The Liberal Gun Club Forum

OldScratch wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:54 pm I'm with Warren - raise the excise taxes on guns and ammunition.

Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed, carried, or used it during the offense for which they were imprisoned.

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer

They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:24 pm Can't have the dirty poor buying firearms and ammo.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:24 pm Can't have the dirty poor buying firearms and ammo.

SaneConservative wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:00 am Assault weapon bans are like banning gummy bears to stop people from smoking pot.

SpaceRanger42 wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:10 pm Oh yanno England did a thing, took the gas systems out of gas operated rifles, all but banned hand guns completely. Then of course everyone was running around stabbing and cutting each other. So they ban knives. According to an acquaintance I have in the UK my EDC pocket knife would likely get me tossed in goal. (yes I spelled it that way on purpose)
I am not saying that this would happen here in the states but I think there is a community of people who would apparently be quite content if the number of stabbings, choppings, acid burnings and garotting were to climb (oh and bombings).

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:26 pm I've always been surprised (and relieved) that none of the terrorists have picked up on the John Muhammad model--one or two sniper murders, move on, then do it somewhere else. He terrorized the entire DC region for 3 weeks. The violence is the problem.

SaneConservative wrote: Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:00 am Assault weapon bans are like banning gummy bears to stop people from smoking pot.

Also like our sister circuits, in Friedman we
evaluated the importance of the reasons for the Highland
Park Ordinance to determine whether they justified the
ban’s intrusion on Second Amendment rights. We concluded, as our sister circuits had, that “reduc[ing] the overall
dangerousness of crime” and making the public feel safer
were “substantial” interests that justified the city’s action in
adopting the Highland Park Ordinance.

featureless wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:36 pm So, CA7 just upheld an AWB in Illinois. Apparently, the panel wasn't convinced assault weapons are in common use. Let's dig on that a little bit, out of pure fucking frustration.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/29/75555183 ... lt-weapons
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/r ... 391208:S:0

Zinger from the decision (is this where we got the snowflake "feelz" meme placed on us?):

Also like our sister circuits, in Friedman we
evaluated the importance of the reasons for the Highland
Park Ordinance to determine whether they justified the
ban’s intrusion on Second Amendment rights. We concluded, as our sister circuits had, that “reduc[ing] the overall
dangerousness of crime” and making the public feel safer
were “substantial” interests that justified the city’s action in
adopting the Highland Park Ordinance.

So, I offer this for the next time we're before a court.
Me at court (not really, just pretending): Question, your honors. Would you agree the Toyota Camry, the number one selling passenger car in the US is in common use?

Your honors: Duh. Of course. They are everywhere. The only way I can tell which one is mine in the parking lot is the little stick figure family on the window. It includes the cat, dog and hamster.

Me: Did you know there were 387,081 Camrys sold in the US in 2017.

Your honors: This is getting annoying. Yes, they are everywhere.

Me: Sorry, getting to my point. Are you aware that Smith & Wesson sold 265,356 rifles in 2017?

Your honors: No. But the 2A protects hunting weapons. We're not concerned (yet) about bolt action Smith & Wesesnoils [sic].

Me: Did you know that the only rifles Smith & Wesson produces are AR15s? Did you know Delton sold 24,829? Sig sold 35,896? Daniel Defense sold 28,778? Palmetto State sold 25,221? Radical Firearms sold 88,430? That's 468,510 AR15s, not including all the other manufacturers. Not including all the other rifles that fall under the "assault weapon" ban. Did you fucking know that?

Your honors: Surely, you're just parroting the NRA. You're out of line.

Me: No, this is straight out of the ATF's manufacturing data. I hate the NRA. I belong to the LGC instead, a sane and reasonable group of free radicals.

Your honors: So what's your point?

Me: Well, glad you asked. If the Camry is in common use and If there are more AR15s sold every year, just how the fuck can you not see AR15s, a component of the total under the umbrella of "assault weapons", is not in common use? Further, did you know that Caetano determined that 200,000 stun guns, manufactured over many years, in lawful use qualified as "common use?" That's half of the number of AR15s just from those manufactures mentioned produced in one year. Clearly, you can't handle the truth.

https://www.atf.gov/file/133476/download

For instance, in Friedman, we asked whether “a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” 784 F.3d at 410 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 622). This question embodies the recognition—set forth in Heller—“that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Heller, 554 U.S. at 622.

K9s wrote: Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:05 pm *sigh*

I don't think the courts care about truth and facts, either.

I hope they don't still pretend that the public sees them as impartial. Do they? I cannot find a poll on the subject.

highdesert wrote: Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:23 am

For instance, in Friedman, we asked whether “a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” 784 F.3d at 410 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 622). This question embodies the recognition—set forth in Heller—“that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Heller, 554 U.S. at 622.

So AR, AK...have no relationship to a well regulated militia? Three judges, one a Reagan appointee, one a Clinton appointee and one a W appointee. SCOTUS more than ever needs to step. IL's fault too for not blocking local preemption.

When Justice Scalia died..., he was staying, again for free, at a West Texas hunting lodge owned by a businessman whose company had recently had a matter before the Supreme Court.

Though that trip has brought new attention to the justice’s penchant for travel, it was in addition to the 258 subsidized trips that he took from 2004 to 2014. Justice Scalia went on at least 23 privately funded trips in 2014 alone to places like Hawaii, Ireland and Switzerland, giving speeches, participating in moot court events or teaching classes. A few weeks before his death, he was in Singapore and Hong Kong.

Many of the justices are frequent expenses-paid travelers, a practice that some court scholars say is a minor matter, given that many of the trips involve public talks that help demystify the court. But others argue that the trips could potentially create the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly when the organizations are known for their conservative or liberal views. Some groups at times use the presence of a Supreme Court justice as a way to pull in members or other paying guests.

Members of the judiciary–with their anachronistic black robes, gavels and towering benches–have a tough public image to manage.

Even the perception of impropriety doesn’t go over well with the public, and a report from the Center for Public Integrity is reminding everyone just how human judges are. According to the center’s investigation, about 185 federal judges took advantage of expense-paid trips to “judicial education seminars” underwritten by conservative-leaning groups. Sponsors foot the bill for judges’ expenses, often including flights, hotels and meals, the center said in its report.

Its investigation focused on seminars between 2008 and 2012. Judges who reported attending at least one seminar over that period made up about 11% of the country’s more than 1,700 federal judges.