Jump to content

Dumak_from_arfcom

Members
  • Posts

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dumak_from_arfcom

  1. On 3/18/2024 at 12:01 PM, South Side 27 said:

    She is running for reelection and was asked about upholding the PICA law. Said she was proud to have ruled on it and no one is allowed to have a rocket launcher. Also claimed incorrectly that SCOTUS has already ruled on the request for certiorari in the consolidated cases. She said it was denied. Some of these judges are clueless. 

     

    "Liberals lie" - Rush Limbaugh

  2. You had to know they weren't going to stop with PICA.  They want guns gone or far more expensive and time consuming than the plebs can afford.  Sinister intentions all of it.  

     

    The mistake was not going on offense the second we got the Bruen decision.  

     

  3. Clearly unconstitutional on the training requirement.

     

    It makes firearm purchases fall under may issue for the public safety.  Again..  Bruen.   It makes the FOID completely redundant, but lets anti-gun LEOs deny all firearm purchases for their jurisdiction. 

  4. On 2/28/2024 at 7:18 PM, Sweeper13 said:

    How much more does our side have to explain to Judge Jackson about bump stocks. Plus when he tries to answer ,she doesn't want to hear the answer. These judges need to go and fire a bump stock and machine gun. Maybe they will get it then.

     

    I think the SCOTUS will rule against the ATF on regulatory power, but not on any 2A issue.   ACB was asking why Congress didn't address it.

  5. On 2/26/2024 at 2:28 PM, mab22 said:


    It blows away EasterCrook’s claim that’s it’s a military weapon, the AR15 was sold by colt to the general public BEFORE there were any major contracts or change over from the M14, from what I have been reading. 
    It was used for testing by the military, but it is and was different FROM the military version. 
    Somewhere I also read that the wanted different bolt finishes and materials, etc, and other component changes so it wasn’t exactly the same darn thing. 
    My best analogy is:

    It’s like calling a factory 350 V8 Chevrolet motor the same thing as a nascar Chevy V8 350. 
     

     

    I agree. The .mil adopting a civilian gun or modifying a civilian gun for its own purposes destroys Easterbrook's military test.  Still, if we stick to how guns function (lever, semi, bolt, revolver) all of those guns were at one time or still in use by the military. Easterbrook's test would result in a ban on every gun.  

     

    (Youtube video) It looks like Judge McGlynn is telling us that we need to argue Heller and Bruen, and argue against the Friedman/Bevis military test.  

     

    (More Youtube)  Now we've got 15 or more points to work on that Judge McGlynn is asking for.  Is he asking for a 15 point summary for every single gun listed in PICA? 

     

     

  6. Yep. The mossberg 590 is a current .mil shotgun correct?   It was in use by civilians before the military picked it up.  The 870 was service shotgun before switching to the 590?   

     

    Beretta 92 series. 1911s.  etc etc.  Glocks.  All being relatively in modern use by various .mil units. 

     

    That is a good way to show many guns aren't just reserved for US.mil use.   The 92 series was in use by civilians before it was adopted by the military as the M9.  Same for the P320. The P226. 

     

     

  7. On 2/23/2024 at 9:02 PM, mab22 said:

    There is no way to prove "The weaponry in question is not possessed for unlawful purposes."

    Computers can be used by  Hackers.

    Cell phones can be used by anyone to coordinate a crime, or even defraud someone of money.

    Cars can be stolen to be used in a crime.

    Matches and lighters can be used by arsonists.

    Anyone can use anything for an "unlawful purpose".

     

     

    And the correct argument for our lawyers  is to declare it Easterbrook's interest balancing. Then use your example that any item can be used for unlawful purposes. 

     

    Then when they get to the military test. Just about every action (lever, bolt, revolver, trap door, musket, semi-auto, auto) have been used by the military at one time. So Easterbrook's military test would allow a ban on virtually every type of gun which is in violation of Heller's common use. 

  8.  

     

     

     

     

    These petitions are simply a cry of shenanigans.  Millions of people have their rights infringed and the CA courts are essentially playing wack a mole with the cases and still refusing to follow Bruen and clinging to bad law by trying to set new tests.  

     

    Bruen was what? 2022?  Yet here we are.   The Justices can't be blind as to what is going on.  If they don't step in, that means they are okay with the games being played by the lower courts.  If that is the case, then resources would be better spent on moving vans and dropping all the lawsuits in the unfriendly circuits.  Just have a tiny town in Texas or someplace take one for the team and pass an AWB so it makes it way rapidly through a more friendly appeals circuit.   If the anti-gun commies can game the system, why shouldn't we?

     

     

     

     

  9. Is it flip or the reward recoil impulse that is hard on your hands?  Both?

     

    If flip is the issue, then maybe try a ported gun with low bore axis.  If it is recoil (the rearward impulse) then polymer is the way to go because polymer grips flex. 

     

    If the issue is both then a ported Staccato P or C2 (steel frame not alum) would be the way to go.  You've got weight and polymer grips and a port. 

     

    You could also try shooting a 5.7 pistol.  You'll be limited to 10 round mags though. I'm not sure if any company makes 15 round 5.7 mags.  

  10. On 2/5/2024 at 8:51 PM, Maxon Shooters said:

    Our policy is that we will do private transactions only as FFL transfers.  We came to this decision not because we want to make money on private transactions (we don’t), but rather because this law is fundamentally flawed and stupid.

     

    Let me count the ways:

    1. Individual tells popo, when a trace lands on him or her, that they sold the gun to sumdood, and sumdood says Maxon Shooter’s has the paperwork. But we never got said paperwork.  Now we are the bad guys. We are in the position of proving a negative: we never got the paperwork.
    2. If we have a blanket policy of not providing this “service,” then that is our defense against accusations that we are failing to store purchase records. We don’t do it.
    3. No FFL who is thinking this through will store paperwork, not for $25, not for $250, not for $2500. (Except see 5. below)
    4. The law doesn’t say it must be an Illinois FFL.  This is really stupid.  If you send it registered mail with a money order for $25 to Buds or Cabella’s in Texas, and they throw it out, and you have, it appears, complied with the law.
    5. The alternative civil disobedience model for an Illinois FFL would be to collect a bunch of these, with the $25 fee, store them in a giant bin, and when the state police come asking for paperwork, point them at a bunch of giant trash bins with disorganized paperwork.  The law doesn’t say anything about searchable records, so, officer, the papers you seek are somewhere in one of these bins.

    By doing these as normal transfers, our records are clean, and it fits into our workflow.  I know we are not the cheapest for transfers.  That fee is what we figured the labor and overhead cost us plus a little margin to pay the light bill.

    Dan E

     

     

    That is just what is going to happen.  Sumdood is going to say FFL XXX has the record. FFL XXX is going to say nope, we don't.  ISP will use that to try to shut down the FFL. 

     

    Everything they are doing has been done with sinister motives.  There is no way to prove a negative.  

     

  11. I myself would go with an optic.  

     

    If you have a MOS cut, then get the holosun SCS.

     

    If you need to have it milled then go with RMR.   

     

    Just know if that ring snags on something and breaks the backplate, then your striker assembly is going to fly out and your gun is kaput.  I think 10 years ago there was a backplate that had little wings on the side that stuck out kind of like on a HK VP9.  People had issues with the wings contacting stuff and cracking the backplate. 

     

     

  12. On 1/22/2024 at 4:06 PM, Upholder said:

    No.  Read the beginning of that paragraph:

     

     

    They're saying that you won't be prosecuted because you didn't file an affidavit.  However, you will not be exempt from prosecution for owning an """"assault weapon"""" if you didn't file an affidavit.  It's an attempt to be too cute by half.

     

     

     

    Our side really needs to introduce a 9th amendment argument as well.   The affidavit is clearly pitting the 5th and 2nd amendments against each other.   This "cute" little dance step is further proof that the State knows they have an issue.  We must waive our 5th amendment rights in order to fully exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  That is why the 9th amendment was written.   

     

    Sad, it just seems the lawyers always want to go down the familiar path. 

  13. On 1/17/2024 at 2:12 PM, skinnyb82 said:

    Might McGlynn be trying to make this too juicy for SCOTUS to pass up? 🤔 I mean, Easterbrook did a reverse Miller. So he's technically defying two SCOTUS precedents in order to justify his own ruling. This is just nuts. Like you said, if McGlynn drags Bruen AND Miller into this we can get some sort of yea/nay on the NFA as well as any and all AWBs. 

     

    To me it looks like McGlynn is going to be using the military test that the Easterbrook panel cooked up out of thin air.  If the judge does indeed go that route, it will lead right back to interest balancing under a different name.  

×
×
  • Create New...