Lou

As they say in the IT world; that isn't a bug, it’s a feature.

A bit more on the new too-cute-by-half NY law. Anyone wanna guess how long it will take to get an appointment with a “licensing officer”? And three years worth of social media to verify just what exactly? Creates a permitting process for concealed carry. Applicants for a concealed-carry permit must meet in-person with a licensing officer for an interview to determine character and trustworthiness to handle a firearm. During the interview, an applicant must disclose the names of any partners, minors, or cohabitants who share a residence, they must provide at least four character references, certify completion of required training, certify that they have no convictions for disqualifying offenses, and provide a list of all social media accounts for the last three years to be reviewed by licensing authorities for verification purposes.

I believe it went active July 1.

(Hopefully the ISP isn’t reading this ) BUT the initial page asks if you want to verify a FOID for a firearms sale or an ammunition sale. If you use the ammunition sale page you just put in the buyers FOID info. iANAL and I am not encouraging anyone to break the law but if the requirement is to check the FOID validity you have done that by running it through the Ammo section. Then again, I am not willing to be a test subject.

i wonder what the next screen - buyers info- asks?

Oohhh. I certainly don’t like that. I’ve got a S& W up for sale but now I’m considering taking it down.

In the past when I shipped parts UPS I would usually answer “motorcycle parts” if asked what was inside. Not always honest but it saved a lot of unnecessary conflict.

I like to refer to them as Dick and Duck. 🦆

Which gave us President Obama. And we can thank the Chicago Libune for suing to release the divorce records for Jack Ryan.

The Illinois red flag law that went into effect in 2019 is especially egregious. PA 100-0607 Here is an example of a law that is clearly unconstitutional This passage in section 45 is the worst in my opinion: (1) The respondent shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. 1. How do you prove a negative, that you are NOT a danger? 2. Presumed guilty until you can prove you innocence.

Illinois has had a (terrible) red flag law since 2019. It is about an unconstitutional as they could make it. Look at how well it has worked in Chicago. /Sarcasm off\.

I had an interesting conversation with a left leaning friend last week. His comment was he couldn’t vote for some farmer that “talks like that.” I mentioned that that farmer is a millionaire if you count the value of his land. A modern day farmer is also a businessman who has to buy combines and other equipment that cost 100s of thousands of dollars. I reminded him that his is also a state Senator. The kicker was when I reminded him that probably 1/3 of the country “talks like that” and that if I told him I could never vote for a Black because of how they talk he would brand me a bigot and a racist. I’m sure he will vote for Pritzker anyway but at least he shut up.

I’ll just leave this right here: 3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling - To bait someone in a general sense is to make a comment with a purposeful intent to coerce some form of response from the individual. In some cases this device can be a useful tool of debate, eliciting responses to highlight a point or reveal an underlying truth concerning someone’s argument. However, in other cases the intent of the bait is less focused on debating. “Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges. "Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to "any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges. Trolling is a diversionary tactic of those who “deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people” or those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions. [Wikipedia]. Ignorance, bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling, though at times they may appear similar due to the disingenuous nature of some trolls. Trolling is not allowed and can potentially lead to the suspension of posting privileges.

I’m not sure if this was posted before but this place claims to provide the service:

It has been a long time coming! Thank goodness for a SCOTUS that understands the Constitution!