Jump to content

skinnyb82

Members
  • Posts

    7,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    West-Central Illinois
  • Interests
    Guns, Guitars, Numbers (hey I have 3 business degrees)

Recent Profile Visitors

5,003 profile views

skinnyb82's Achievements

Member

Member (24/24)

  1. I'm just gonna say it's time to end absolute legislative immunity and allow elected officials to be held personally accountable when the intent of the legislation is to infringe on your civil liberties.
  2. My understanding is that this only takes force if you are acquitted of a crime which means you have to be arrested, charged, tried, and found not guilty. If the county SA says "good shoot" and you're never charged, then the scumbags family can try to take you to the cleaners. If they break into your house and you shoot them, you can plan on a wrongful death lawsuit (which should be covered under your HO policy).
  3. They can just tap into DHS records, query whatever they want, whenever they want? I'm ignorant of how that whole system works as well as the scope of information they possess about individuals, but I can't see how ALL of your records would be reported to DHS. Prescriptions, yes, there's a database for that, but they'd have to get more detailed medical records that are not available to them at the click of a button in order to ascertain WHY those meds are being dispensed since a lot of stuff is used off-label. I suspect they only look into your prescription history and medical history if there is already an issue or some law enforcement objection that involves mental (or physical) health that requires review. IMO transgenderism is a SERIOUS mental illness but I don't think they could ban transgenders from owning guns simply because of a serious mental illness. Bipolars own guns. Schizophrenics own guns, I'm guessing. As long as they stay on the right side of the law, stay out of jail, don't become a clear and present danger, then they should be allowed to own a gun. Isn't that what we're all about? On that note though, what these doctors do is the equivalent of telling a schizophrenic with auditory hallucinations that the voices in their head are not only real, but it is imperative they they listen to these voices and do what they say. What shrink would do that? I've got an accurate estimate, ZERO. My understanding in this specific case the plaintiff didn't have big money backing him. He just said that pulling down his pants just to buy a gun is a bridge too far. There needs to be more fed up citizens who are willing to challenge this stuff on their own without having to be bankrolled by organizations like the FPC.
  4. Or the Remington 870, Mossberg 500 variants, Benelli M4, all military variants, all dual use military and civilian. This is great. McGlynn is setting up CA7 to fail under its own legal reasoning with this one...if it doesn't get taken up by SCOTUS first. He practically spells it out in his order.
  5. McGlynn looks to have found a way to use Easterbrook's logic to our benefit.... https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1708714599/2024.02.23_166_ORDER.pdf?1708714599
  6. That's the thing, the "and" which people seem to have great difficulty grasping. It must be BOTH dangerous AND unusual. Is it dangerous but not unusual? Protected. All guns are dangerous. Is it unusual but not dangerous? Protected. It's just like "cruel and unusual punishment." Punishment must be both cruel and unusual, not one or the other. Is it cruel to execute a pedophile? Absolutely not. Is it unusual? Yes, because we haven't executed them in a long time, but it doesn't pass the test so constitutional IMO.
  7. The same as the pi** test, unconstitutional unlawful search under the 4A since it involves a search of a bunch of irrelevant information like what does my total cholesterol have to do with my ability to safely handle a firearm? Nothing. That and medical records didn't exist back during the time of the founding of this country. I would like to know how many administrative subpoenas have been issued under the FCCA for applicants or licensee medical records. Probably for review board stuff and a narrow scope focus on psychological/psychiatric stuff. Teaches a valuable lesson. If you're ever down on your luck or unhappy with life and need some help, go to a head shrinker nder a false name (easier said than done with HIPAA and all of that) and pay cash. Or use one of those online therapists. Or just hit the range and you'll feel better 😁
  8. Yeah the judge said that's OK. Look at this abomination and we thought we had it bad.... Mother's maiden name, mother's full name, father's full name, spouse's name, name history, DOB, cell phone number, any f/k/a, next of kin (name, dob, address, phone #), name person who gets your guns if you die, current employer name, address, phone, name all employers over last five years.... https://www.pdcn.org/DocumentCenter/View/4446/PLS-application-instruction
  9. In state court news a New York judge struck down the urine test requirement for a pistol permit, which seems to be specific for Nassau County, stating it is a violation of the applicant's 4A right against unreasonable search and seizure. So you need a urine test to get a permit just to own a handgun (I don't believe this is for a carry permit but NYS licensing confuses me) but not to vote, collect public assistance (I belive NY once had a law that required a urine test for that and SCOTUS said no...maybe that was another state). Attached is the order. This is an as applied challenge so it only applies to the plaintiff/petitioner. "Though the Antonyuk court does not specifically define these terms, there is no need to under these circumstances. The Antonyuk court describes a small amount of discretion afforded the Licensing Officer, particularly in the area of good moral character or dangerousness, and in the nature of following-up on other information provided. It is therefore hard to reconcile Nassau County’s requirement that an applicant submit to urinalysis. This was not an issue in Antonyuk, but it is not hard reach the conclusion that requiring drug testing is more than a Licensing Officer exercising a modicum of discretion. If urinalysis is beyond the Licensing Officer’s discretion, then it can only be upheld if there is, in Bruen’s parlance, a historical analogue. Not only is there no such historical analogue, but forcing an applicant to submit to urinalysis, in essence, requires them to give up their 4th Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. This court cannot imagine a scenario, under current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, where that would be allowed. The court is therefore constrained to find the urinalysis requirement is unconstitutional, as applied to Kamenshchik in this matter." Judge also said the social media account information portion of Penal Law §400.00 violates the plaintiff/petitioner's 1A rights and found that unconstitutional as applied. "Further, Kamenshchik’s application cannot be denied based upon his refusal to provide social media accounts. As the court determined in Antonyuk, such a requirement is an infringement on 1st Amendment Free Speech, particularly where a person wishes to communicate that speech anonymously. “Anyone familiar with most social media platforms knows that nearly all handles are pseudonymous, at least to the extent that the poster's identity is not immediately apparent. Requiring disclosure of handles is thus to demand that applicants effectively forfeit their right to pseudonymous speech on social media (where so much speech now takes place).” Antonyuk at 332. As such, Kamenshchik’s application cannot be denied for his refusal to supply social media account information." Judge has enjoined the urinalysis requirement, vacated the permit denial, and gave Kamenshchik 30 days to amend his application in compliance with this order, leave out the urinalysis and social media account login and password portion (but still requiring the "Marital Status and Relationships" portion of the application). Good news is that the judge did apply Bruen here. Let's see if some more lower courts dig their heads out of their posterior. 612719_2022_Joseph_Kamenshchik_v_Patrick_J_Ryder_DECISION___ORDER_ON_56.pdf
  10. I'm near Peoria. Ironically I'm going to have to go to Davenport Guns up in Iowa for a renewal class. There's a lot of instructors around here who will do the 16 hour class but they have no 3 hour renewal class. I would figure the tac Shack would be doing renewal classes. I think I went to college with the owner of that place.
  11. I'm sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out how they would ensure compliance here. There's nothing I can think of that doesn't require probable cause because they'd need a search warrant. Knock and talk, ask to see "receipts" if you're not an FFL? "*cough*warrant*cough*" Literally "Show us all of your guns" (in which case I'd also say get a warrant)? I don't even have receipts for most of the stuff I own. I haven't done a private sale in a very long time so I have nothing to worry about here but...this law is unworkable unless they start doing some heavy handed horse manure and start violating the rest of your civil liberties.
  12. No, this was a news article so I guess not official agency PR and someone just pulled from the statistics page. It's kinda funny how they're doing a running total for those who registered between 1/1 and 1/31 now. This number got larger by about 500+ since I saw the article last week. Now up to over 6400 individuals. I chalk this up to ISP not telling FOID holders about this, then all of the "uh oh its January 1 did you register your scary guns?" articles out there. Coupled with ISP coming out and saying "we don't think you'll be prosecuted if you register after the deadline." (it's not even up to them it's up to the county SAs, I don't think the Raoul's office would be doing any prosecutions). Bishop on Air covered it on his YT channel last week. They already caught one guy here with (I suspect, based on the fact that he's a serial offender) with an unregistered banned item and didn't charge him for that only charged him with UUW for no FOID. I think that's all they charged him with, gun-wise at least.
  13. I saw an ISP PR somewhere that said just over 5k people registered after January 1. They somehow managed to get a 16% increase just by telling people "we won't prosecute you if you just check this box stating that you didn't register by the January 1 deadline...."
  14. Like the title says, BATFE at direction of the White House is apparently drafting a rule to backdoor ban private transfers. All of this while it looks like Chevron will get tossed in the trash heap. https://nypost.com/2024/01/31/news/biden-gun-rule-drafted-to-all-but-bar-private-sales-whistleblowers/
×
×
  • Create New...