[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by NickyC

A .308 that is lighter than a lot of ARs and has about the same recoil.

Yes you need one.

Great video on the platform if you're interested:

I am NOT watching that. No way man. I already have more guns than I will ever need.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

I am NOT watching that. No way man. I already have more guns than I will ever need.

Always room for one more!!

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

I am NOT watching that. No way man. I already have more guns than I will ever need.

Can't have too much horsepower, too much money, be too fit or have enough firearms!

[SRod321]

I will not subject myself to this torture.... I can't own one here... not legally anyways smh

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Can't have too much horsepower, too much money, be too fit or have enough firearms!

Thank goodness you didn't mention hair. I mean I'm handsome, rich and drive nice cars with a safe full of guns. But I got short changed on hair.


(oh and after to many surgeries and age I'm not that fit either but I did shoot a 68 today)

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Can't have too much horsepower, too much money, be too fit or have enough firearms!

I disagree on the horsepower part. There is a point where all the horsepower in the world is useless...think burning rubber in 6th gear.

Originally Posted by SRod321

I will not subject myself to this torture.... I can't own one here... not legally anyways smh

I share your pain.....

[Theruleslawyer]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

One of these days a case will be brought to the SCOTUS regarding violation of the 2nd by these many end arounds in liberal states. And they will make a ruling that liberals around the country will decry as much as they did RoevWade. They will lose their minds when that the 2nd A actually meant and says isn't about hunting. Or if some people don't like icky guns they don't have to respect it.

I really hope so. These has to be a downside to states constantly making unconstitutional laws and inflicting them on their citizens only to be shut down in a few years. I'd love to see people able to bring suit against the state for intentionally violating rights. I hope that hundreds of millions in class actions is worth it.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Theruleslawyer

I really hope so. These has to be a downside to states constantly making unconstitutional laws and inflicting them on their citizens only to be shut down in a few years. I'd love to see people able to bring suit against the state for intentionally violating rights. I hope that hundreds of millions in class actions is worth it.

Which law is unconstitutional?

[paquet]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

I disagree on the horsepower part. There is a point where all the horsepower in the world is useless...think burning rubber in 6th gear.



I share your pain.....

Burning rubber in 6th gear.... happy bonerific thoughts...

[Theruleslawyer]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Which law is unconstitutional?

Well the awb thats been floating through congress for one. Also NY seems posed to obstruct concealed carry with high requirements that are no different than poll taxes. They also leaked a memo recently stating that NY police were to treat all people carrying as guilty. A lot of gun laws are going to be challenged with the recent scotus ruling that they must use a single step strict test.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Which law is unconstitutional?

Technically every single 'gun law' which relates to or tries to regulate gun ownership and by rightful America citizens per the 2nd amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The final line states that citizens have the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes and that the government may not interfere with that right. Therefor any law which regulates or interferes with a citizen's right to bear arms is illegal and unconstitutional.


It is not a question of IF but WHEN this will eventually get to the present sitting members of SCOTUS.


There have been three landmark Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment in recent years: District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

In 2010, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging Chicago’s handgun ban, one similar to DC’s recently overturned ban. Otis McDonald and three other Chicago residents sued the city over the ban, and because the Heller decision only applied federally, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. June 28, 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government. Chicago’s complete handgun ban was overturned.

June 23, 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in a 6–3 decision, the majority ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional, and effectively ruled that the possession of pistols in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. While the ruling directly applied only to New York's law, legal analysts and lawmakers expected the ruling to be used to challenge the "may-issue" gun regulations in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Lawmakers in New York and these states began evaluating new regulations that would comply with the Supreme Court ruling while maintaining strict ownership laws.



It is coming and certain people's heads are going to explode.

[Theruleslawyer]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Technically every single 'gun law' which relates to or tries to regulate gun ownership and by rightful America citizens per the 2nd amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The final line states that citizens have the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes and that the government may not interfere with that right. Therefor any law which regulates or interferes with a citizen's right to bear arms is illegal and unconstitutional.


It is not a question of IF but WHEN this will eventually get to the present sitting members of SCOTUS.


There have been three landmark Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment in recent years: District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years after Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia over its ban on handguns in the home. The court ruled in Heller's favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.

In 2010, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging Chicago's handgun ban, one similar to DC's recently overturned ban. Otis McDonald and three other Chicago residents sued the city over the ban, and because the Heller decision only applied federally, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

June 28, 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government. Chicago's complete handgun ban was overturned.

June 23, 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in a 6–3 decision, the majority ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional, and effectively ruled that the possession of pistols in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. While the ruling directly applied only to New York's law, legal analysts and lawmakers expected the ruling to be used to challenge the "may-issue" gun regulations in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Lawmakers in New York and these states began evaluating new regulations that would comply with the Supreme Court ruling while maintaining strict ownership laws.



It is coming and certain people's heads are going to explode.

Heads exploding… phrasing.

Without a public good carve out the majority of gun laws are open to challenge now. I can't wait to see what happens to California with all their silly AR restrictions. Illinois might lose the FOID if we are lucky.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Theruleslawyer

Heads exploding… phrasing.

Without a public good carve out the majority of gun laws are open to challenge now. I can't wait to see what happens to California with all their silly AR restrictions. Illinois might lose the FOID if we are lucky.

Phrasing!

The 1994 bullshit MA 'assault weapon ban' should get dissolved sooner than later. https://massgunownership.com/awb.html <--Why it is bullshit.

I also want to be allowed to conceal carry in the states around me. CT NY and RI are asshole. I like to follow the law. I jumped through plenty of hoops to be allowed to carry in MA. I even went the extra yard and have had the FBI do a fully background check which was not required but I wanted my UPIN. Just let me carry, it is my right.

[Sedan_Clan]

All of the explaining and case law references will not change the Bloody_Captain's mind. He's just trying to bait everybody into another circular debate because he is truly anti-gun/anti-rifle in the hands of everyday citizens.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

All of the explaining and case law references will not change the Bloody_Captain's mind. He's just trying to bait everybody into another circular debate because he is truly anti-gun/anti-rifle in the hands of everyday citizens.

This. I only responded to him because I was bored and I personally like the 'way' things are going. He is a world class troll.

[Theruleslawyer]

This is fun. ATF has been pulling the same bs lately too.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Theruleslawyer

This is fun. ATF has been pulling the same bs lately too.

What in the fuck...

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Theruleslawyer

This is fun. ATF has been pulling the same bs lately too.

This is all the same old news, re-hashing existing gun restrictions in NY as "new laws" so it looks like the current politicians are doing something.

That mis-quoted snip above was about the NYC Mayor requiring a home visit and neighbor interviews as part of the new NYC CCW process. Outside of NYC, the rest of us under state laws have to deal with a deputy home visit (under the guise of verifying your address) and provide four notarized reference forms that they can reach out to and interview in person if they want as part of the CCW application process.

Remember that NYC has always paid their own CCW rules separate from NY State. You had to practically have the police commissioner sign off on an unrestricted CCW, and most of the permits that were issued wouldn't let a gun owner take their pistol out of their residence even for a trip to a shooting range or gun shop for repairs/maintenance. SCOTUS ruled against these things and only for NYC, and they are scrambling to adopt the NY State procedures since AFAIK they were not part of the SCOTUS ruling.

Of course the Albany graboids are using the NYC ruling confusion to push even more changes to the existing NY State laws, like the new enhanced training requirements and social media background checks that have no criteria or approved curriculum.....

[SRod321]

Funny thing is, in my county anyways(Nassau/suffolk), you need 4 character references just for a sportsman/target permit. Does this mean you need four NEW references, or do you have to re-submit these references for a CCW permit?
I'll be honest, I'm not 100% opposed to training requirements, I mean for me personally I like more range time(who doesn't?). Also, if I know people are gonna conceal carry in my state/county/etc, they SHOULD be proficient to a degree but if we're gonna make training a requirement, then there should be reciprocity then or a CCW permit that's honored by EVERY state. The social media monitoring could be a slippery slope I think. Let's be real, the MAJORITY of the gun violence and crimes involving firearms are perpetrated by individuals who #1 don't have a permit and #2 acquired their weapons illegally(i.e. stolen, unregistered, scratched off serial number, etc.). What does that mean? um...that they are criminals, they don't obey the law to begin with. So...how does increasing controls over those who DO follow the law of the land mitigate gun violence? That's what frustrates me with this state smh.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by SRod321

then there should be reciprocity then or a CCW permit that's honored by EVERY state.

Yes. This would be ideal.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Torgus

This. I only responded to him because I was bored and I personally like the 'way' things are going. He is a world class troll.

Yes, he is. That's why I added him to my blocked list.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by SRod321

Funny thing is, in my county anyways(Nassau/suffolk), you need 4 character references just for a sportsman/target permit. Does this mean you need four NEW references, or do you have to re-submit these references for a CCW permit?

Nobody is coming for your current permit. This is all added restrictions on *new* permits, especially in NYC where the SCOTUS has now removed the massive hurdle for getting a permit to carry outside of your residence.

then there should be reciprocity then or a CCW permit that's honored by EVERY state.

Now you're just talking silly! Some states don't even issue/require CCW permits. I'd settle for being able to carry in/through NYC with my NY State unrestricted permit, which currently becomes null and void at the NYC border despite NYC being in NY State and a huge leech on our state taxes.

That's what frustrates me with this state smh.

Exit strategy. I can step into Cabelas in SC and buy a pistol with a SC resident driver's license and the federal background check. No months of your new purchase sitting in gun jail while you wait for the permit amendment to be processed (and probably have to go explain why you need *another* gun to the issuing/approving judge). No Thordsen stock (aka: the featureless ugly stick) on your new AR-15 that they hand out to new state residents as a welcome gift.....





.