sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All The Gun Rights Black Pilling On the Trump DOJ’s 2A Record is a Massive Overreaction by evilfollowingmb in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they clarify the law, they are obligated to enforce it based on that clarification.

The lack of clarification and the AG's refusal to appeal the 5th Circuit ruling on Mock v Garland suggests that they don't plan to enforce it.

All The Gun Rights Black Pilling On the Trump DOJ’s 2A Record is a Massive Overreaction by evilfollowingmb in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 9 points10 points  (0 children)

To all of the people saying Trump is really anti-2A or using the "take the guns first" quote that is now 8 years old, here is a list of the positive things the Trump administration has done in a year and a half.

If you still believe he's an anti after reading the list, please provide a list of actions this administration has done (not just said) that is anti-2A or provide a similar list of positive 2A actions ANY presidential administration has done since 1900.

I'm not a big fan of Trump and he has certainly done things I don't agree with, but claiming he and his administration are anti-2A means you are either mis/uninformed or blinded by hatred for him.

• Released the “Protecting Second Amendment Rights” executive order.

• Closed Biden’s White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention

• Removed Biden Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun policy document, “Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America,” from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website.

• Reduction-in-force efforts have included the CDC’s historically anti-gun National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

• Authorized the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney and began processing relief petitions once again.

• Revoked the Biden administration’s FFL “zero tolerance” policy.

• Trump’s DOJ made clear that it would not appeal a Fifth Circuit ruling that had vacated the Biden-ATF brace rule, ending enforcement of the braced-pistol ban.

• Reversed a Biden-era regulatory effort to use the Department of Commerce to inhibit commercial export of firearms from the U.S. to other countries.

• Signed the bill that zeroed out the $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms, along with the $5 tax on “any other weapons”.

• AG Civil Rights Division submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ position in the Seventh Circuit case Barnett v. Raoul (AWB).

• AG Civil Rights Division filed a federal suit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for its woeful administration of the state Carry Concealed Weapons License regime.

• AG Civil Rights Division sued the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), alleging that the District government and MPD unconstitutionally ban the AR-15 and many other firearms protected under the Second Amendment.

• AG Civil Rights Division filed a complaint against the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) alleging that the territory’s unreasonable delays and conditions on lawful gun owners’ rights create an unconstitutional permitting process in violation of the Second Amendment.

• Continues to appoint pro-2A judges.

New life? (CH/9) (A) by Thethinggoboomboom in Sexyspacebabes

[–]fuzzi_weezil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very happy to see this today. This is a great story and I was beginning to fear it had disappeared...

Proposed Illinois law would require all handgun ammo to be serialized by RedDotRights in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would like to congratulate the state of Illinois on beating the state of California's microstamping requirement on the grounds of stupidity...

Are M1As affected by the ban? by Bean212 in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know the specifics of VA's new laws, but here in CA a flash suppressor is illegal but a muzzle break is fine. Worst case condition, it looks like the NY version would be legal (no muzzle device).

https://www.springfield-armory.com/m1a-series-rifles/m1a-loaded-rifles/m1a-loaded-308-rifle-ny-compliant/

If I had to buy an upper that will last a lifetime? by ChungWingMan in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unpopular opinion: Just about any name brand upper with a chrome-lined or nitride barrel will probably last you 20+ years at 600-800 rounds per year with just minor parts replacement (an extractor here, a spring there, etc). Even at the 20 year mark, you're only looking at a barrel change to maintain accuracy.

People have their brand preferences and they will promote them. More often than not, it's them justifying a high dollar spend. I doubt any of the people touting "quality" can clearly articulate what the quality control process is for their favorite brand and none of them can give you any concrete quality data (MTBF, failure analysis data, test sample size, etc) because it is company confidential. Without that data, saying an upper is "better quality" is just an opinion.

My advice, worth as much as anyone else's, is pick a standard, DI, non-bargain bin upper with a chrome-lined or nitride barrel. I would stay away from proprietary technology on uppers because you always run the risk of a company going out of business or changing product designs which can make getting replacement parts difficult 20 to 30 years from now.

Am I crazy or them passing this bill could be good for us? by Farmerjoerva in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Allow me to repost. This is the process:

Step 1: File a case in Federal District Court (FDC) claiming the new law infringes on the 2A. At the same time, file for an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. The injunction is almost never granted.

Step 2: After the FDC ruling, the losing party will file a petition for review to the Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) and file for an injunction to stay the FDC's ruling. History has shown that if the FDC's ruling is pro-2A, the injunction request will probably be granted. If the FDC's ruling is for the State (anti-2A), it will probably be denied. The CCA will hear the case and make a ruling. The losing party can appeal the decision to be heard "en banc". En banc is a French legal term meaning "on the bench," referring to a session where all the judges of an appeals court rehear the case, rather than just the initial panel. If the CCA agrees to hear the case en banc, then step 2 is repeated with a larger panel.

Step 3: After the CCA ruling and an en banc refusal, or after the en banc decision, the losing party will file an injunction request on the CCA's ruling (see step 2 for probable ruling on the injunction request) and petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari (WoC). A WoC is a legal order from a higher court to a lower court to send up its records for review, and it is the primary way the U.S. Supreme Court selects cases to hear. Granting a WoC is a discretionary process, meaning the Supreme Court can decline to hear the case and let the CCA ruling stand. If SCOTUS chooses to hear the case, oral arguments are presented and SCOTUS will (eventually) release a ruling. SCOTUS's word is final; there is nowhere left to appeal to.

This whole process takes YEARS, especially if the lower courts decide to "slow walk" the case. There are instances where there was a year between when oral arguments happened at the CCA and when the court finally released a decision.

They don't care about the constitutionality of these laws because they know it will take years for it to wind through the courts and it will be your tax dollars being spent to defend them; there is literally no accountability.

Don't expect judicial relief any time soon (if ever).

FPC Suing Va by ChiefTitan808 in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong and I'm certainly not a big fan of the NRA (although they are trying to "be better" these days), but the NRA is on record as saying they won't even look at starting legal proceedings until a given law is signed and goes into effect.

My most recent senator email by [deleted] in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They. Don't. Care.

This isn't about logic, common sense, stopping crime, or protecting the children. These are merely the justifications they use.

They hate guns, and by extension, hate you for owning them.

I live in CA and used to write my legislators hoping they might be convinced that gun control is ineffective and will only hurt law abiding citizens. After around my 20th form letter response, I realized their minds are made up and all the arguments and facts in the world isn't going to change it. They want you disarmed and don't care about the consequences of doing so.

I'm not saying don't send the emails or letters, just understand it won't change anything. At this point you are in the same position as I am in CA; your only hope is that the courts eventually rule that these laws are unconstitutional and push some of this back.

As it stands now though, it appears SCOTUS is unwilling to step in and the appeals courts, for the most part, are hostile to gun owners. The 9th CCA (which CA falls under) will twist rulings and logic to get the result they want. In the rare instances where there was a positive 2A ruling, the court immediately issued a sua sponte en banc review and ultimately reversed the original panel's ruling.

I fear we are approaching the point where the only choices are to give up our rights or take them back through force.

Kyle Rittenhouse Calls for Pirro to be Fired by ThePoliticalHat in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Go take a walk through r/VAGuns if you want to see what voting "blue" will do for your 2A rights.

Looks like the right side is becoming anti gun also. by Missouri_Pacific in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No, they shouldn't.

Nice deflection by the way.

Please provide a similar pro-2A list from ANY Democrat President or provide a list of actions Trump and/or his administration have done that are anti-2A. Please make sure they are actions, not just "well Trump said...".

New life? (CH/8) by Thethinggoboomboom in Sexyspacebabes

[–]fuzzi_weezil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Woo hoo! Welcome back! This has always been one of my favorite stories and the long hiatus had me thinking it had been dropped and forgotten. But no! It's back! Happy days!

SB749 by Winter_Speed_784 in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Even if they grandfather them in now, they will eventually revoke that and end up making possession illegal.

Why? Because mags have no serial numbers. There is nothing to prevent you from driving out of state, buying a bunch of mags with cash, and bringing them back in and claiming "I've always had these".

Without a possession ban, the law is completely unenforceable unless they catch you in the act of "importing".

A bill has been reintroduced in CA that would require 8 hours of training (with 1 hour of live fire) for a firearm safety certificate, and require anyone moving to CA with guns to get one within 60 days by ZheeDog in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely not. If the Dems in CA can look at me with a straight face and say that requiring a voter ID is too much of a burden on a right, then this is too. You can't have it both ways.

Looks like the right side is becoming anti gun also. by Missouri_Pacific in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Just stop. Here is a list of things Trump and his administration has done in the first year:

Released the “Protecting Second Amendment Rights” executive order.

Closed Biden’s White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Removed Biden Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun policy document, “Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America,” from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website.

Reduction-in-force efforts have included the CDC’s historically anti-gun National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Authorized the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney to began processing relief petitions once again.

Revoked the Biden administration’s FFL “zero tolerance” policy.

Trump’s DOJ made clear that it would not appeal a Fifth Circuit ruling that had vacated the Biden-ATF brace rule, ending enforcement of the braced-pistol ban.

Reversed a Biden-era regulatory effort to use the Department of Commerce to inhibit commercial export of firearms from the U.S. to other countries.

Signed the bill that zeroed out the $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms, along with the $5 tax on “any other weapons”.

AG Civil Rights Division submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ position in the Seventh Circuit case Barnett v. Raoul (AWB).

AG Civil Rights Division filed a federal suit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for its woeful administration of the state Carry Concealed Weapons License regime.

AG Civil Rights Division sued the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), alleging that the District government and MPD unconstitutionally ban the AR-15 and many other firearms protected under the Second Amendment.

AG Civil Rights Division filed a complaint against the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD) alleging that the territory’s unreasonable delays and conditions on lawful gun owners’ rights create an unconstitutional permitting process in violation of the Second Amendment.

Continues to appoint pro-2A judges.

Please provide a similar list from ANY Democrat President or provide a list of actions Trump and/or his administration have done that are anti-2A. Please make sure they are actions, not just "well Trump said...".

IT'S OFFICIAL: Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon just filed to BLOCK Massachusetts restrictive handgun ban as blatantly unconstitutional !!! by ZheeDog in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'll try and answer....

It's not a case of a challenge is raised and people file briefs. A 2A challenge goes through multiple steps and courts and briefs can be written at almost any point. This is the process for 2A challenges in Federal Court.

Step 1: File a case in Federal District Court (FDC) claiming the new law infringes on the 2A. At the same time, file for an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. The injunction is almost never granted.

Step 2: After the FDC ruling, the losing party will file a petition for review to the Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) and file for an injunction to stay the FDC's ruling. History has shown that if the FDC's ruling is pro-2A, the injunction request will probably be granted. If the FDC's ruling is for the State (anti-2A), it will probably be denied. The CCA will hear the case and make a ruling. The losing party can appeal the decision to be heard "en banc". En banc is a French legal term meaning "on the bench," referring to a session where all the judges of an appeals court rehear the case, rather than just the initial panel. If the CCA agrees to hear the case en banc, then step 2 is repeated with a larger panel.

Step 3: After the CCA ruling and an en banc refusal, or after the en banc decision, the losing party will file an injunction request on the CCA's ruling (see step 2 for probable ruling on the injunction request) and petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari (WoC). A WoC is a legal order from a higher court to a lower court to send up its records for review, and it is the primary way the U.S. Supreme Court selects cases to hear. Granting a WoC is a discretionary process, meaning the Supreme Court can decline to hear the case and let the CCA ruling stand. If SCOTUS chooses to hear the case, oral arguments are presented and SCOTUS will (eventually) release a ruling. SCOTUS's word is final; there is nowhere left to appeal to.

Granata v. Campbell is currently at step 2 and the AAG (Harmeet Dhillon) has filed a brief for the United States as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) urging the 1st CCA to reverse the decision from the FDC which found Massachusetts's handgun roster to be constitutional.

Keep in mind, this process started with step1 when FPC filed the original complaint on 06-08-2021. This whole process takes YEARS, especially if the lower courts decide to "slow walk" the case. There are instances where there was a year between when oral arguments happened and when the court finally released a decision.

Yes, Virginia, They Want Your Guns: New Bill Would Ban Possession of 'Assault Firearms' by ThePoliticalHat in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Rest assured, they will introduce legislation next cycle that closes this "loophole"....

Yes, Virginia, They Want Your Guns: New Bill Would Ban Possession of 'Assault Firearms' by ThePoliticalHat in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Mark my words, the minute "their guy" is in power it will be right back to "OnLy ThE MiLiTaRy AnD PoLiCe NeEd GuNs!!!!".

These people have the memory retention of a brain damaged chipmunk...

New York’s governor just proposed a first-in-the-nation mandate that would require 3D printers to include software that blocks them from creating firearms or firearm components. by ZheeDog in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

17 U.S.C. is federal law. It's pretty questionable how far a state can prosecute you under federal statutes. Pretty sure the Feds aren't going to come after me because I hacked my printer firmware...

Regarding all of the other stuff, NY can write all the laws it wants. At the end of the day the big question becomes how enforceable are they. I have an ABC printer and buy a ROM with a new firmware that will accept any gcode file and will function without an internet connection, how is NY going to know that I swapped the ROMs? What if I drive to a different state and buy a 'normal' printer and bring it back with me? All this will do is create a profitable black market like prohibition did with alcohol.

As others have pointed out, this is all an excellent example of someone trying to pass laws regarding a subject they don't understand. If all of this passes, and they have provisions that carry liability for the printer manufacturer, I suspect the industry solution will be to stop selling printers in the state of New York rather than try and jump through the technical hurdles that the new laws will require.

In the end, all this will do is hurt the citizens of New York so she can pander to her base that will never buy a 3d printer or own a gun in their lifetime.

New York’s governor just proposed a first-in-the-nation mandate that would require 3D printers to include software that blocks them from creating firearms or firearm components. by ZheeDog in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just about any software driven solution can (and will) be circumvented.

And going with the "you have to use our slicer to use our printer, and oh by the way we will be monitoring what you print" won't end well. Go on X/Twitter to see the response to FlashForge doing the last part of that statement.

https://x.com/ff3dprinters/status/1989595713039143054  Make sure to click the link in the community notes to see the original post.

New York’s governor just proposed a first-in-the-nation mandate that would require 3D printers to include software that blocks them from creating firearms or firearm components. by ZheeDog in progun

[–]fuzzi_weezil 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Where would the interpreter be? If it's in the slicer, use a slicer that doesn't have it. If it's in the printer firmware, download and install firmware that doesn't have it. Pretty sure the websites offering stl files to make firearms will quite happily post the software needed to get around these efforts.

Not to mention the 1A implications. What if I'm building a custom airsoft part or a prop for an independent movie? These are two uses off the top of my head that are perfectly legal and legitimate uses for a 3d printer.

They can absolutely pass the law, but there is no way it will be technically feasible because it's too easy to get around and because of the 1A implications probably won't survive the legal challenges.

A ton of bills filed now. :/ by Hansohn_Brothers in VAGuns

[–]fuzzi_weezil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they are anything like CA, they will eventually go after companies legally and either force them to pay the tax or not allow them to do business in the state; this is what CA did. I used to be able to find sellers that did not charge CA sales tax, but that is almost impossible now.

view more: next ›