Law Gun and Gun Control News/Discussion

[nhbbear]

They probably will, but they shouldn’t. The waiting period and gun training in particular seem perfectly constitutional. KS and AK are permitless states already require firearms training.
Considering the whole purpose of the amendment was to have a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the citizenry, requiring training would seem to be quite in line with what the amendment states.
It’s not an infringement of the right to bear arms to require training in bearing arms. That’s silly. Likewise, a 10 day waiting period doesn’t pose any substantial burden on the right that I can see, aside from maybe an instance where someone believed their life/safety was in danger. Even under our current SCOTUS’s…um…re-imagining of the 2A, I don’t really see how those things could be unconstitutional.

Based on the precedents that they themselves created, I could see their reasoning for striking down the assault weapons ban. I don’t agree with them, but I can see it.

The scotus will strike this down and the left will whine and cry about it. It is unconstitutional. As for the requirement of training and a waiting period, maybe, maybe not. Did the militia have to go through training? Not likely. They were handed a gun and said point and shoot. While I think it is a good idea to get training before handling a firearm, there is nothing about requiring it.

 

[BFoe]

The scotus will strike this down and the left will whine and cry about it. It is unconstitutional. As for the requirement of training and a waiting period, maybe, maybe not. Did the militia have to go through training? Not likely. They were handed a gun and said point and shoot. While I think it is a good idea to get training before handling a firearm, there is nothing about requiring it.

The militia did have to go through training actually. It wasn’t massively extensive, usually just 4-6 days a year—but it definitely was a thing. In fact, some states had requirements on the types of weapons a militia man had to have, there were firearms registries, and the government could show up at your home at random to inspect weapons to make sure they were in working order.

While in recent times the SCOTUS has radically changed the meaning of the 2A, the things we’re taking about seem like they’re even in line with those decisions.
In Bruen, the Court said it was unconstitutional to require someone to have to demonstrate special cause for carrying a weapon in public, and instead the state needed to use objective criteria to issue permits, such as passing a background check. Completing a firearms training course would likewise be objective criteria.

 

[spamking]

Aero sent this out today:

AERO PRECISION TO TAKE PART IN LAWSUIT AGAINST WASHINGTON AWB

April 26, 2023


Tacoma, WA - Due to the passage of House Bill 1240 by the Washington Legislature and Governor Jay Inslee signing it in to law on 4/25/23, Aero Precision has filed a lawsuit in conjunction with several other plaintiffs to combat this overreaching legislation, seeking temporary and permanent injunction based on the unconstitutionality of this law.


The case was filed on 4/25/23 in the Eastern District of Washington, U.S. District Court. Plaintiffs include Aero Precision LLC , Amanda Banta (2012 Olympian Sport Shooter), Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop, The Range LLC, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The complaint is filed against defendants Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington State, and John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol.


“We do not agree with this law and we do not think it is constitutional,” said Scott Dover, CEO of Aero Precision. “HB1240 bans some of the most common firearms and parts available. It impacts the lawful ownership of products we manufacture and sell to thousands of our customers in the State of Washington. It also restricts the rights of the individuals, Aero Precision employees, who make these parts. We will fight this law in the courts and are confident in the outcome given the clear rulings in multiple Supreme Court cases, including Heller and Bruen.”


About Aero Precision


Aero Precision is a firearms manufacturer based out of Tacoma, WA. Aero Precision has been in business in Washington since 1994, originally starting in the Aerospace industry. Today, Aero Precision is the largest firearms manufacturer in Washington, employing roughly 650 employees in Washington and over 200 in other areas around the US. Aero Precision manufacturers AR Parts and Components, Bolt Action Rifles, Suppressors and more.



Full Lawsuit Linked Here.

 

[spamking]

LaRue Tactical's response to all of the anti-2A crap . . . I know it's an old statement, but still applicable today.

 

[spamking]

Very nice call out and statement here.

 

[SammyPops]

In canada, totalitarian PM black face just introduced legislation banning ALL handguns and 'assault style weapons' without actually defining the term.

fight for yoru rights Americans b/c once they start, they will never stop until all guns are gone

 

[BFoe]

In canada, totalitarian PM black face just introduced legislation banning ALL handguns and 'assault style weapons' without actually defining the term.

fight for yoru rights Americans b/c once they start, they will never stop until all guns are gone

Stop being dramatic, nobody is going to “take all the guns away” in the US. For starters, we have a 2nd Amendment, whereas Canada has no constitutional right to bear arms. Not even the most liberal of SCOTUS justices have or would espouse taking all guns away, nor would any order or law to do so last long in court here.

 

[oldshadow]

Stop being dramatic, nobody is going to “take all the guns away” in the US. For starters, we have a 2nd Amendment, whereas Canada has no constitutional right to bear arms. Not even the most liberal of SCOTUS justices have or would espouse taking all guns away, nor would any order or law to do so last long in court here.

Well it would certainly be hard to and we should fight to keep it that way. However there is a large group of anti 2nd amendment that want to say the amendment is about the military having guns and the militia is in fact the national guard.

As to the training I've got no problem with that as long as the state pays for it. In fact they could make it a high school course.

 

[nhbbear]

The militia did have to go through training actually. It wasn’t massively extensive, usually just 4-6 days a year—but it definitely was a thing. In fact, some states had requirements on the types of weapons a militia man had to have, there were firearms registries, and the government could show up at your home at random to inspect weapons to make sure they were in working order.

While in recent times the SCOTUS has radically changed the meaning of the 2A, the things we’re taking about seem like they’re even in line with those decisions.
In Bruen, the Court said it was unconstitutional to require someone to have to demonstrate special cause for carrying a weapon in public, and instead the state needed to use objective criteria to issue permits, such as passing a background check. Completing a firearms training course would likewise be objective criteria.

I did not know that. Thank you for correcting me. I assumed they were handed guns or learned as farmers

 

[rob mafia]

Stop being dramatic, nobody is going to “take all the guns away” in the US. For starters, we have a 2nd Amendment, whereas Canada has no constitutional right to bear arms. Not even the most liberal of SCOTUS justices have or would espouse taking all guns away, nor would any order or law to do so last long in court here.

bruh, 2 posts ago, you were defending a gun ban.

 

[BFoe]

bruh, 2 posts ago, you were defending a gun ban.

Is there ever a time when you aren’t a disingenuous little bag of shit? 2 posts ago I was talking about the constitutionality of firearms training. I have never, and would never, advocate “taking everyone’s guns away.”

Because you are a dishonest invertebrate, and because your posts are filled with more “lulz” and “reeeee”s than a 15 year old girl’s Instagram posts, I rarely read or respond to your bullshit. But just for the record, I’ll address the very eloquent way you attempted to summarize your understanding of my position, which was:

i don't like guns and therefore, no one should be able to have them! reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'

—I’m not anti-gun. I was raised in a home with guns. My father was an avid hunter in his younger years and still shot for sport in his older years. While I never enjoyed hunting, I did enjoy spending time with him shooting for fun.
—I’m also not out to ban all guns, or take everyone’s guns away.

That said, I’m also sure as hell not a friend of a despicable group like the NRA, and I’m no friend of the Federalist Society and their activist judges who are re-writing the 2A into something it never was historically. The Amendment has limits and those limits need to be respected.

Now go slink back under a rock.

I did not know that. Thank you for correcting me. I assumed they were handed guns or learned as farmers

No worries. Here’s an article on some of that stuff if you’re interested.

I know you and I don’t always agree politically, but I do appreciate that you always debate in good faith. I think we can agree that Rob Mafia is a degenerate slimeball, so we have that in common at least lol.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

As to the training I've got no problem with that as long as the state pays for it. In fact they could make it a high school course.

as long as it’s an elective class but a mandatory prerequisite to owning a firearm, i actually agree with you on this.

 

[rob mafia]

Is there ever a time when you aren’t a disingenuous little bag of shit?

you were factually JUST defending a gun ban. the 2 posts preceding the one i quoted:

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/170996095/

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/170996381/

weird, looks like facts are on my side (again). crazy, right? who would have thought?

cry more, liar.

Is there ever a time when you aren’t a disingenuous little bag of shit?

—I’m not anti-gun

I think we can agree that Rob Mafia is a degenerate slimeball,

you are pot, kettle, and other assorted hypocritical cookware.

eta:

No worries. Here’s an article on some of that stuff if you’re interested.

I know you and I don’t always agree politically, but I do appreciate that you always debate in good faith. I think we can agree that Rob Mafia is a degenerate slimeball, so we have that in common at least lol.

and ffs, you didn't even know this just a couple days ago... and it was only because of me that you do. you ignorantly posted an article you didn't even read in your pro-registry bullshit (you're totallly pro-gun, amirite? pro-registry, gun bans...) so lolz @ even talking this shit when you argued dishonestly and only learned due to me literally telling you. with citations. from the article you linked.

it's doubly ironic that you quoted my mocking paraphrase from the other thread - you JUST exemplified it. again. while accusing me of being disingenuous. fucking haughty liars and their pretend high ground.

 

[oldshadow]

as long as it’s an elective class but a mandatory prerequisite to owning a firearm, i actually agree with you on this.

I don't think mandatory for gun purchases is going to fly constitutional. However I would like to see a gun safety in all public schools. In elementary the safety and don't touch, tell an adult.
In Jr high or high school basic safety and consequences of misuse.

Strange enough the NRA offers a program of the don't touch kind free to any schools but the left anti 2nd goes into a hissy fit if it's even talked about.

 

[nhbbear]

Is there ever a time when you aren’t a disingenuous little bag of shit? 2 posts ago I was talking about the constitutionality of firearms training. I have never, and would never, advocate “taking everyone’s guns away.”

Because you are a dishonest invertebrate, and because your posts are filled with more “lulz” and “reeeee”s than a 15 year old girl’s Instagram posts, I rarely read or respond to your bullshit. But just for the record, I’ll address the very eloquent way you attempted to summarize your understanding of my position, which was:

—I’m not anti-gun. I was raised in a home with guns. My father was an avid hunter in his younger years and still shot for sport in his older years. While I never enjoyed hunting, I did enjoy spending time with him shooting for fun.
—I’m also not out to ban all guns, or take everyone’s guns away.

That said, I’m also sure as hell not a friend of a despicable group like the NRA, and I’m no friend of the Federalist Society and their activist judges who are re-writing the 2A into something it never was historically. The Amendment has limits and those limits need to be respected.

Now go slink back under a rock.

No worries. Here’s an article on some of that stuff if you’re interested.

I know you and I don’t always agree politically, but I do appreciate that you always debate in good faith. I think we can agree that Rob Mafia is a degenerate slimeball, so we have that in common at least lol.

On that last, we 100% agree

 

[BFoe]

you were factually JUST defending a gun ban. the 2 posts preceding the one i quoted:

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/170996095/

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/170996381/

weird, looks like facts are on my side (again). crazy, right? who would have thought?

cry more, liar.







you are pot, kettle, and other assorted hypocritical cookware.

eta:
and ffs, you didn't even know this just a couple days ago... and it was only because of me that you do. you ignorantly posted an article you didn't even read in your pro-registry bullshit (you're totallly pro-gun, amirite? pro-registry, gun bans...) so lolz @ even talking this shit when you argued dishonestly and only learned due to me literally telling you. with citations. from the article you linked.

it's doubly ironic that you quoted my mocking paraphrase from the other thread - you JUST exemplified it. again. while accusing me of being disingenuous. fucking haughty liars and their pretend high ground.

Bud, I don’t know what the fuck you’re smoking to make you think that you “taught” me something. I did get a nice laugh out of it when I read it though.

You are the one drawing arbitrary moral distinctions: high ground/low ground, moral/immoral, pro-gun/anti-gun…
I am doing what I always do which is debate the form and function of the amendment, and the SCOTUS’s interpretations of that form and function.

• What regulations are permissible/constitutional and which are not?
• What prohibitions—you are aware there have always been prohibitions on who can or cannot own guns, or what types of guns, or even other weapons under the 2A which are not guns, yes? (see Miller re: sawed-off shotguns, Heller re: machine guns and other ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’, or even state cases like Aymette regarding concealed knives and wtf “to keep and bear arms” actually means in the first place). Actually, don’t bother reading those things, you’d probably just turn around and try to pretend you taught me all about them anyway. <45>

Finding, for example, that a certain prohibition is constitutional or a recent Supreme Court decision is wrong, doesn’t make me anti-gun. And finding such a prohibition constitutional also doesn’t mean I’m arguing for TaKiNg eVeRyOnE’S GuNs aWaY.
And yes, your pretending that they are equivalent is disingenuous. Unless you’re not pretending, in which case you’re not being disingenuous, just stupid.

On the subject of guns *themselves*, I’m fairly neutral. I’m not anti-gun, and I’m not pro-gun.
—I am anti letting innocent children’s corpses stack up and offering empty thoughts and prayers.
—I oppose the idea which I see frequently in the WR that “all regulations are infringements,” because it’s demonstrably historically incorrect (and stupid).
—I am anti NRA.
—I am in disagreement with large parts of just about every SCOTUS 2A case since 2008.

I am pro amending the Constitution to undo the wrongs inflicted by that Court.

 

[rob mafia]

Bud, I don’t know what the fuck you’re smoking to make you think that you “taught” me something. I did get a nice laugh out of it when I read it though.

uh huh.

compare this from monday to what you just said in this thread today

call me disingenuous. get immediately caught lying. repeatedly.

 

[My Spot]

uh huh.

compare this from monday to what you just said in this thread today

call me disingenuous. get immediately caught lying. repeatedly.

He agrees with "assault" weapon bans but claims to be "pro gun."

 

[SammyPops]

Stop being dramatic, nobody is going to “take all the guns away” in the US. For starters, we have a 2nd Amendment, whereas Canada has no constitutional right to bear arms. Not even the most liberal of SCOTUS justices have or would espouse taking all guns away, nor would any order or law to do so last long in court here.

i'm canadian so it aint dramatic. i just bought a savage .22lr about a month ago and the govt will take it away if theis law passes

 

[BFoe]

i'm canadian so it aint dramatic. i just bought a savage .22lr about a month ago and the govt will take it away if theis law passes

I got that you’re Canadian. The drama I was referring to is the idea that “taking everyone’s guns away” is realistic in the US, where we have a constitutional amendment regarding it and our Supreme Court has pretty much done nothing in recent years but expand the right. I just don’t see the situations as being very comparable.