My Daddy always said 'It ain't illegal if you don't get caught'
Follow me for more #badadvice!
I haven't see anyone destroyed yet. That word gets confused with annoyed.As soon as you see a video with an angry president (or ex-president) as the thumbnail, you can guarantee it is clickbait.
Also easy clues, the word "destroy" or destroys" are in the title.
This one has it all.
As soon as you see a video with an angry president (or ex-president) as the thumbnail, you can guarantee it is clickbait.
Also easy clues, the word "destroy" or destroys" are in the title.
This one has it all.
YepTemporary injunctions by low level judges. The ATF could care less. Historically they only bend when SCOTUS weighs in.
I must be an optimist 'cause I see an opportunity for some scavenging and light LARPing in that pic.. 🥴 😁I haven't see anyone destroyed yet. That word gets confused with annoyed.
This is destroyed
View attachment 679515
Fill free to read the 38 page document yourself.Looks like click bait.....
More BS i guess.
What is this link? It asks for an email...
Yea. In reality, the distinction between a pistol and a rifle is pretty blurry. Seems like the judge is observing the incongruity between the law and reality.I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.
What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
In that case the judge seems to be ruling on a point of common sense instead of a point of law. I have a hard time seeing that standing at the circuit level given the NFA is settled law after Miller . It would be nice but none of this is how courts usually work.I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.
What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
Sorry, copied link from work computer.What is this link? It asks for an email...
Miller vs US 1939 settled only SBSs. SBSs were not used by the military at the time. WWI shotguns had 20" bbls. US Army does use SBS to day such as the Rem 870 MCS and M26 shotgun. There was zero defense from Miller, only Govt side. Federal and Circut court found it in Millers favor. SCOTUS did quote the miliarty that militia weapons are consitutional. Remember the Sullivan law was in 1911 and too late accourding to Thomas in Bruen. SBRs, Machine Guns, Suppressors and DDs have NEVER been challenged at SCOTUS.In that case the judge seems to be ruling on a point of common sense instead of a point of law. I have a hard time seeing that standing at the circuit level given the NFA is settled law after Miller . It would be nice but none of this is how courts usually work.
So if Miller vs US were argued today with the same logic it would have to find SBS constitutional (and SBRs as also used by the military).Miller vs US 1939 settled only SBSs. SBSs were not used by the military at the time. WWI shotguns had 20" bbls. US Army does use SBS to day such as the Rem 870 MCS and M26 shotgun. There was zero defense from Miller, only Govt side. Federal and Circut court found it in Millers favor. SCOTUS did quote the miliarty that militia weapons are consitutional. Remember the Sullivan law was in 1911 and too late accourding to Thomas in Bruen. SBRs, Machine Guns, Suppressors and DDs have NEVER been challenged at SCOTUS.
Rem 870 MCS 18", 14" and 10". My son and I were both issued these in Iraq/Afghanistan
M26
As soon as you see a video with an angry president (or ex-president) as the thumbnail, you can guarantee it is clickbait.
Also easy clues, the word "destroy" or destroys" are in the title.
This one has it all.
I haven't see anyone destroyed yet. That word gets confused with annoyed.
This is destroyed
View attachment 679515
I watched the gunsngear video and it is a good thing. A federal judge affirmed that the injunction against ATF enforcing a pistol brace ban would remain (i.e. not temporary). The downside is that it is only for those who brought the suit (Mock himself) and those party to it.
What is more interesting or disturbing is that the judge seems to question the distinction between a pistol and a rifle. He says putting a stabilizing brace OR A STOCK only improves the accuracy and usability of the legally owned pistol and should not make felons out of those who do so for their own reasons. The way I see his point of view is that if you're allowed to buy a pistol, then you can do what you want with it to improve it. Meaning, there's no such thing as an SBR created from a pistol- it's just a pistol with a stock.
Depends how you look at it. If you look at the ruling on Miller and think it only has to do with shotguns then yeah, your'e right. If you look at it the way the courts and government have for the last 80 years it was an affirmation of the NFA's taxing ability.Miller vs US 1939 settled only SBSs. SBSs were not used by the military at the time. WWI shotguns had 20" bbls. US Army does use SBS to day such as the Rem 870 MCS and M26 shotgun. There was zero defense from Miller, only Govt side. Federal and Circut court found it in Millers favor. SCOTUS did quote the miliarty that militia weapons are consitutional. Remember the Sullivan law was in 1911 and too late accourding to Thomas in Bruen. SBRs, Machine Guns, Suppressors and DDs have NEVER been challenged at SCOTUS.
Rem 870 MCS 18", 14" and 10". My son and I were both issued these in Iraq/Afghanistan
M26
Some of us who have been doing this stuff forever are kind of jaded . We hear about these supposed wins then look at how it changed ATF law enforcement actions and it well, hasn’t. They only listen to SCOTUS. Bruen, EPA, Common Use etc are all nice theories but until something changes at at ATF level it’s just talkI just want to say that all you negative Nancys really need to knock it off with them negative waves.
ATF has been getting smacked around in the courts and y'all are more mopey than a post-surgery transsexual sharting blood and fecal matter. Quit being demoralized.
Some of us who have been doing this stuff forever are kind of jaded . We hear about these supposed wins then look at how it changed ATF law enforcement actions and it well, hasn’t. They only listen to SCOTUS. Bruen, EPA, Common Use etc are all nice theories but until something changes at at ATF level it’s just talk
It's not being a Debbie-downer, its more about the fact that it has yet to have enough weight for a nationwide injunction. That's an indicator that they have presented a poor case on anything with Constitutional merit, and that at best they will just re-propose the existing rule through the administrative procedures act a second time and move forward with it as-written. I feel like the one judge has made a more compelling argument than the legal teams at this point.Some of us who have been doing this stuff forever are kind of jaded . We hear about these supposed wins then look at how it changed ATF law enforcement actions and it well, hasn’t. They only listen to SCOTUS. Bruen, EPA, Common Use etc are all nice theories but until something changes at at ATF level it’s just talk
It's not being a Debbie-downer, its more about the fact that it has yet to have enough weight for a nationwide injunction. That's an indicator that they have presented a poor case on anything with Constitutional merit, and that at best they will just re-propose the existing rule through the administrative procedures act a second time and move forward with it as-written. I feel like the one judge has made a more compelling argument than the legal teams at this point.
James Madison would say that government moving at a snail's pace is a good thing.... and he would be right.
Ok Dad, but only because you told us to.I just want to say that all you negative Nancys really need to knock it off with them negative waves.
ATF has been getting smacked around in the courts and y'all are more mopey than a post-surgery transsexual sharting blood and fecal matter. Quit being demoralized.
The 9th Circuit is playing games with the CA Magazine ban case, no surprise really but it pisses me off, when the courts don’t follow the rule of law, the existing laws are null & void in my opinion.
While this doesn’t apply specifically to the pistol brace thread, it does demonstrate yet again that the elites will do anything to get what they want.
None of this is going away by anything other than the Supreme Court and it could be decades before it gets there if ever. They ( the entire US government courts included ) dont want it to go away .I thought it was within the rules of the court, just unusual.
Judicial system is still part of the gubmint last I checked. You really want SCOTUS instant rubber stamps without legal debate? Besides the biggest issue with the judicial system is the (((legislative))) branch putting diversity hire judges like Jackson & Sotomayor or Big Pharma reps like Kagan.The government yes, the courts no. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Son, take down the My Chemical Romance posters and remove the black nail polish from your fingers. Daddy will get you the Misfits Collections, and you can start beating up posers at the mall's arcade like a true American.Ok Dad, but only because you told us to.
slc punk ending sceneJudicial system is still part of the gubmint last I checked. You really want SCOTUS instant rubber stamps without legal debate? Besides the biggest issue with the judicial system is the (((legislative))) branch putting diversity hire judges like Jackson & Sotomayor or Big Pharma reps like Kagan.
Son, take down the My Chemical Romance posters and remove the black nail polish from your fingers. Daddy will get you the Misfits Collections, and you can start beating up posers at the mall's arcade like a true American.
Judicial system is still part of the gubmint last I checked. You really want SCOTUS instant rubber stamps without legal debate?