Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrTriple

  1. I'm thinking they won't fold. I got the impression that Remington did because of their financial problems, whereas Smith and Wesson has every incentive to win this.
  2. I don't think it's inevitable. Any state-level ban will get struck down by the courts, which'll have the effect of nullifying the local AWBs in places like Cook County and Highland Park. The best approach is to do nothing, if for no reason other than to preserve the municipal bans. What they may do is remove preemption so the suburban soccer moms can ban "assault weapons" in their towns while helping the state to avoid a wider legal entanglement. It also has the "benefit" (in their minds) in tying up the resources of the gun rights groups, who'll have to file multiple identical lawsuits.
  3. They think they're being clever, but this'll just result in federal legislation prohibiting this behavior. We're probably going to see future legislation over tech company censorship, so it wouldn't surprise me to see something similar in regards to payment processing services; it's basically the same issue but manifested in another way. It also reeks of desperation. If they don't think can get legislation passed, they figure this'll be a suitable alternative.
  4. Correct, intermediate scrutiny is no longer permitted. While I can't comment on this particular case, it wouldn't surprise me if we see more states and municipalities doing the same in order to avoid a court challenge.
  5. I'm gonna get chewed out for saying this, but I think people are overreacting. First, this is really just an extension of the moral panic that gave us DEI and ESG. Sooner or later, all moral panics collapse in on themselves. Second, this is the sorta thing that sounds great in the boardroom until the lawsuits start flying. And when that happens (and it will) the CEO will begin asking who's bright idea it was in the first place. And let's not kid ourselves: Any attempt to begin flagging gun owners would have every attorney in the country lining up to take these sort of lawsuits. And as far as law enforcement is concerned? Same scenario: Lawsuits. Lots and lots of lawsuits. Does the Something-something-ville Police Department really have the resources to defend their actions in court should they act on a report from Mastercard?
  6. The concept of victim's rights will probably be the avenue through which cashless bail gets struck down by the courts.
  7. I don't know if they are simply ignorant or something else. Cook County and Highland Park are already getting sued over their AWBs, do they honestly think they'll prevail in the long run? What do they think state-level action will do except result in a major court loss? "President and CEO Kathleen Sances said Friday there is a public outcry to pass those initiatives as soon as possible." Only amongst the soccer mom crowd. Not exactly representative of the nation as a whole, but whatever makes them feel better I guess. "Sances said G-PAC plans to launch a new outreach program alongside a statewide coalition of 200 organizations within the next few weeks to get more public support for an assault weapons ban." And when has that ever succeeded? People are tired of being lectured by soccer moms over what they can and can't do.
  8. Senate polling has been utter trash since 2014 and has shown no signs of improvement. Also remember that summer polling is even worse and downright wish casting at times.
  9. Some schools don't even teach cursive anymore. "Please sign on the dotted line, sir." "Uh, sign? Like, what does that mean?"
  10. Weird side note. During the height of the pandemic, Illinois gun stores were significantly-better stocked than many stores in pro-gun states. Sure, the pistol counter may have had some bare spots, but it wasn't like other states where there was almost nothing that wasn't a shotgun in an odd gauge or a pistol in an undesirable caliber or brand.
  11. Wonderful ruling, and excellent news! It never made sense that 18-20 year olds were prohibited from carrying handguns (purchasing them, too).
  12. In a similar vein, I know that New York requires permits to purchase, and that NYC makes it effectively impossible for the average individual to obtain one. Wondering if any litigation is in the pipeline.
  13. Assuming the new post-Bruen legislation gets struck down by the courts, what effect will that have on NYC's licensing rules?
  14. Are there rules for how long the circuit could delay an en banc hearing, for example? I could see them delaying scheduling a hearing for many, many months as a means of delaying the proceedings.
  15. I'm gonna catch some flak for saying this, but I'm gonna say it anyway. I'm of the opinion that the gun control movement has effectively lost the fight over guns in the United States. And since they have nothing left to lose, why wouldn't they throw everything at us including the kitchen sink?
  16. Same here. I don't have a reason to purchase anything from them yet, but I have to say that I'm surprised at the quality for the price. I'll admit, I did go through a "I'll never buy from them!" phase after they backed the dealer bill, but I've moved past that. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, there comes a certain point where you have to be more pragmatic about these sort of things. Sorta how I once swore off certain big box stores until I realized that I'm not going to fully agree with every stance these companies take. If that's how I approached the subject, I'd soon find myself unable to shop anywhere, except perhaps the overpriced Ma and Pa store you seem to find in every town or neighborhood.
  17. I think it's more than that. From any honest perspective the FOID Act is unconstitutional, but they don't want to strike it down, and under no circumstance will they do so unless a higher court steps in (or the issue is decided by the Seventh Circuit). Striking down Cook County's AWB, for example, is one thing. Getting rid of the FOID would be an entirely different matter altogether, and one that would prove to be an even bigger loss for the gun control movement than any one county-level AWB.
  18. A part of me wonders if any AWB case will make it to the Supreme Court without a lower court striking it down first. I would think that the GVR of Bianchi would be taken as a clear indication of the Court's thinking, and many judges won't want to issue a ruling they know SCOTUS would strike down on appeal. For judges who want to "minimize the damage caused by Bruen," the strategic thing to do is strike the law down and leave it at that. I guarantee that the gun control movement now wishes that the lower courts had struck New York's good cause requirement in the first instance.
  19. Looks like we're getting movement on this case. First link is the original call for briefs, second and third links are the plaintiff's briefs and the state's briefs, respectively. Unsurprisingly, the state is trying to delay.
  20. Looks like the official GVR from SCOTUS dropped yesterday. I guess the order list from July was merely a list, and this is the official order? Perhaps someone can clarify that point. Oral arguments tentatively scheduled for December 6-9. Supplemental brief due August 22nd; supplemental response brief due September 12th; supplemental reply brief permitted by September 22nd.
  21. This was the AWB case originally heard by Judge Benitez, who struck the ban down. The 9th Circuit has vacated the case and remanded it back to the lower court, which means he'll be hearing the case again. I personally believe he'll rule the same way he did the first time, incorporating whatever changes are necessary to comply with Bruen. Seems like a stall tactic on the 9th Circuit's part, but not an unforeseen outcome.
  22. Even those Republican senators who are retiring won't want to cross over for this. That was the whole purpose of the other bill, which was to vote for something completely watered-down and pointless, while still getting some credit for "doing something". This ban goes too far for the sole purpose of a show vote.
  23. It certainly doesn't help them. Gun control has become a huge political liability, which might explain why you see so many politicians willing to showboat on gun control, but not necessarily willing to pass anything far-reaching. The idea is to placate the shrinking number of very outspoken and very pushy advocates while not doing anything that could damage their rapport with independents. The previous bill that passed, while I (and probably everyone here) opposed it, perhaps made sense politically because it allowed them to say, "we did something," even if it was meaningless in actual fact. But this just angers independents and energizes Republicans while delivering absolutely nothing tangible for their own base. Part of the calculus, I think, was that they'd already made a big scene with their hearings, and a failure to follow up with something big would've been just as embarrassing and politically damaging. They essentially painted themselves into a corner.
  24. I agree. The other question is how closely his staff are watching these 2nd amendment cases nationwide. They want stricter laws, but not ones that'll get struck down by the courts. I don't like Pritzker, he's been a disaster for the state, but he isn't stupid. He's probably smart enough to realize that the legal environment isn't amenable to gun control.
  • Create New...