The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[Lord Coke]

We'll still need pictures and fingerprints though right? Isn't that another pending new requirement?

correct

 

[Lord Coke]

What the? Why in the world would Uncle Ted go down this road? Sometimes I appreciate him speaking his mind, but others he just needs to stop.

Its causing quite the stir in gun rights right now. SAF is run by a jewish guy and several of his lawyers are Jews. They are trashing the NRA publicly right now.
GOA is denoucing Ted as well but I don't think they are sincere about it. I think they are just using this as a opportunity to make the news.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Decent article for anyone unfamiliar with gun store etiquette.


http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-three-days-in-a-las-vegas-gun-store/

 

[Lord Coke]

Oral arguments in my machine gun cases scheduled. 3rd circuit April 5th 5th Circuit april 6th.
Then I hit the AT trail. I have a god feeling about this.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oral arguments in my machine gun cases scheduled. 3rd circuit April 5th 5th Circuit april 6th.
Then I hit the AT trail. I have a god feeling about this.

Great! In spite of your advice last September, lately I've been looking to sell my MG's. Might have a deal lined up.

AT?

 

[Lord Coke]

Great! In spite of your advice last September, lately I've been looking to sell my MG's. Might have a deal lined up.

AT?

The Appalachian trail I am going to disappear for awhile. A couple months at least. I've got a thread on it in Mayberry. I've been planning.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

@alanb

You plan on doing the full 2200 miles?

 

[Lord Coke]

@alanb

You plan on doing the full 2200 miles?

Probably not. I am going to hike as much of it as I can before one of my cases make me come back. I am going for at least two months and then I am going to keep going until one of my cases forces me back to the world. I've got cases I've been working on for years so the Court rules or orders something I have to come back. I am hoping to get at least three months in.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Appalachian trail I am going to disappear for awhile. A couple months at least. I've got a thread on it in Mayberry. I've been planning.

Missed that. Good for you.

When you get the registry opened up will the implication be that states must also accept NFA items or will that require a separate challenge?

 

[Lord Coke]

Missed that. Good for you.

When you get the registry opened up will the implication be that states must also accept NFA items or will that require a separate challenge?

That's a separate challenge. I've got a case going up for Hawaii that deals with SBR ad SBS though.

Assuming I pull off a big win my plan is to contact the suppressor companies and have them finance a case for that. I've talked to Silencercol. There is interest already. They want to see how the various cases pan out (not just mine) before committing to anything. If we could open up CA to suppressors that would be huge for their profit margins so I think I will get them to swing it.

 

[spamking]

Oral arguments in my machine gun cases scheduled. 3rd circuit April 5th 5th Circuit april 6th.
Then I hit the AT trail. I have a god feeling about this.

Machine gun cases?

 

[Lord Coke]

https://hellerfoundation.org/about/hollis-vs-holder/

Ya just read the link

 

[Lord Coke]

http://www.justice.gov/usao/file/794586/download


So linked above is a article that details litigation post-Heller. It details the litigation post-Heller as well as anyone has. It is a DOJ publication. I thought it was very well done and I suggest everyone read it that is interested in this area of law. A lot of the stuff from the professors is a bit academic for my taste. This is written by a practicing attorney for practicing attorneys to read. To be fair though from the government's perspective.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's a separate challenge. I've got a case going up for Hawaii that deals with SBR ad SBS though.

Assuming I pull off a big win my plan is to contact the suppressor companies and have them finance a case for that. I've talked to Silencercol. There is interest already. They want to see how the various cases pan out (not just mine) before committing to anything. If we could open up CA to suppressors that would be huge for their profit margins so I think I will get them to swing it.

If the 2nd is incorporated and federal law is found to run afoul of it then how does that same law existing at the state level (only more egregious) not also become invalidated?

SBR's would be cool, provided suppressors also become an option. I'd be more interested in seeing the assault pistol law go away than the SBR restriction on its own.

 

[Lord Coke]

It would be a pretty easy lawsuit is the answer to that. However you still need a lawsuit to get rid of a law that is why handguns are still banned in America Samoa and Saipan post Heller.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is it liberal common sense that a person who already owns a gun and wishes to acquire another be made to wait 10 days to exercise their right? None of the arguments for a waiting period seem to account for this possibility (i.e. current ownership of a firearm).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/1...10-day-wait-period-for-vetted-gun-owners.html

In the lower court decision, District Judge Anthony Ishii ruled the California waiting period law violated Second Amendment rights of citizens and should be replaced with the Federal National Instant Criminal Systems (NICS) adopted by most other states. Ishii concluded that there was no evidence that the waiting period for a newly purchased firearm would prevent “impulse acts of violence by individuals who already possess a firearm.”

Waiting periods have typically gone down as the technology for performing background checks improved, according to California-based firearms instructor and risk analyst Dennis Santiago.

Chris Eger of Guns.com told FoxNews.com that the federal government stipulated in 1994 that waiting periods should only last three days, and that most checks done through the FBI’s NICS system take only a few minutes to process.

As it stands, nine states and the District of Columbia have waiting periods that apply to the purchase of some or all firearms. But only California, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia impose a statutory waiting period on all firearm purchases, even by buyers who have already been screened.

Silvester’s attorney, Don Kilmer, said victory at the district court level does not mean an appeal will be upheld. A decision could be months away.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Couple interesting articles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...what-doesnt-and-what-remains-open-for-debate/

But results were more mixed when it came to individual pieces of legislation. The United States's famous assault weapons ban? "No association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states," one study found. The research on concealed-carry laws is all over the place -- some has shown that more guns lead to more gun crime, while other research shows precisely the opposite.Studies also showed that voluntary gun buyback programs also appear to have little effect on homicide rates.

On the other hand, one particular policy intervention seems to have a profound effect on reducing accidental gun deaths among children -- so-called "child access prevention" laws, which mandate safe storage of firearms and penalize gun owners who leave firearms out in the reach of children. "Most studies in the United States show that additional laws allowing for felony prosecution of offenders are associated with greater reductions in unintentional deaths among children," the authors found.

Another area where the research was largely in agreement was gun background checks -- specifically, background checks that included checks on domestic violence restraining orders. "Studies on background checks suggest that the quality of systems used to review applicants, in terms of the access to local and federal information on mental health conditions and criminal and domestic violence history, is a critical component of these laws," the researchers found.

How is this even possible?

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmaker-told-navy-seals-dont-enough-combat-rifles-082411594.html

Navy SEAL teams don't have enough combat rifles to go around, even as these highly trained forces are relied on more than ever to carry out counterterrorism operations and other secretive missions, according to SEALs who have confided in Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

After SEALs return from a deployment, their rifles are given to other commandos who are shipping out, said Hunter, a former Marine who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. This weapons carousel undercuts the "train like you fight" ethos of the U.S. special operations forces, they said.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And here's a shitty article. It seems to want to debunk that allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for lawfully selling their products but I'm not seeing any real argument.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-holding-gun-makers-responsible-20160307-column.html

Here's an example of a lawsuit folks want to bring.

Several Sandy Hook families are hoping to use another exemption known as "negligent entrustment" in a lawsuit against the maker of the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle used by Adam Lanza in the bloodbath at their children's school in December 2012. A state judge in Connecticut is due to rule any day on whether the case should proceed.

The plaintiffs' argument is that the maker and seller of the gun, a scarcely altered knockoff of a military weapon, had to know that it was unsuitable for sale to anyone but military or law enforcement personnel. Instead it was marketed to civilian military wannabes with no legitimate use for the weapon, with pitches that lauded it as "the uncompromising choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are" and touted its "military-proven performance."

Funny how someone is supposed to know something that isn't a fact.


Here's the retort against litigation driving manufacturers out of business.

What about Sanders' contention that expanding liability for gun makers and sellers would destroy the gun industry in the U.S.? Lytton is skeptical. He argues that being saddled with greater liability would give manufacturers greater incentive to monitor the behavior of their retailers.

"The theories being brought against the gun industry are primarily negligence theories," Lytton says. "And there are many things the industry could do to satisfy the standard of care in a negligence claim and therefore not be liable. Industries police their distribution channels all the time to protect themselves from liability, and it doesn't drive them out of business — it just makes the industry less risky." The gun shop in the Milwaukee case, for instance, was notorious as a source of illegal guns; nothing would have kept manufacturers from cutting off its supply.

Good thing this one dude is "skeptical". That just about settles it in m y mind. But wait, what about the simple notion that if the manufacturers are selling to FFL holders then isn't it the government's job to make sure those people are qualified and conducting business lawfully? Regardless, it's not the added cost of paying attention that's at issue, it's the damages potentially awarded by juries that will bankrupt the industry.

 

[SMEAC]

On the SEALs its more than likely very specialized weapons that stay in theatre for the next unit, that or additional belt feds that are not MTOE.
If its this its fairly common for GPF and SEALs are just making noise because they want to be extra special.

Now if its std issue personal weapons, which I highly doubt, they have a legitimate gripe.

 

[Greoric]

On the SEALs its more than likely very specialized weapons that stay in theatre for the next unit, that or additional belt feds that are not MTOE.
If its this its fairly common for GPF and SEALs are just making noise because they want to be extra special.
.

This. Even since I was in the Navy, which wasn't that long ago, the communitiy's atmoshpere has changed significantly even among the candidates in first phase. There's a big holier than thou problem in the teams, and its all coming from the exposure. (Despite the average guy now being much better equipped physically to handle the selection.)