Jump to content

Uncooperative Californicators


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

 

Why do partisans like you and Olsonist constantly refer to gun control in threads that are not remotely about it?

Do you have any thoughts on the confiscation program that is the subject of this thread?

Or is it just a convenient way to remind everyone that I'm the worst kind of scum: the kind who says bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs?

I'm open to alternatives theories on the source of your paranoia regarding people working to defend the nation against domestic terrorists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 470
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.  

Uncooperative Americans   It's a struggle to get double-digit compliance rates with confiscation programs in the NE. I'm kind of looking forward to the enforcement of this ban, should it

https://mashable.com/video/nra-gun-violence-graduation-speech  

Posted Images

On 6/21/2019 at 2:05 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

 

Do you have any thoughts on the confiscation program that is the subject of this thread?

Or is it just a convenient way to remind everyone that I'm the worst kind of scum: the kind who says bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs?

Confiscation is NOT a deal breaker. Not if the facts mean anything.

According to the peer-reviewed version of history, the founding fathers confiscated guns on three levels: local, state, and at federal request. The latter was implemented by state militias, at the request of GW. The enforcement actions were based on political allegiances at that time. 

Gun Grabber Boogaloo.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suit Challenges California's New Background Check Law for Ammunition

Quote

 

California's new statewide law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition is facing a legal challenge supported by the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Among other complaints, the suit says the law, which went into effect last month, violates Californians' Second Amendment rights.

A hearing to consider a motion to enjoin the state from enforcing the ammo background check is currently scheduled for August 19.

One sticking point involves the law's demand that a citizen present identification in order to go through the background check. The plaintiffs in the case, known as Rhode v. Becerra, complain that the state is enforcing more stringent requirements in this context than it uses for most other legal purposes, enforcing federal "real ID" requirements that go beyond what most Californians currently possess:

Under [the state's] regulation, a California driver license or identification card with the notation "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY" is sufficient for virtually all other purposes, yet not to acquire ammunition….While this form of ID is issued by the State itself, as proof of both identity and residence, individuals possessing this state-issued ID must nonetheless present additional documentation (such as a valid U.S. passport or certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate) to purchase ammunitiion…Should this additional proof not match precisely the name appearing on the California ID, additional documentation must be provided explaining the reason for the name change.

 

If a state drivers license were considered insufficient for a right TeamD cares about, such as voting or abortion, I have a feeling many here would see the problem. But no burden on gun owners can be too great, so...

Why might the names not match? From my list of things I know, but should not:

When my parents married, my dad was a low level engineer in missile tracking in the space program. His elk didn't make much. My mother was a computer for the space program, back when that was a job title and not a device. Her elk made less. So when the state wanted twenty bucks to change her DL to her married name, they just didn't. And she never got a round tuit.

This became a giant pain in my ass after my father's death until just a couple of years ago, when I finally got her to change it. So the answer is: it costs money to change names and some people don't have it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

 Suit Challenges California's New Background Check Law for Ammunition

 But no burden on gun owners can be too great, so...

Why might the names not match?  (snippage)

 

 

I know you, Tom.  I knew you when you had some traction, too.

  • Belligerence about gun violence has been something you were proud of.
  • I say "burdens" need a green light, and any burdens need to crush your NRA elk, after the carnage which has developed
  • Hmmm, the SAF clownshow has gone missing, what a class act, is Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue, WA!
  • To save the situation, you will give away to the NRA until it hurts, you are that stupid.

 

IMO, you will not hear, dogballs, you will not respond to anything less than crushing. This opinion was formed after encountering your elk, on PA.

 

A moderate voice will emerge from the gun sector. The grownups in the GVP movement will heed that voice, and will work with it.  The doors to federal research will open, and this will start to sort out. (You will become the baby screaming in the background...yo, my mother was a master over them. Each got a distant room of their own.)

The enormity of the problem lies in suicide, implicating guns in the home, so Heller has a sad future protecting guns in the home. Good luck with that combination. Ummm, rampant DV with gunz in the home will become exposed by the research, and will get media attention, IMO. 

Ollie North smells the best among the gun leaders at the moment, you should give him a ring, maybe he will click with you, after some race-baiting.

But let the track record show, you had opportunities to manage this gun mess, and you went belligerent, with joy and coyness.  You had a check list,  a bucket list, from Larry Pratt and Robert Levy, your elk.

True history, exposed within Peruta II, was the end of the line for the Libertqrian checklist. Moore vs. Madison was not celebrated, since Sandy Hook happened a few days later...

As for my view,  let the burdens be applied. I feel they are justified by your glibness.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 6:09 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

District Court permanently enjoins California magazine confiscation law

Quote

Previously, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law, and the preliminary injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, as discussed in this post. Today's decision follows cross-motions for summary judgment, and makes the injunction permanent. The next step in Duncan v. Becerra will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

...Under heightened scrutiny, laws restricting constitutional rights must be "tailored"--in strict scrutiny, "narrow tailoring"; in intermediate scrutiny, "a reasonable fit." But the confiscation statute "is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state."

So the people whose property has become illegal can continue to safely keep it for now.

Now the people who have been allowed to keep their magazines are suing, saying they should also be able to actually use them.
 

Quote

 

Three San Diego County residents and the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee filed a lawsuit against the attorney general and the chief of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms in San Diego federal court Thursday on Second Amendment grounds.

The gun owners point to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling in a separate lawsuit in the same court in March, which held that the state’s ban on possession of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets was unconstitutional.

If ownership of such magazines is legal, then use of them should be legal as well, argued the gun owners’ attorney, John Dillon.

 

Trying to imagine the reaction if we were allowed to own, but not use, printing presses. No first amendment problem at all. You can own it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Now the people who have been allowed to keep their magazines are suing, saying they should also be able to actually use them.
 

Trying to imagine the reaction if we were allowed to own, but not use, printing presses. No first amendment problem at all. You can own it!

The first amendment limits the second in many ways. The first wins the coin toss every timer, because differences are better settled by discussion and debate, rather than by insurrection, intimidation, or force. In American culture, our discussions and politics don't involve gunz, they each reject them.

Quote

Speaking Truth to Firepower: How the First Amendment Destabilizes the Second

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2009125

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Federal Judge Uphold’s CA ‘Assault Weapons Ban
 

Quote

 

...

When Scalia wrote about “M-16 rifles,” he was making it clear that the Heller ruling was not an indictment of the National Firearms Act. Right or wrong, that’s manifestly what was intended by the language.

In the intervening decade since Heller, however, that piece of dicta has time and again empowered anti-gun judges to uphold categorical bans on any firearm the state argues is “like an M16.”

That’s what this week’s ruling in California was based on. Rupp v. Becerra is a challenge to the California Assault Weapons Control Act on Second Amendment grounds. California’s Attorney General moved for summary judgment, which was granted this week. Judge Josephine Stranton reasoned that the semi-automatic rifles banned in California “may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service.'”

...

 

Sounds like she's ignored that militia clause. Shouldn't a militia have weapons that are "most useful in military service?" Appearing with a useful gun and ammo was required in Colonial times, now that same usefulness is reason to ban guns.

And, of course, reason to claim that ordinary squirrel shooters are also "like an M 16" because that means they can be subject to the bans and confiscation programs too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

New gun restrictions coming to California in 2020. Here’s what lawmakers passed this year

Quote

Most of this this year’s gun laws expand existing regulations, but the changes they enact could have sweeping repercussions for gun owners. They increase fees, expand the state’s “red flag” and gun-storage laws, raise the legal purchase age and set caps on the number of guns Californians can buy.


 

Most of the changes are pretty unremarkable but this one caught my eye:

Quote

Suicide warning labels must be on gun packages and in gun stores by June 1, under Irwin’s AB 645. The handgun safety certificate test also will cover the topic of suicide.

I'm not sure that warning suicidal people that a gun might actually work is a great idea, but at least they're DOING SOMETHING about the vast majority of "gun violence," right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

New gun restrictions coming to California in 2020. Here’s what lawmakers passed this year


 

Most of the changes are pretty unremarkable but this one caught my eye:

I'm not sure that warning suicidal people that a gun might actually work is a great idea, but at least they're DOING SOMETHING about the vast majority of "gun violence," right?

Your whole bit is going down in flames, especially in CA. Poor dogballs, the indoor militia argument fails, a lot.

About the OP, about this thread. Whatever became of Big Temporary?  :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

New gun restrictions coming to California in 2020. Here’s what lawmakers passed this year


 

Most of the changes are pretty unremarkable but this one caught my eye:

I'm not sure that warning suicidal people that a gun might actually work is a great idea, but at least they're DOING SOMETHING about the vast majority of "gun violence," right?

Do you think danger disclosures are bad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Do you think providing tips on effectiveness to suicidal people is bad?

Do you think that spinning suicide is willful ignorance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
9 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Do you think providing tips on effectiveness to suicidal people is bad?

I think we have different definitions for "tips"

Do you agree that guns can be dangerous tools?

 

Hanging has become the most common method for suicide in Australia since our 1996 gun laws, can we say a length of rope can be a dangerous tool for a suicidal person who cannot get a gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Your whole bit is going down in flames, especially in CA. Poor dogballs, the indoor militia argument fails, a lot.

About the OP, about this thread. Whatever became of Big Temporary?  :(

Do you mean Duncan v Becerra? It continues to grind along.

Although I agree that it fails, the appellants continue to push the idea that we had indoor militias.

Quote

Whether and how to limit magazine capacity presents a policy question for the political branches of government (provided, of course, that the restrictions do not severely burden the core right to self-defense in the home).

They also continue with the line that owning scary guns or gun parts is a public nuisance and the State

Quote

has a high degree of control over protecting the public from harmful and noxious property; thus, owners of personal property should also expect that government regulation may impact their use and enjoyment of potentially injurious property without paying compensation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted over a urinal at the Annals of Epidemiology and reviewed by peers

 

 

Quote

 

A study of the effects of California's institution of Universal Background Checks, along with a state ban of firearms ownership for people who had committed a violent misdemeanor, has been published in The Annals of Epidemiology, volume 30, February, 2020.

The study covered a decade before the laws were passed to a decade after the laws was passed. It found the laws had no effect on firearms homicides or suicides. Here is the abstract of the paper,  from Science Direct:

Purpose

In 1991, California implemented a law that mandated a background check for all firearm purchases with limited exceptions (comprehensive background check or CBC policy) and prohibited firearm purchase and possession for persons convicted within the past 10 years of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors (MVP policy). We evaluated the population effect of the simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies in California on firearm homicide and suicide.

Methods

Quasi-experimental ecological study using the synthetic control group methodology. We included annual firearm and nonfirearm mortality data for California and 32 control states for 1981–2000, with secondary analyses up to 2005.

Results

The simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California. The decrease in firearm suicides in California was similar to the decrease in nonfirearm suicides in that state. Results were robust across multiple model specifications and methods.

Conclusions

CBC and MVP policies were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide. Incomplete and missing records for background checks, incomplete compliance and enforcement, and narrowly constructed prohibitions may be among the reasons for these null findings.

 

Heh. Typical response to a government failure. We need to do much more of what has failed!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Posted over a urinal at the Annals of Epidemiology and reviewed by peers

 

Heh. Typical response to a government failure. We need to do much more of what has failed!

Posted over a urinal at Ammoland, is what you mean. I have a few bits for the same wall space.

You just opened the door to any conclusive peer reviewed work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2019 at 3:19 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

the appellants continue to push the idea that we had indoor militias.

INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN,  gun grabbin' we did go...

The militia could roll outdoors, in broad daylight, once under the authority of state officers. The militia went outdoors in Pennsylvania to confiscate the guns of the "non-associators." They did so per the "resolves" of the Continental Congress. The founding fathers had their reasons.

Quote

Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:

 

  [Section I.]  Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms...

Passed July 19, 1776.  Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania, Vol. IX.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Now THAT'S an Uncooperative Californicator
 

Quote

 

I hate the overuse of the term “bad optics.” But when you’re running for another term as L.A. County district attorney and your husband stands in the doorway of your house with a gun and threatens to shoot someone, the day before the election, that can fairly be described as bad optics.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

RACE BAITER ALERT, and the benefit of the doubt has left the building

Quote

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Tom's BLM figure.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Oral Arguments heard in California Magazine Ban Appeal at Ninth Circuit
 

Quote

 

On 2 April, 2020, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Duncan v. Becerra case. The District Court had decided the outright ban of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The opinion, by Judge Roger T. Benitez, was brilliant and extremely well written.

...

The attorney representing Duncan and Second Amendment supporters, generally, simply reiterated the Heller and McDonald decisions. Weapons in common use which are used for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. In particular, a complete ban is off the table.

When asked if the ban violated the “takings clause” of the Constitution, Murphy said it was primarily an issue of compensation.

The State made the claim that limiting magazine capacity was merely reasonable regulation that did not impact the Second Amendment.  It relied on several court cases from other circuits.

...

 

The article notes that whatever the panel decides will then probably go before the full 9th Circuit and possibly on to the Supreme Court.

Other states have decided 7 rounds is the limit and Puerto Rico had a 5 round limit last I checked but they have passed new gun laws since then that I haven't read.

The "issue of compensation" is more an issue of no compensation since the magazine ban requires owners to surrender them. The justification is that they are a public nuisance and taking those requires no compensation.

I really don't see possession of a 20 round magazine by people like billybackstay as a public nuisance but I'm nutty that way.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DustyDreamer said:

As if fornicatin' is bad. What are they, nuns?

Perhaps you misunderstood the thread title. I have no problem with fornicators nor with the vast majority of owners of previously-legal property who have been Uncooperative about handing their property over to the state.

I disagree with Murphy about the "takings clause" thing being an issue of compensation. Even when grabbers call the takings a "buyback" and offer compensation, compliance rates in other countries have been low.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Perhaps you misunderstood the thread title. I have no problem with fornicators nor with the vast majority of owners of previously-legal property who have been Uncooperative about handing their property over to the state.

I disagree with Murphy about the "takings clause" thing being an issue of compensation. Even when grabbers call the takings a "buyback" and offer compensation, compliance rates in other countries have been low.

You are confused, a lot. You claim that gunowners are a spotless lot, a cut above law enforcement, blah blah. Then you celebrate, and encourage, massive lawbreaking by AW owners, repeatedly, state by state, in six different states (and Canada). Boating accidents until I hate boats, mate.

You have a forked tongue a lot, and I see a sneaky and disturbing theme here. Your crowd can't be spotless, exemplary, and copasetic if the their (many) battle guns are in unlawful use at the time. (And sorry, the time is now.)

I think you are a redneck outlaw type, using a silver tongue (when not race-baiting a dozen different ways on Political Anarchy).

 

But setting all personal jousting aside, ten years ago, after 2010's McDonald decision, you stated that we would know what the Second Amendment looks like in ten years. Sorry, after ten years this California look is the look, in four District Courts. And not one disctict court accepts, blesses, or defends AW ownership.

That's where we are, Tom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You have a forked tongue a lot

Joey, why are you running away from questions about your DGU? Is it because it doesn't mesh well with your "it has been illegal to defend yourself with a firearm since the 14th century" line?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Joey, why are you running away from questions about your DGU? Is it because it doesn't mesh well with your "it has been illegal to defend yourself with a firearm since the 14th century" line?

In fairness, I think a stump snuck into his home, where having a gun is OK, and threatened him. Castle Doctrine, baby.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2020 at 12:58 AM, Ishmael said:

It's priceless the things that pop up here when you have most of the players on Ignore. I'm not gonna look.

That's too bad because it seems California could use some wise guidance on how Canadians run a confiscation program.
 

Quote

 

The number of people in the state’s database who have guns though they are barred from owning them totaled 22,424 as of Jan. 1, down just 798 from 23,222 a year earlier because nearly as many people were added to the list as were removed by state Justice Department agents

...

At the start of this year, 54% of people in the APPS database were barred from owning firearms because of a felony conviction, 24% because of federal law involving gun violations, 19% because they were subject to a restraining order, and 18% were banned from having a gun because of mental health problems.

Others were on the list because of serious misdemeanor convictions or as a condition of probation.

Advocates for gun owners have sued the state in recent years to remove nonviolent felons and misdemeanants from the list of prohibited persons, and three of the cases are pending in the court of appeals, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is supporting the litigation.

“Our position is that nonviolent felons should not be prohibited from possessing or acquiring arms, and that California’s APPS program is a dismal failure that does little but give politicians a topic for press releases,” the group said in a statement Wednesday.

 

I wonder how many of those 54% who have a felony conviction are felons only because of the stupid drug war.

The 22,424 figure seems way low, as does the "24% because of federal law involving gun violations" because it's illegal under federal law to possess a gun if you're a cannabis user. That suggests that there are only a bit over 5,000 people in the whole state who use cannabis and have a gun. I suspect the real number is in the millions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law

Quote

 

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

...

While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, he wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state’s ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

...

Benitez ruled that the ammunition law illegally locks out-of-state vendors out of California’s market, and that it conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.

 

I'm pretty sure that last sentence is referring to the FOPA, a law that grabbers learned to love recently in the NY Supreme Court case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law

And the 9th circuit stayed that ruling the next day.

Endless mayhem in CA if their law isn't enforced ya know...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 7:26 AM, bpm57 said:

And the 9th circuit stayed that ruling the next day.

Endless mayhem in CA if their law isn't enforced ya know...

Yes, I saw that last night. San Jose Mercury News
 

Quote

 

...Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a court filing earlier this month that the background checks stopped more than 750 people from buying bullets illegally from July 2019 through January 2020, not including those who didn’t even try because they knew they weren’t eligible.

...

 

Uh huh. It stopped some sales in stores but I'd bet at least a few of those people are Uncooperative types who managed to buy ammo illegally anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 11:58 PM, Ishmael said:

It's priceless the things that pop up here when you have most of the players on Ignore. I'm not gonna look.

It must be difficult to follow what’s going on when “most of the players” are on ignore. 
This place cracks me up, and the people that spend all day every day here are some of the funniest. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

How to get a concealed weapons permit in California?
 

Quote

 

A Santa Clara County grand jury has indicted a county sheriff’s captain, two local lawyers and the owner of a gun parts manufacturer in an alleged scheme by the Sheriff’s Office to hand out concealed gun permits to political donors, District Attorney Jeff Rosen announced this morning.

However, Sheriff Laurie Smith has not been charged, though the investigation continues.

Capt. James Jensen, attorney Christopher Schumb, attorney Harpaul Nahal, and Milpitas weapons manufacturer Mike Nichols are accused of conspiring with AS Solution Inc., an international security company, to offer a $90,000 bribe to obtain permits for the company’s executive protection agents.

This allegedly took place in 2018, while Sheriff Laurie Smith — who had the authority to grant the CCW licenses — was in a race for re-election, both in the primary and general elections, the DA’s office noted in a statement.

...

 

Or maybe it's "how to fund your election campaign in California?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of uncooperative Kalifornicators....... It seems that liberal bastion of all that is good and pure can't seem to figure out how to wear fucking masks.  Well done Kali.  WFD.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 8:43 PM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Oral Arguments heard in California Magazine Ban Appeal at Ninth Circuit
 

The article notes that whatever the panel decides will then probably go before the full 9th Circuit and possibly on to the Supreme Court.

Other states have decided 7 rounds is the limit and Puerto Rico had a 5 round limit last I checked but they have passed new gun laws since then that I haven't read.

The "issue of compensation" is more an issue of no compensation since the magazine ban requires owners to surrender them. The justification is that they are a public nuisance and taking those requires no compensation.

I really don't see possession of a 20 round magazine by people like billybackstay as a public nuisance but I'm nutty that way.

 

The 9th Circuit said California's magazine ban is unconstitutional.

14 hours ago, silent bob said:
Quote

 

...“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel’s majority. California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.”

He noted that California passed the law “in the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings,” but said that isn't enough to justify a ban whose scope “is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California.”

...

Friday's ruling was a fractured decision partly because of that issue: Two of the three judges voted to toss out the state’s ban, while the third judge dissented.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn of Texas, who had been named the third judge on the appellate panel, said the majority’s ruling conflicts with decisions in six other federal appellate courts across the nation, and with a 2015 ruling by a different panel of the 9th Circuit itself. She said she would have upheld California's law based on that precedent.

“This ruling is an extreme outlier" given those earlier decisions, said Eric Tirschwell, managing director for Bloomietown Law, the litigation team affiliated with Bloomietown for Gun Grabbin' that favors firearms restrictions. He said he expects a larger 9th Circuit panel to “correct this erroneous, dangerous, and out-of-step decision.”

Opponents argued unsuccessfully that larger capacity magazines are not needed for self-protection.

“The Second Amendment does not empower private citizens to arm themselves with weapons of war,” said Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Friday’s decision upholds a 2017 ruling by San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who blocked a new law that would have barred gun owners from possessing magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

But he and the appeals court went further by declaring unconstitutional a state law that had prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000. That law had let those who had the magazines before then keep them, but barred new sales or imports.

 

I expect this one to go before the full 9th for en banc review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/15/2020 at 5:42 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The 9th Circuit said California's magazine ban is unconstitutional.

I expect this one to go before the full 9th for en banc review.

Petition for en banc rehearing

and in other Cali gun control news, a federal judge allowed California on Monday to maintain its near-absolute ban on openly carrying guns in public, but refused to dismiss a suit challenging the ban.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Firearm Microstamping Bill Signed By Gov. Newsom

Quote

Assembly Bill 2847, authored by Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), specifically notes that microstamping, which imprints tiny markings on cartridges that had been fired from the weapon for quicker police identification, will have to be in at least one part of the interior of the handgun, replacing the current law of having it on two or more places that had been deemed difficult by gun manufacturers and law enforcement alike. The bill will also quicken the process of having more microstamped guns instead of non-microstamped guns in circulation by removing three non-compliant handguns from the state roster of sellable handguns for every new, AB 2847 following model added to the list.

So the Incredible, Shrinking Safe Gun List will continue to dwindle in size, just faster than before.

This might be counterbalanced by increases in sales of metal files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Grabby Groups Object to Benitez

They're shocked, just shocked, that judge shopping is a long-established practice. It's so unfair.

They are right about this, though:
 

Quote

 

...

In the current assault weapons lawsuit, both Everytown and the Giffords groups requested to file a friend-of-the-court brief that would support the state regulations. Such requests are common from advocacy groups, and judges have broad discretion to allow them.

Benitez said no, ruling that Becerra “is well-equipped to defend the statutes at issue.” Tirschwell, who said his group routinely files such briefs in gun control cases around the country, said it was “extremely unusual for a court not to accept a brief.”

...

 

The only times I have seen amicus briefs rejected, it has been for some technical reason which was quickly corrected and the brief was accepted.

The government is always well equipped to defend itself, so if that's a valid reason this time, it's a valid reason any time. I don't think it's ever valid. The Bloomietown and Giffords briefs should have been accepted IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Grabby Groups Object to Benitez

They're shocked, just shocked, that judge shopping is a long-established practice. It's so unfair.

They are right about this, though:
 

The only times I have seen amicus briefs rejected, it has been for some technical reason which was quickly corrected and the brief was accepted.

The government is always well equipped to defend itself, so if that's a valid reason this time, it's a valid reason any time. I don't think it's ever valid. The Bloomietown and Giffords briefs should have been accepted IMO.

Interesting rule in effect, and smart lawyering from the lawyers who keep going back to him.  These rules never seem to remain once the sunlight exposes the maggots crawling around in their camouflage

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Grabby Groups Object to Benitez

They're shocked, just shocked, that judge shopping is a long-established practice. It's so unfair.

They are right about this, though:
 

The only times I have seen amicus briefs rejected, it has been for some technical reason which was quickly corrected and the brief was accepted.

The government is always well equipped to defend itself, so if that's a valid reason this time, it's a valid reason any time. I don't think it's ever valid. The Bloomietown and Giffords briefs should have been accepted IMO.

Ah, the figure behind Big Temporary.

Benitez has gone rogue. He is a loose cannon, and has been accused of not reading the recent Kolbe and Fyock decisions by his associates in the full ninth.

Here we go, with past Benitez matters, from Sept. 2020.

Quote

The problem with Benitez this time:

The panel’s decision squarely conflicts with this Court’s decision in Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2015), which affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to a materially identical LCM restriction on a comparable record. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1)(A). Whereas Fyock applied intermediate scrutiny after concluding that the challenged law did “not severe[ly]” burden the “core Second Amendment right,” 779 F.3d at 999, the panel here applied strict scrutiny after concluding that California’s LCM law imposes a “substantial” burden on the core right “to defend hearth and home,” Opn. 31. The panel then reasoned, in the alternative, that California’s LCM law would fail intermediate scrutiny. Opn. 58-66. That portion of the panel’s decision creates further intra-circuit conflicts by breaking from the established standard governing Case: 19-55376, 08/28/2020, ID: 11806097, DktEntry: 100, Page 6 of 107 2 intermediate scrutiny and by rejecting Fyock’s application of that standard to a comparable law.

Quote

Five district courts disagree with Judge Benitez:

California's Fyock decision, at odds with the Benitez decision, comports with decisions from the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and D.C. Circuits.

As the dissenting judge recognized, the panel’s decision also creates a conflict with “every other Circuit to address the Second Amendment issue presented here.” Opn. 67 (Lynn, J., dissenting); see Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1)(B). Indeed, five other circuits have considered a Second Amendment challenge to a similar or identical LCM restriction, held that the law is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and then rejected the challenge on the ground that there was a substantial relationship between the LCM restriction and important public safety interests

 

Five other circuit courts disagree with Benitez. Here they are.

  • District of Columbia v. Heller, 670 F.3d 1244, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Heller II);
  •  see also Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2019);
  •  Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 910 F.3d 106, 118 (3d Cir. 2018) (ANJRPC);
  •  Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 138 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc);
  •  Case: 19-55376, 08/28/2020, ID: 11806097, DktEntry: 100, Page 12 of 107 8 N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 260 (2d Cir. 2015) (NYSRPA). 4
  • (…) The Third Circuit dismissed the claim that mass shootings involving LCMs are too infrequent to support LCM restrictions, see Opn. 65, because it “downplays the significant increase in the frequency and lethality of these incidents.”
  • (…) the Fourth Circuit dismissed concerns about the prospect of imperfect compliance, see Opn. 65, reasoning that LCM restrictions would still “curtail” the availability of those magazines to “criminals and lessen their use in mass shootings, other crimes, and firearms accidents.” Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 139, 140.

 

Why the strict scrutiny from Benitez, suddenly?

The government need not show that a regulation is the “least restrictive means” of achieving its interest; only that the interest would be “achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” Id

 

California’s LCM law is a reasonable regulation that is consistent with the Second Amendment. It does not render handguns (or other firearms) “inoperable,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 628, as a legal or practical matter, see ER 256. Nor does it make it “impossible for citizens to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 630. Indeed, the 10-round limit is well above the average number of shots fired (2.2) when a gun is used for self-defense. See ER 287. What California’s LCM law does do is protect the safety of the public and law enforcement officers, at a time when mass shootings are occurring with disturbing frequency. Although not all mass shootings involve LCMs, see Opn. Case: 19-55376, 08/28/2020, ID: 11806097, DktEntry: 100, Page 22 of 107 18 50, those committed with LCMs are far deadlier—inflicting an average of nearly three-and-a-half times as many casualties as those that do not, see ER 756-757. While no law can eliminate the possibility that assailants might “illegally smuggle[]” LCMs into California, Opn. 65, States that restrict LCMs have witnessed fewer mass shootings, fewer mass shootings featuring LCMs, and fewer deaths from mass shootings (on a per capita basis) than those that have not. ER 363-365, 388-389. And experience has demonstrated that LCMs are “disproportionately used” in “crimes against law enforcement.” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000; see also ER 405.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

How to get uncooperative California grabbers to issue concealed carry permits? Give 'em iPads!
 

Quote

 

A grand jury in Santa Clara, California, issued an indictment on Monday accusing Apple’s chief security officer, Thomas Moyer, of offering bribes to secure concealed carry permits for Apple employees.

Moyer allegedly promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed weapons (CCW) permits “withheld from Apple employees,” according to a press release from the Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen.

...

The charges filed on Monday are part of an investigation dating back to 2019 into whether or not the Santa Clara sheriff uses concealed carry permits to help solicit bribes and political donations. The sheriff’s office covers Cupertino, California, where Apple’s headquarters is located. Moyer has worked at Apple for 14 years and is now its head of global security, his lawyer said on Monday.

The Santa Clara DA said that while state law says that people who receive concealed carry licenses in California need to demonstrate “good cause,” as well as a complete a firearms course and have good moral character, the sheriff has the final say in determining who should qualify.

...

 

Gee, maybe if sheriffs did not have discretion to sell they would not sell it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quotidian Tom said:

How to get uncooperative California grabbers to issue concealed carry permits? Give 'em iPads!
 

Gee, maybe if sheriffs did not have discretion to sell they would not sell it?

Maybe if the Sheriffs had no say in it, guns would be granted to the guys who follow Larry Pratt.

The 14 new right-to carry states feature higher rates of violent crime and rape.  We find crime increases, from 8-33% for aggravated assault, and for rape and murder, the crime rate goes up 5-10%. We have double-digit-bad with RTC.

But not in California.

 

 

This is the (pretty current work) of Dr. John Donohue. These conclusions match, support, and confirm, his study conclusions from 2007, which the NAS also accepted. (Tom Ray used to quote Dr. Donohue's conclusions, but only when his NAS results were more vague, in 2004.)

Quote

DONOHUE II, 2012

The magnitude of the estimated increase in violent crime from RTC laws is substantial in that, using a consensus estimate for the elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of .15, (15%)  the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime. 

Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 430 

 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510

Quote

 FLEEGLER 2013

Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

Conclusions and Relevance: A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary...

https://mikethegunguy.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/fleegler-gun-laws-and-deaths.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

(Tom Ray used to quote Dr. Donohue's conclusions, but only when his NAS results were more vague, in 2004.)

Why do you feel the need to make shit up about me? Am I so threatening to your agenda?

I know about the TeamD/gungrabby taboo against saying anything bad about a gun control policy or advocate and I came here in 2008 but was a boat salesman at the time. Not wanting to trigger any customers, I didn't speak on any political topic, especially guns, until I quit that job in 2009.

21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Maybe if the Sheriffs had no say in it, guns would be granted to the guys who follow Larry Pratt.

You didn't notice the Black Lives Matter movement? Apparently there's a problem with racism in law enforcement. Maybe if the Sheriffs had no say in it, guns would be granted to the guys who are lighter than a paper bag. Someone has to say it and it sure won't be you or the rest of the gungrabby chorus, but gun control has a racist history and a racist present as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:
On 11/24/2020 at 2:33 AM, jocal505 said:

(Tom Ray used to quote Dr. Donohue's conclusions, but only when his NAS results were more vague, in 2004.)

Why do you feel the need to make shit up about me? Am I so threatening to your agenda?

Do you deny your past presentations? 

I repeat. You were quoting the (inconclusive) National Academy of Science's conclusions of 2004 in the timeframe of 2013, on Political Anarchy. Our daily situation was overdue for a fact-checker, cuz low scruples. You were a faithless, lying shitbag about what the NAS knew.

Dr. John Donohue III has been on board from 2004 to the present, and one of you is wrong about this.

6 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

You didn't notice the Black Lives Matter movement? If we add moar guns the race problem will disintegrate.

What happened to you? Pumping guns into the situation is an unenlightened idea. We have a FAIL on the level of the National Merit Scholarship program.

Tom Ray, Pied Piper.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 9/3/2020 at 8:13 AM, Pedagogical Tom said:
On 8/15/2020 at 5:42 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The 9th Circuit said California's magazine ban is unconstitutional.

I expect this one to go before the full 9th for en banc review.

Petition for en banc rehearing

Here we go again.

As the 9th Circuit Takes Another Look at California's 10-Round Magazine Limit, It Should Demand More Than Speculation From the Law's Defenders
 

Quote

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit yesterday vacated a 2020 decision that blocked California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. A federal judge in 2019 concluded that the law, which prohibits possession as well as manufacture and sale, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Last year a three-judge 9th Circuit panel agreed. Now the full court will rehear Duncan v. Becerra, raising the possibility that the ban will be upheld after all.

...

Becerra thinks 10 rounds is plenty for self-defense, meaning that the millions of Americans who disagree are either lying or deluded. Yet California's LCM ban, like similar laws in other states, includes an exemption for employees of law enforcement agencies, whether on duty or off, and retired cops. Those groups predictably bridle at the notion that they should be subject to the same limit as everyone else.

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was outraged when New Jersey legislators accidentally omitted off-duty cops from the privilege of exceeding that state's 10-round limit. By signing that law, Kerik said on Twitter in 2018, Gov. Phil Murphy was "endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop!"

How so? "Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don't give a damn about magazine capacity," Kerik explained. "So he takes the good guy's ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!" Kerik vented some more in an interview with Fox News. "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

Something similar happened with the seven-round magazine limit that New York legislators hastily enacted in 2013, except in that case it was former cops who were overlooked. They angrily demanded the double standard to which they were accustomed, and the legislature gave it to them a few months later.

Notice that Kerik readily conceded New Jersey's magazine limit would have no impact on criminals, and he took it for granted that the difference between 10 and 15 rounds could be the difference between life and death for someone using a gun in self-defense. Yet somehow that extra margin of safety is intolerable for citizens without badges.

...

 

Or, as in NY, citizens who previously carried badges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Big Temporary had a bad day, in California. Another speed bump, bro.

What a weak effort, Dogballs. On your part, on the part of reason.com., on the part of the delinquent SAF, and on the part of the gun lobby.

Is this life after the NRA or something? FFS is this the best you can do? Try a pic of the chrome flower.

  • The work of Judge Benitez is about to get trashed again, by the full Ninth Circuit.
  • Two members if the Ninth have suggested that Benitez is a non-reader of Kolbe.
  • "Speculation" be damned: The Ninth will cite the facts of the clear and present danger of the AW/LCM situation, in that district.
  • Yo, this is the Peruta/Benitez situation, all over again.
  • Even the location, San Diego, is repeated.
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

En banc review? Is that like Duncan v. Becerra?


No, not sure why you brought that up in relation to buybacks, since the current California confiscation program offers no compensation for guns or gun parts that are boughtback.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/9/2018 at 8:46 AM, Shambolic Tom said:
On 5/4/2018 at 5:51 AM, .22 Tom said:

Update: Boulder residents have until the end of this month to surrender their previously-legal property.

As is traditional, I expect another rash of "boating accidents" to claim a great deal of the property in question this month.

Great news for boating safety in Colorado!

Boulder’s gun ban ordinance struck down; state Gunshine, constitutional rights prevail
 

Quote

 

...

In a March 12 ruling Judge Andrew Hartman held that Boulder’s “Assault Weapons Possession, Sale, and Transfer Ban” ordinance is illegal under Colorado’s statutory ban on local laws, ordinances or regulations that “prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law.”

Boulder residents Robert Chambers and James Jones sued the city on June 14, 2018, just days after the Boulder City Council enacted the gun ban.

Judge Hartman granted a request for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Boulder’s enforcement of the ordinance.

...

Hartman dismissed the claim that as a home rule city, Boulder could regulate firearms more strictly than the state does because such weapons “pose a special danger to a demographically unique Boulder.”

Boulder argued that a 2006 Colorado Supreme Court case upholding a Denver District Court ruling that Denver’s home-rule power to ban firearms was a reasonable exercise of the city’s police power gave Boulder the right to do so also.

But Hartman said that the Denver case was “non binding” and has been overruled by two state supreme court cases involving local control of oil and gas operations that clarified the relationship between local governments and the state regarding state gunshine laws.

The crux of the issue is whether the matter is one of statewide, local or mixed state and local concern.

Hartman ruled that because the state comprehensively regulates firearms, including by enacting the gunshine statute, the matter is one of mixed state and local concern, therefore the state preemption law prevails.

...

 

It's 32 degrees right now in Boulder but I'm glad to see at least a little Gunshine get through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

California asserts that 18 to 20 year old infants had a duty to keep and bear arms in Founding Era militias, but no right to buy them.
 

Quote

 

...

This week each side submitted their briefs. Here are the arguments for and against the right of someone aged 18, 19, or 20 to buy a gun.

California insists that "Founding-era sources confirm that such individuals were considered infants without the full panoply of rights at the time, and consistent with that reality, jurisdictions have long restricted firearms access for individuals under the age of 21."

Those suing California insist early Americans under age 21 were, in Founding times, part of organized militias, which are mentioned explicitly in the Second Amendment. California says that doesn't matter, and confuses the duty of people in that age group to bear arms in an organized militia with a right to do so—that one can have the duty without having the right.

"The fact that the first Militia Act included persons below the age of 21 in the organized militia—and imposed an actual duty to keep and bear arms in militia service—does not dictate that those individuals had a corresponding right to keep and bear arms," California's brief insists, "much less to purchase them rather than procuring them through their parents or guardians" and insists that in those days, those under 21 "were generally understood to live under the authority of their parents."

...

 

What a buncha doody. I suspect they'd see that if the question of letting 18-20 year old infants vote came up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

I suspect they'd see that if the question of letting 18-20 year old infants vote came up.

You expect them to be consistent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Decision in Miller v Bonta overturning California's assault weapons ban
 

Quote

 

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.  Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).  Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle.  Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

...

 

Maybe badlat can buy his gun back from that dealer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

12 hours ago, A3A said:

And after 30 years of an assault rifle and high capacity magazine ban in California, a republican appointed judge decides the bans are unconstitutional..... The best part of his decision is where he calls the AR15 the Swiss Army Knife of home protection.


That was pretty good but the best part was where he proved it has done nothing to achieve its stated objectives.

Followed closely by his dismantling of the ridiculous methodology used to arrive at the conclusion that people only need 2.2 rounds of ammunition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

  

On 6/22/2021 at 10:00 PM, Sean said:

That's a funny line but the judge was right about what he actually said:

Quote

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.  Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).  Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR-15 type rifle.  Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional.

It's unsurprising to see the 9th block the ruling, but at some point one of these is going to get to the Supreme Court. I'd like to see them consider the fact that battlefield .22's are also at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). That won't be this case, because, oddly, battlefield .22's were never covered under California's "assault" weapons confiscation program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2021 at 6:27 AM, Excoded Tom said:

  

That's a funny line but the judge was right about what he actually said:

It's unsurprising to see the 9th block the ruling, but at some point one of these is going to get to the Supreme Court. I'd like to see them consider the fact that battlefield .22's are also at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). That won't be this case, because, oddly, battlefield .22's were never covered under California's "assault" weapons confiscation program.

Except he was wrong. The AR15 is a terrible home defense weapon unless you’re Dabs in your roof turret fighting the hordes. Sawed off shotgun would be much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 3:49 AM, Excoded Tom said:

the ridiculous methodology used to arrive at the conclusion that people only need 2.2 rounds of ammunition.

Let's sort this one. The average  shots fired in armed confronta5ions with home invaders = 2.2.

The figure comes from YOUR side, from the NSSF or from National Rifleman or somewhere.

This mindless logic comes from the same source: old, blind, and infirm ladies are better off with LCM's. Since they can't hit what they are aiming at, they need plenty of shots in home invasion situations.

In the recent Bonta decision, Judge Benitez  repeatedly uses the logic that the AW is a platform to prevent rapes within the home. Yet actual rapes happen by acquaintances, not strangers, in a 14:1 ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Except he was wrong. The AR15 is a terrible home defense weapon unless you’re Dabs in your roof turret fighting the hordes. Sawed off shotgun would be much better.

Some don't like the kick of a shotgun. It also has an overpenetration problem if slugs are used. As battlefield weapons go, it seems fine for home defense and hard to beat for militia service.

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Let's sort this one. The average  shots fired in armed confronta5ions with home invaders = 2.2.

The figure comes from YOUR side, from the NSSF or from National Rifleman or somewhere.

...

Non-readers are funny. For readers,

Quote

The 2.2 shots notion comes from the State’s expert, Lucy Allen. Allen is an expert in economics and statistics. Unlike Koper, who is an academician undertaking peer-reviewed studies for the advancement of understanding, Allen was hired specifically to conduct research for the State’s litigation. Her study is not peer-reviewed. Her study cannot be tested because she has not disclosed her data. Her study cannot be replicated. In fact, the formula used to select 200 news stories for her study is incomprehensible. Worse, the entire concept is suspect because it attempts to study an average defensive gun use based not on police reports but on events reported in the news media and often lacking in detail, all while acknowledging that many events are never reported.

And she never even hung it over a urinal to be reviewed by peers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Some don't like the kick of a shotgun. It also has an overpenetration problem if slugs are used. As battlefield weapons go, it seems fine for home defense and hard to beat for militia service.

Non-readers are funny. For readers,

And she never even hung it over a urinal to be reviewed by peers!

Why would you use a slug when the whole point it hitting your child, err invader when drunk err tired and can’t aim proficiently? A .410 with 4 shot would make a fine family shooting weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Why would you use a slug when the whole point it hitting your child, err invader when drunk err tired and can’t aim proficiently? A .410 with 4 shot would make a fine family shooting weapon.

Why would you want to use government to force people who disagree to adopt your opinion on that matter?

Which do you think is a more suitable militia weapon, a .410 with 4 shot or an AR?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Excoded Tom said:

Why would you want to use government to force people who disagree to adopt your opinion on that matter?

Which do you think is a more suitable militia weapon, a .410 with 4 shot or an AR?

Are they well regulated or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Non-readers are funny. For readers,

Quote

The 2.2 shots notion comes from the State’s expert, Lucy Allen. Allen is an expert in economics and statistics. Unlike Koper, who is an academician undertaking peer-reviewed studies for the advancement of understanding, Allen was hired specifically to conduct research for the State’s litigation. Her study is not peer-reviewed. Her study cannot be tested because she has not disclosed her data. Her study cannot be replicated. In fact, the formula used to select 200 news stories for her study is incomprehensible. Worse, the entire concept is suspect because it attempts to study an average defensive gun use based not on police reports but on events reported in the news media and often lacking in detail, all while acknowledging that many events are never reported.

Expand  

And she never even hung it over a urinal to be reviewed by peers!

KING DOGBALLS?

You think like a king, like a regal one. You try to decree that you read, but others do not read. This is very curious, and very vulnerable, behavior.

re: GUNPLAY DURING PESKY HOME INVASIONS

Ah, some things I read a few years ago: you still can't keep up. At that time, the Kolbe case (or some other case) used the NSSF as the source for the same 2.2 shots-fired figure:  Repeat, the NSSF.

I was reading so much yesterday, after a 15 second google, that I have discovered that the NSSF now uses a figure of "between 3.2 shots and 3.7 shots" per criminal shooting, period.

Quote

NSSF-factsheet-High-Capacity-Magazines.pdf

The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds.

Let's play non reader some more. But read this:  statistically,  the AW is overkill as a home protection device.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I was reading so much yesterday, after a 15 second google, that I have discovered that the NSSF now uses a figure of "between 3.2 shots and 3.7 shots" per criminal shooting, period average.

FIFY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2021 at 5:45 PM, Raz'r said:

Are they well regulated or not?

They? Are you part of "the people" referenced in a few places in the Bill of Rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...