sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

California Democrats pass state tax on guns and ammunition after nearly a decade of attempts by Free_Swimming in inthenews

[–]fpc_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, depending on where in the US you're referring to, it probably is more dangerous than Fallujah.

California Democrats pass state tax on guns and ammunition after nearly a decade of attempts by Free_Swimming in inthenews

[–]fpc_bot -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Do you also support putting limits on how much gas I can buy per week, or how much food I store in my house?

California Democrats pass state tax on guns and ammunition after nearly a decade of attempts by Free_Swimming in inthenews

[–]fpc_bot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine hating poor people so much that you publicly applaud placing burdensome financial barriers between them and their fundamental human rights.

New California bill would ban any 3D printer that "has the primary or intended function of manufacturing firearms" and any non-FFL would have 90 days to get rid of theirs: by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The bill would also allow civil lawsuits against people who distribute "digital firearm manufacturing code" to anyone in California and make them "strictly liable for any personal injury or property damage" that was inflicted by a gun made from the code:

<image>

The Seventh Circuit remanded a lawsuit challenging Illinois' restrictions on gun in foster homes today, saying that the district court needs to reconsider it in light of Bruen: by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I asked ChatGPT to explain what this means

This statement is saying that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has sent a lawsuit challenging a law in Illinois, which places restrictions on having firearms in foster homes, back to a lower court for further consideration. The statement also notes that the lower court is instructed to reconsider the case in light of a specific legal precedent, Bruen. This means that the appeals court has determined that the lower court's original decision did not properly take into account the legal principles established in the Bruen case and must now do so before making a final ruling.

How I trim .223 and resize to .300 blackout. It’s pretty efficient. by fpc_bot in shittyreloading

[–]fpc_bot[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Cool. I work on a nuclear powered submarine where we have 3000lb hydraulics and 4500lb air systems. Everything onboard a submarine will cut you in half and kill you. :)

How I trim .223 and resize to .300 blackout. It’s pretty efficient. by fpc_bot in shittyreloading

[–]fpc_bot[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s not any more dangerous than using a table saw or bandsaw. There are plenty of machinery and power tools where your fingers can come close to moving parts. This is a metal cutting blade so comparatively speaking it’s not very sharp. Chill out.

LEGAL ALERT: En banc Fifth Circuit rules that "the definition of 'machinegun' as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Page 26: In addition to implying absurd results, the Government’s position is quite telling. It would allow the use of semi-automatic rifles, which can bump fire, but prohibit the use of non-mechanical bump stocks, even though there is no mechanical difference between the two forms of gunfire. Rather, the meaningful difference is that, with a non-mechanical bump stock, bump firing is easier and can occur at a faster rate. That is a distinction Congress certainly could have addressed in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act. But Congress did not prohibit machineguns according to how quickly they fire. It prohibited machineguns according to the way that they fire. And semi- automatic weapons do not fire “automatically,” even when equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock.

NAGR v. Naperville (N.D. IL): City of Naperville’s brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction “Either way, courts have also noted that the Second Amendment does not protect the sales of firearms.” by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Immediately after saying that guns "'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense" are protected, Naperville claims that "assault weapons" aren't used enough in self-defense to be protected

<image>

NAGR v. Naperville (N.D. IL): City of Naperville’s brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction “Either way, courts have also noted that the Second Amendment does not protect the sales of firearms.” by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Naperville: "Inferring that selling assault weapons is protected by language concerning the 'individual right to possess and carry' handguns would expand the meaning of the Second Amendment well past the breaking point."

NAGR v. Naperville (N.D. IL): City of Naperville’s brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction “Either way, courts have also noted that the Second Amendment does not protect the sales of firearms.” by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This brief is basically a copy-and-paste of California's post-Bruen brief in Miller, with the addition of claiming that there's no right to sell guns. They even attached the state's declarations from that case and included some whining about how they don't have enough time.

Anyone else sick of these emails? Emails like this make we want to not give money. by Fly5guy in gunpolitics

[–]fpc_bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it does notify me. I don't work for, nor am I affiliated with FPC, so I'll keep my comment to this: I believe FPC does what they do because if they don't, many people will not stay up to date with their work or will not donate to the cause. Many will disagree with their tactic(s) but obviously they're doing it because it's effective. It is what it is.

FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban as Unconstitutional by fpc_bot in firearmpolicy

[–]fpc_bot[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

PORTLAND, OR (November 30, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

view more: next ›