Jump to content

C0untZer0

Members
  • Posts

    14,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by C0untZer0

  1. "Assault" weapons bans don't work, and if they think that it is the legislative camel's nose under the tent that will eventually lead to banning all firearms - that won't work either, but "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)
  2. https://www.catstrap.net/ Supposedly very difficult to cut through ^ I'm sure the South African anti-carjacking-flamethrower can be modified to protect catalytic converters:
  3. This outlines the powers of counties in Illinois: https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con7.htm
  4. This quote has alternatively been attributed to Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin, Joseph Goebbels and Saul Alinsky, but there is no evidence that any of them ever said it:
  5. I still love this story about Hale DeMar: https://reason.com/2005/06/01/self-defense-vsmunicipal-gun-b/ Hale DeMar purchased 2 firearms and kept them locked in a safe for 20 years in their original packaging. He never even loaded them until after his home was burglarized and his car and house keys were stolen. The thief returned the next night to burglarize DeMar again. Because of the events of that night and the crazy anti-gun wackos in Wilmette, the Hale DeMar law was created.
  6. I know someone who purchased an M4~ish 5.56 just because he was convinced they were going to be banned. I don't even think he even zeroed it.
  7. An important boon to gun owners is that now the Supreme Court will take up gun cases and overturn the lower courts poor rulings. For too long the Supreme Court denied petition on poorly decided Second Amendment cases like Woollard v. Gallagher. Judge Robert B. King, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: Woollard v. Gallagher https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121437.P.pdf If you read the whole opinion in Woolard, it is unbelievable that the 4th circuit upheld the Maryland law. Judges King, Davis and Diaz found that the law could be evaluated using intermediate scrutiny. Then the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Kachalsky v. Cacace is basically the same... It is possible that going forward the Supreme Court will have to be the final arbiter of all Second Amendment issues because these horrible circuit court judges will continue to find ways to undermine Second Amendment rights and issue horrible opinions.
  8. This overturns Peruta and a lot of other badly decided cases which applied improper standards of review. Judge William Fletcher, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Peruta v San Diego http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971 6-9 EB opinion plus webcites.pdf Justice Thomas, Supreme Court of The United States New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc,. et al. v Bruen, Superintendant of New York State Police, et al. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
  9. I don't see Thomas ignoring Heller. He references Heller quite a bit in the opinion and starting on page 9 attacks Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review. Thomas insists that cases need to utilize “textual analysis” focused on the “‘normal and ordinary’” meaning of the Second Amendment’s language, “confirmed by the historical background." Like you, I don't see anything that "stops current judges from ignoring this decision" The fact that we had gun bans in Chicago, Evanston, Highland Park, Morton Grove, Oak Park, Wilmette and Winnetka shows that the Constitution itself can't protect the Constitution.
  10. I don't think so. An argument could be made that it violates the 14th Amendment, but it doesn't seem obvious that Bruen would do away with such a requirement. Even though Kavanaugh's opinion doesn't set out the guiding principles of the ruling, he states: .
  11. It also seems that Justice Thomas has done away with approaching 2nd Amendment cases with levels of scrutiny. It seems he could have resolved this issue just by saying that all 2nd Amendment cases should be examined with strict scrutiny. As Justice David Souter said, “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.” meaning almost no law survives strict scrutiny. .
  12. It is interesting to see that much of what Judge Posner said in Moore v. Madigan shows up in the majority opinion of NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The 2 most important aspects of this ruling are: 1) It destroys the 2-part approach to deciding gun cases. The 2-part approach was an intellectually dishonest charade that liberal, outcome-based judges used to ignore the Constitution to enact "gun control" and infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 2) Judge Thomas shows how the 14th Amendment must be applied in RTKBA cases. It is also scary to see the utter disregard that the dissenters have for the United States Constitution. Whatever these arrogant political hacks think is best is how they're going to rule - Constitution be damned.
  13. More and more Californians are getting a taste of the capricious, arbitrary and unjust nature of "May Issue." A ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen could put an end to it in the United States.
  14. It has often been said that California's liberals are only able to vote leftists into office because they are insulated from leftist policies. Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw
  15. Kyle Rittenhouse confirmed on the stand that his rifle was loaded with FMJ.
  16. If an FMJ didn't tumble, wouldn't it make a through-and-through hole ? The top part of that guy's arm was blown off. Its hard to believe hydro-static shock did that.
  17. I'm guessing it wasn't ball ammo? It almost took off that guy's arm off - "Gaige Grosskreutz, medic and 'Sole Survivor' of Kenosha Shootings" I searched a little but couldn't find what ammo was used.
  18. Here is the amicus brief filed by Senators Whitehouse, Hirono, Blumenthal, Gillibrand and Senator Dick Durbin. https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York (Whitehouse amicus FINAL).pdf The brief asked the Supreme Court to turn down New York State Rifle & Pistol Association's petition to have the Supreme Court hear the case. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case. The brief contains a threat to the current Supreme Court if the court doesn't obey them:
  19. Who was the attorney who represented John Horstman - in the UUW case against Horstman, (not the subsequent lawsuit Horstman filed against DuPage County).
  20. Wasn't there a few cases where Cook County Sheriffs monitored to see if FOIDs expired and then showed up at owners' homes to confiscate guns?
  21. I hope that anyone posting a closing is very very careful to make sure that their information is correct. You can damage someone's business by posting that they have closed or moved their business when they haven't.
×
×
  • Create New...