All Activity

Oh no you are absolutely right on that one Mauser. I made it clear at the time NRA, as there representative, would kill any bill that attempted to allow counties to "opt" in to a local carry permit. I was pretty clear in my terms, which can not be reprinted here

Hallelujah! 😄

in fairness, it should be noted that the NRA did lobby against an Illinois concealed carry bill in the days before McDonald v Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment. There is an old, archived topic titled NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill outlining the events. It can be debated whether or not that bill made sense given the politics of the time, but it would be inaccurate to say it hasn't happened.

Say it again Sister Molly!

Couldn't think of a better word. Can't believe it!

Charles Nichols is/was the president of California Right to Carry, an organization that may be only him, incorporated to sue California for its firearm laws, particularly its open carry ban.

I have guns for sale. Why you may ask? Cause the last thing I want carved into my headstone is: Here lies a Depraved, Degernate Moronic Gun Owner

Rhonda Ezell was nice enough to make a post on twitter er X about my petition campaign for running for the NRA board again and it gained the attention of this gadfly I find it funny that someone from Cali that wasn't here or participating knows how to get laws passed. . .

Hallelujah!

When things that I can't say in public happen.

Orals scheduled for 9/22. https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-06-30-Ntc-of-Oral-Argument-Set-for-09-22-25.pdf Kinda glad we're getting in before the end of September. -dan e

If even then.

Yeah, they made a movie about this many years ago. It was called "The Never Ending Story".

Mr. Donahue, In what city is your office located?

and on it goes forever...

Nice work!

Probably in 10 years

IIRC the compromise on the Hughes Amendment was that the gun companies had immunity from this gibberish......if that's the case then its time we get to pay the tax not a tax for a giggle switch.

Congratulations

On March 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court upheld lower court opinions that Springfield Armory was not liable for the shooting death of JR Gustafson in a lawsuit brought by his parents and Brady United. The facts of the case are scattered across several documents. I'll summarize. On March 20, 2016, 13-year-old JR Gustafson and his 14-year-old friend ("the juvenile") were visiting the home of another of their friends. In that home was a Springfield XD-9. Although there was not a magazine inserted into it, there was still a round in the chamber. The juvenile, in some manner not elucidated, found the firearm and, allegedly believing it to be unloaded, picked it up, pointed it at JR, and pulled the trigger, discharging it and killing JR. The juvenile admitted to this act and was subsequently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in juvenile court. The XD-9 was essentially not altered from its factory configuration and was fully functional in every way. In particular, the XD-9 does not have a magazine disconnect safety. JR's parents brought a suit in state court claiming that Springfield Armory was liable for JR's death, because the XD-9 was defective due to its lack of a magazine disconnect safety. (PLCAA does not apply to firearms with manufacturing or design defects.) The court dismissed the case on the basis of Springfield Armory's civil immunity under PLCAA, anyway. On June 10, the Gustafsons asked the US Supreme Court to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari from June 23 to July 23. On June 16, Alito granted the extension. (shadow docket)

On June 25, the appellate court scheduled oral arguments for August 4.

On June 23 in appellate court, meanwhile, the ATF/DOJ moved to extend the abeyance another 60 days. On June 25, the court granted the motion.

On June 26, the circuit court scheduled oral arguments for September 12.

On June 25 in appellate court, meanwhile, the court continued the stay. The court ordered that parties update it at 60-day intervals regarding whether to continue the stay.

On June 16, the judge set the following schedule: 7/7: response to motion to dismiss is due 7/14: reply is due 8/26: status hearing