Jump to content


Photo

NRA Wins Injunction Against California’s Mag Ban


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,305 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 29 March 2019 - 04:58 PM

NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against Californias Mag Ban

https://www.thetruth...ornias-mag-ban/

Big news from the Golden State. Word is coming out of California that the National Rifle Associations legal team won a permanent injunction against Californias magazine ban.

Details to follow.

Heres the decision from MichelLawyers.com. The case is Duncan v. Becarra.

The first three lines from the decision:

Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts. The judiciary is and is often the only protector of individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy. Senator Ted Kennedy, Senate Hearing on the Nomination of Robert Bork, 1987.1

Edited by InterestedBystander, 29 March 2019 - 08:10 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#2 Draal

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 14

Posted 29 March 2019 - 05:05 PM

:yes1:  :yes1:  :yes1:



#3 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,305 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 29 March 2019 - 05:11 PM

https://www.nraila.o...econd-amendment

..."In one of the strongest judicial statements in favor of the Second Amendment to date, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California determined on Friday that California’s ban on commonly possessed firearm magazines violates the Second Amendment.

View Related Articles
The case is Duncan v. Becerra.

The NRA-supported case had already been up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the question of whether the law’s enforcement should be suspended during proceedings on its constitutionality. Last July, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s suspension of enforcement and sent the case back to him for further proceedings on the merits of the law itself.

Judge Benitez rendered his opinion late Friday afternoon and handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.

In a scholarly and comprehensive opinion, Judge Benitez subjected the ban both to the constitutional analysis he argued was required by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and a more complicated and flexible test the Ninth Circuit has applied in prior Second Amendment cases.

Either way, Judge Benitez ruled, the law would fail. Indeed, he characterized the California law as “turning the Constitution upside down.” He also systematically dismantled each of the state’s purported justifications for the law, demonstrating the factual and legal inconsistencies of their claims.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox hailed the decision as a “huge win for gun owners” and a “landmark recognition of what courts have too often treated as a disfavored right.”

“Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution,” Cox said. “The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes.”

Unfortunately, Friday’s opinion is not likely to be the last word on the case. The state will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has proven notably hostile to the Second Amendment in past decisions.

Nevertheless, the thoroughness of Judge Benitez’s analysis should give Second Amendment supporters the best possible chance for success in appellate proceedings, particularly if the case ultimately lands before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Friday’s order prohibits California from enforcing its magazine restrictions, leaving its law-abiding residents safer and freer, at least for the time being."...
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#4 RandyP

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,667 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 29 March 2019 - 05:55 PM

Why do I keep renewing my NRA membership every year you ask? Actions like this are why. I'm a proud gun owner and the NRA is the 500# gorilla in OUR fight across all 50 States. They have earned my support and IMHO shame on any gun owner who is not a member - IMHO


"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln


#5 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 29 March 2019 - 07:09 PM

That's what you get with a first rate legal team of over 12 lawyers from Jay Porter, to Dave Thompson, Chuck Michel and Paul Clement's shop working together.

Some of the same lawyers working on the Deerfield case.


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#6 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 29 March 2019 - 07:56 PM

I have a keep hearing whisper in the back of my head that all the recent 'pro-2nd' rulings are now starting to roll in because of the shift in the Supreme Court and the lower courts not wanting to be overturned, fearing 'Heller Part III' is coming down the line sooner than later.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#7 NRApistol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 13

Posted 29 March 2019 - 08:33 PM

Why do I keep renewing my NRA membership every year you ask? Actions like this are why. I'm a proud gun owner and the NRA is the 500# gorilla in OUR fight across all 50 States. They have earned my support and IMHO shame on any gun owner who is not a member - IMHO

Yep.


NRA Training Counselor
Refuse to be a Victim Regional Counselor

 


#8 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 29 March 2019 - 08:34 PM

After reading the ruling, is there a bump stock challenge pending in CA?  If so it should be pretty easy to get a summary injunction ruling on that for now.

 

Some highlights that caught my eye.

 

"It is enough to make an angel swear." - Trying to understand CA law
 
"It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected."  - I can't see how bump stocks don't fill that test?
 
"Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning" - Good argument to address NFA items, even though later on in the ruling they don't apply the same logic and contradict themselves over why machines gun bans are lawful?
 
"The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous." - Explaining that an arms 'lethality' is not a factor to be considered under 2nd protections.
 
Still have about half the ruling to read.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#9 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,477 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 March 2019 - 09:17 PM

...
"It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected."  - I can't see how bump stocks don't fill that test?
...


I'm not sure you could say bump stocks (or similar devices) are commonly owned. I think most gun owners didn't even know what they were until Las Vegas.

As for full-auto firearms, I think they should be legal for different reasons than addressed here, but there's a lot of cultural momentum that would have to get turned around.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#10 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 29 March 2019 - 10:01 PM

I'm not sure you could say bump stocks (or similar devices) are commonly owned. I think most gun owners didn't even know what they were until Las Vegas.

 

It's estimated that there are roughly half a million of them in circulation, IMO that accounts for pretty common especially for a device that was only developed and approved for sale 9 years ago, especially when you consider the primary manufacturer of them bailed out last year, while still holding and defending the patent against copycat versions.

 

To put that in some alternative perspective, if you are saying they are not in common use it's equivalent to saying that 'modern' (2000 and newer) Corvettes are not in common use, since only about 500,000 of them have been made.  I use a car model because estimates put the total number of cars in a similar number ballpark as the total number of firearms in the US.

 

But, I have to ask, as a 2nd supporter are you really going to take the stand that 500,000 units doesn't meet the threshold to be in common use?   Because if you do you just justified banning 1000s of different firearms and accessories that never reached that half million production number, and you also just justified banning every new product developed as long as they ban is in before whatever production numbers are produced.  A very bad pro-2nd precedent to set, IMO.


Edited by Flynn, 29 March 2019 - 10:02 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#11 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,477 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 March 2019 - 10:37 PM

... you just justified banning 1000s of different firearms and accessories that never reached that half million production number ...


Fake strawman argument. Make and model are irrelevant. There are 10s if not 100s of millions of handguns, shotguns, and rifles, which function essentially the same (i.e., all semi-autos are the same; all revolvers are the same; etc.) Likewise a car is just a car, no matter what paint and trim you put on it. It burns gasoline in a combustion engine.

Also, I was discussing the legal test applied in this case. As far as firearm accessories go, a trigger is a trigger. A sight is a sight. They don't change the operation of a firearm, but a bump stock does. That makes them unique. Combined with the fact that most firearm owners didn't know what they were before Las Vegas, I think they fail the test from this case. Yes, they are owned by law-abiding people for legal purposes, but that ownership is not common, even among gun owners. Therefore if you want to justify their legality, this case for magazines isn't a precedent that's going to work.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#12 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 30 March 2019 - 04:54 AM

 

... you just justified banning 1000s of different firearms and accessories that never reached that half million production number ...


Fake strawman argument. Make and model are irrelevant. There are 10s if not 100s of millions of handguns, shotguns, and rifles, which function essentially the same (i.e., all semi-autos are the same; all revolvers are the same; etc.) Likewise a car is just a car, no matter what paint and trim you put on it. It burns gasoline in a combustion engine.

Also, I was discussing the legal test applied in this case. As far as firearm accessories go, a trigger is a trigger. A sight is a sight. They don't change the operation of a firearm, but a bump stock does. That makes them unique. Combined with the fact that most firearm owners didn't know what they were before Las Vegas, I think they fail the test from this case. Yes, they are owned by law-abiding people for legal purposes, but that ownership is not common, even among gun owners. Therefore if you want to justify their legality, this case for magazines isn't a precedent that's going to work.

 

They do NOT change the mechanical operation of a firearm. Nothing is done to the trigger or the actual semi-automatic operating system. Nothing about the system's cyclic action is altered in any form whatsoever. The only thing that is altered is the method of operation by the user. It's essentially banning the way an owner uses their firearm. Especially since a simple shoelace or rubber band can do the same thing. It's akin to banning a handicapped assistance device.

With your argument, a ban on hundreds of models of firearms would be just fine, because there were only 10 or 20 thousand of that model produced, so they weren't in common use..

Also, last time I checked, 500,000 to 1.2 million people owning them would be considered "common use" - especially when those owners collectively spent a minimum of 75 million dollars legally purchasing those items.


Edited by Bird76Mojo, 30 March 2019 - 04:54 AM.

Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#13 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,110 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 30 March 2019 - 05:54 AM

^^^^^. This. Good Point

Perspective. Free Speech

If I had an external device that made my voice go louder, (a bullhorn), can/should bullhorns be banned?
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#14 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,969 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 30 March 2019 - 10:37 AM

^^^^^. This. Good Point
Perspective. Free Speech
If I had an external device that made my voice go louder, (a bullhorn), can/should bullhorns be banned?


There may be a time or manor restriction on the use of the device but the device would be lawful to possess and use it in private places without restriction.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#15 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 30 March 2019 - 01:08 PM

They don't change the operation of a firearm, but a bump stock does. That makes them unique.

 

Seriously, you are going with the anti-gunners lies and the factually false claims made by the ATF now to back yourself up?  A bump stock does not change the operations of a firearm, one trigger pull one bullet, the operation of the firearm is the same, as said it alters the method of using the firearm, and although a bump stock makes the method of using the firearm easier it's not necessary to use the firearm in this method.

 

Yes, they are owned by law-abiding people for legal purposes, but that ownership is not common, even among gun owners.

 

If you insist these are not in common use, feel free to post your definition of 'common use' that doesn't prove my previous point and would allow banning of many other accessories and firearms someone deems out of the blue is not in common use.

 

Therefore if you want to justify their legality, this case for magazines isn't a precedent that's going to work.

 

Based on the test applied by this court, I would argue you are dead wrong as bump stocks pass the test used by the court, even if you want to still argue that 500,000 unit isn't common, but I do look forward to your definition of common use as applied.

 

"It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected." 


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#16 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,477 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 30 March 2019 - 01:46 PM

They do NOT change the mechanical operation of a firearm. Nothing is done to the trigger or the actual semi-automatic operating system.


They use recoil (and your finger) to activate the trigger. That's a different mechanical operation.

With your argument, a ban on hundreds of models of firearms would be just fine, because there were only 10 or 20 thousand of that model produced, so they weren't in common use..


Not only is that not what I said, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#17 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,477 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 30 March 2019 - 01:55 PM

If you insist these are not in common use, feel free to post your definition of 'common use' that doesn't prove my previous point ...


A significant fraction of the population.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#18 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 30 March 2019 - 03:21 PM

Gun Owners of America say there are about 500,000 bump stocks in the USA. Various estimates put the number of modern sporting rifles in the USA between 8 million and 15 million.  Throw in other semiautomatic rifles in the USA and there must be at least 10 million total and possibly 20 million.  So take the bare lower number of 8 million - in that case no more than about 6% and perhaps as few as 2% of those match up with bumpstocks.  Now, the bump stock buyers may own multiple rifles and multiple bump stocks so that may even further reduces the numb of gun owners that own bump stocks.  Some estimates are as many as 390 million firearms in the US with about 50 million households having guns in the USA so the bump stock ban just doesn't impact enough of those owners to activate a very vocal political movement.  I don't see any reason for the ban but I am not expecting a big vocal group opposing the ban.  The only option is the Courts and, so far at least, the Supreme Court is not looking kindly on the case.

 

 

 https://www.dailysig...-stock-ban/<br>https://www.mcclatch...e201882739.html



#19 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 30 March 2019 - 04:30 PM

 

If you insist these are not in common use, feel free to post your definition of 'common use' that doesn't prove my previous point ...


A significant fraction of the population.

 

In a Constitutional republic this matters not..


Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#20 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 30 March 2019 - 04:32 PM

 

They do NOT change the mechanical operation of a firearm. Nothing is done to the trigger or the actual semi-automatic operating system.


They use recoil (and your finger) to activate the trigger. That's a different mechanical operation.

With your argument, a ban on hundreds of models of firearms would be just fine, because there were only 10 or 20 thousand of that model produced, so they weren't in common use..


Not only is that not what I said, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

No, they don't necessarily use recoil to do anything. It's ONLY if the USER chooses to do so. The firearm operation is NOT changed. The user's methods are what changes. If the user decides not to bump fire the weapon, then it still functions as a normal, semi-automatic rifle. Again, it's operating system is NOT changed.

Your argument of "common use" is severely flawed, because as I applied it, it makes perfect sense and is applicable in the same way.


Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#21 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,574 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 30 March 2019 - 05:20 PM

Hey, I have an idea.

 

How about we steer back to discussion about the NRA's win on the magazine ban.


.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 

We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed—...
Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.   (2 Corinthians 4 NIV)
 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#22 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 30 March 2019 - 08:11 PM

It's a big win....and will hopefully have an (eventual) impact on Cook County and Aurora! 



#23 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 30 March 2019 - 09:27 PM

They use recoil (and your finger) to activate the trigger. That's a different mechanical operation.

 

That is not a different action, one trigger pull one bullet, same action as before, the bump stock just makes the action easier, it doesn't change it, I have (as have many others) have performed the same exact action to rapid fire with no accessories

 

A significant fraction of the population.

 

So since there are only an estimated 5-10 million AR-15s in the US, and the population of the US is about 327 million, meaning AR-15s represent use by only 1-3% of the population (hardly a significant fraction of the population) then they are not in common use and thus not protected either?  I won't even get into where they leave the 1000s upon 1000s of other firearms and accessories that are nowhere near as common as the AR-15, using your definition they are not in common use either and thus not protected.

 

Not only is that not what I said, that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

What, that is exactly what you said, you claimed that 500,000 owned units does not rise to the level of commonly owned, putting two and two together and getting 4 not 3 that means that other firearms accessories and hardware that sold the same or similar is also not commonly owned and fail the test of this court "It is a hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected." 


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#24 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 30 March 2019 - 09:29 PM

Hey, I have an idea.

 

How about we steer back to discussion about the NRA's win on the magazine ban.

 

Isn't pointing out how the wording of this ruling is likely applicable to future case's of other firearm accessories if it stands, doing that?


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#25 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,574 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 30 March 2019 - 09:56 PM

There's a point at which conjecture about that overtakes the topic OP started.  That point was reached here, but you could start a new topic if you want to.


.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 

We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed—...
Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.   (2 Corinthians 4 NIV)
 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#26 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,110 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 30 March 2019 - 11:30 PM

NRA Wins !!! Yeah Baby !!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#27 byxlaw

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 67 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 16

Posted 30 March 2019 - 11:55 PM

Great news (for Ca, at least). Also, Botach just sent an email announcing mag shipments to CA.



#28 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,969 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 31 March 2019 - 07:17 AM

Keep in mind, when determining common use, you should also take into account the numbers in possession of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. All such arms are in the ‘civilian realm’. ^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#29 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,368 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 31 March 2019 - 07:43 AM

Both Judge Benson Everett Legg and Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote what I believe to be rock-solid irrefutable arguments explaining how the Second Amendment proscribes government actions infringing on the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.  Unfortunately, when it gets before outcome-based leftist judges, those judges don't apply logic or reasoning or precedent, they just rule the way they want the case to come out, to achieve the desired effect on society.  So then it just boils down to a raw power struggle - who has the most votes at the highest court.  Even when there is a reasoned decision at the circuit level and the Second Amendment is upheld, such as the hearing of Peruta by the  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the activist judges cannot abide such an outcome so they will re-hear the case en banc and arrange the ruling they desire.


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#30 MagSlap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 15

Posted 31 March 2019 - 04:21 PM

Looks like some are shopping like its the day before christmas in CA....

 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users