which actually worked out pretty well.

And OH.

I prefer the term "arkancide."

Is this all just for an injunction? Meaning, has the full case even been argued at the circuit court level? Does that mean we are further away from this getting to SCOTUS?

Saw this just now over on ARFCOM and thought folks here might be interested and/or share their thoughts. I've never heard of this before. (Link doesn't embed for some reason BTW). https://www.instagram.com/p/C0t-AbpLdF-/

Agreed. The cognitive dissonance here is deafening. Those opposed to rulings like this typically spew endless nonsense about brain development not being done into the mid-20s and therefore we shouldn't allow 18-20 year olds have firearms, drink, etc., while at the same time trying to argue that the voting age needs to be REDUCED to 16. Uh huh.

Great news for the second amendment! https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/federal-judge-grants-summary-judgement-striking-down-federal-ban-on-handgun-sales-to-adults-under-21/

In for the disappointment.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Not even with STA-BIL?

They are in common use... just like adjustable stocks, flash suppressors and mags with capacities greater than 10/15 rounds. I may be dreaming but may it tangentially helps our cause.

Agreed. I am wondering if this might somehow help the AWB cause.

Amen. Not another dime until WLP is history.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-will-hear-case-challenging-trumps-bump-stock-ban/ Time to lay in a heavier supply of popcorn. Today the Supreme Court granted cert in Cargill v. Garland, the case challenging the Trump erabump stock ban. The about face by the ATF following the Las Vegas mass shooting came at the direction of the Trump administration. ATF, which had previously approved sales of bump fire stocks as legal accessories used regulatory fiat to do a 180 and reclassify them as machine guns. The Supreme Court’s hand was forced here by a circuit court split. While bump stock bans had been upheld in the Tenth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. From NBC News . . . Those challenging the ban said the legal definition of machine gunhas been distorted beyond recognition and argue that courts should not defer to the federal agency’s interpretation. Well yes. The definition of a machine gun has been established in law by Congress. The Chevron deference that courts usually give to federal regulatory agencies doesn’t apply in this case because of the clear redefinition of what constitutes a machine gun under the Gun Control Act of 1934. ATF bases its expanded redefinition of bump stocks on the 1968 Gun Control Act. We shall see which version prevails. Court watchers have guessed that the Justices are looking for ways of chopping the legs out from under Chevron deference. This may give them a good opportunity to do just that.

That's what the Babylon Bee just posted. https://babylonbee.com/news/senator-feinstein-death-not-expected-to-affect-re-election-campaign

https://dailygazette.com/2023/09/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-constitutionality-of-new-york-gun-laws/ Did not expect this.

Seems to me they have now specified exactly what is meant by substantially equivalent and if you didn't shoot an HCQ with holster draw (e.g., went to Shooters) then you have to do it again. To whit: Substantially Equivalent Courses. An individual who completed a course of fire prior to the issuance of the CCARE Protocol is deemed to have satisfied N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(g)(2) if and only if the prior course include each of the following: A minimum of 50 scored rounds per participant. Minimum passage score of 80% using an FBI type Q target. At least 10 rounds must be from the 15, 10, 7, 5, and 3 yard lines each. If fewer than 10 rounds were fired from those distances, the remaining rounds must have been fired from farther distances. The participant must demonstrate safe holstering and unholstering during the shooting course, which must include safely drawing the weapon from a secured holster before firing at each of the required distances and re- holstering after completing the round. The participant must demonstrate proficient and safe reloading during the shooting course. No substantially similar courses completed after the CCARE Protocol is issued will be accepted.

Interesting question. I wouldn't chance the school even on the weekend but what about a street fair? The law talks about a permit being required but the question in my mind is "permit required by whom and for what purpose"? For example, if the township issues itself a permit to close the street or vendors a permit to run a food truck, does that count? Vs. say I want to organize a big protest, for which I need a permit. Might need to give USLS another call on this one.

I would have stashed. Most malls have signs exactly like this (out of the way, tiny font) and given the lack of standards it's probably best from a legal perspective. That said, my understanding from speaking with EN, is that as long as it's not a so-called prohibited place and if you honestly didn't see the sign, basically the worst that can happen is you get asked to leave/trespassed (assuming you aren't being a jerk and refusing to leave, that is).

@10X please add the Picture Show movie theatre on Route 130 in East Windsor to the no-go list. Their website doesn't mention it but they are kind enough to actually have a sign on the door.

Anyone listen to Nappen's most recent podcast? He is now saying you need to turn in the new NJSP form to your town (and maybe judge) even if the qual was deemed substantially identical. I did mine at Shooters and just called them and they say their training was GTG (as many have already said here) and that they wouldn't sign the new form unless you requalified, which I don't want to do. They also said the township was free to call them for clarification and that Nappen was fear-mongering. What an absolute ****show. In his podcast AC keeps alluding to something coming on this front but it would be great if whatever it is was revealed before the deadline.

So maybe this is a dumb question but all the talk about "for profit" has me wondering. If I buy a new firearm X for $600 and turn around sometime later (maybe the time gap is relevant, I don't know) and sell it for $500 I am NOT making a profit. It's a $100 loss. As such, no BC needed.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/breaking-huge-2a-win-in-massachusetts-penalties-for-carrying-across-state-lines-axed-by-state-court-another-step-to-constitutional-carry.7185308/ UGUST 21, 2023. LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS. Just before the official business day closed today Monday, August 21, 2023, the Lowell District Court had reached it's verdict regarding Massachusett's overbearing gun laws and License To Carry (LTC) requirements. A state with gun laws similar to New York City, which have seen the arrests, incarceration, and fining of many unwary travelers who had carried their legally owned firearms across state/city lines, this case began when a New Hampshire man named Dean Donnell, who is licensed to carry in his home state, was arrested by Massachusetts state police during a routine traffic stop when MA troopers discovered that Mr. Donnell did not hold a MA LTC required to carry in the state of Massachusetts. Instead of taking plea deals or agreeing to reduced/dropped charges in exchange for a hefty fine, Mr. Donnell filed a case back at the state citing that the core principles of the Second Amendment had been violated with his arrest and detaining. In the conclusion of this landmark case today, the Lowell District Court ruled that the State of Massachusett's ordinance barring law abiding concealed carriers from entering the state without a state LTC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and violates the 2nd Amendment. In addition, they ruled that the arrest of Mr. Dean Donnell on these firearms charges was a violation of his civil rights and had subjected him to 'cruel and unusual punishment' because this issue should NOT have been a criminal issue and subject to criminal penalties. This verdict not only spells doom for Massachusett's blatant constitutional violations preying on law abiding citizens, but sets the groundwork to strike down all other states and localities with similar unconstitutional anti-gun laws. Today's victory is made possible by last year's groundbreaking New York State case NYSRPA (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association) vs. Bruen, which saw the Supreme Court strike down NY State and New York City's anti-CCW and pistol licensing requirements as unconstitutional.