Gotta have something when it's hot and the ceiling fan is blowing down on you and you're just a smidge cold, but turning off the fan makes you too hot. :)
More Isolationist leaning. I lean many directions in fact. Besides, you're not going to get the American people to support tax increases or cutting domestic spending. Pretty much leaves the military and "foreign adventures".
Hey, I'm totally cool with swapping spending on support for Ukraine, Israel, NATO, and the UN, & the elimination of all US military bases on foreign shores, and shoving that money back to this cause...minus a massive upgrade in the care we give our vets.
The operative organization, regardless of who it was, isn't the point. The point was "“won’t SOMBODY think of the children” happened, and lawn darts are basically banned. They were not banned because someone did some research and made it known that thousands of kids were dying from lawn darts, they were banned as a PR move to show "we did something". A complete overreaction.
"One kid was killed and others injured in a few well-publicized lawn dart instances, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned those, for example. Because new information had come to light that they were more dangerous than previously thought, specifically, that they could kill kids!"
No.
Anyone with a modicum of reason understands the inherent danger of lawn darts, and knew how to play with them safely. Somebody didn't and died. The press made a federal case about it, mom's shouted "won't SOMBODY think of the children" and lawmakers seized a chance to "do something" and ban them while aiding their reelection campaigns.
I was in that. It was basically scouts with an native American theme. I assume it was done away with due to it's potentially "problematic" costumes and such.
Summary:
AR 15 Semi auto 30 round mag: 6 Seconds to empty the mag.
Same weapon with bump stock: 4 Seconds to empty the mag.
Full Auto AR 2 Seconds to empty the mag.
"The bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm" That's a bit of an exaggeration.
Isn’t Form 4473 Unconstitutional?
Jun 16, 2024 Awa 0 Comments
In —Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Jun. 14, 2024), the Supreme Court found that the BATFE had exceeded their authority in changing the definition of “machinegun”. The ATF argued that they were just interpreting the law that congress had passed.
This is in keeping with our governmental forms. The three branches of the government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch creates laws, which must be approved by the head of the executive branch. Or the congress must override the president’s veto. The executive branch then implements those laws. The judicial branch defines what the laws actually mean.
In addition, the judicial branch is tasked with evaluating laws that are in conflict to determine which law overrides the other.
So, if the ATF can just make up laws, where did the 4473 come from?
It came from a Democrat, of course. Instead of yelling about “mass shootings” and “school shootings” the cry in the 60s was about assassinations. That is to say, three assassinations. JFK, RFK, and MLK. Because three assholes killed three men, we had our ability to acquire firearms infringed.
In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. This codified the first full on gun control in the country. The NFA attempted to establish full gun control with full registration and prohibitive taxes on all firearms, but it only did it to machineguns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, and suppressors.
The reason given was that this would force all the bad guys to buy guns in person.
The 4473 was part of the executive’s implementation of the GCA of 1968. Every question on the 4473 is supported by code, not regulation. If you read §922(g) you will see that it is translated directly into questions in from 4473.
From 1968 through 1993, the process was a buyer went to the FFL, decided what firearm they wanted to buy. Filled out the 4473 and walked out with the firearm.
There was no waiting.
If a bad guy wanted to buy a gun, he could walk in, fill out the 4473 and just lie. This meant that when he decided to use his gun in an illegal way, or was picked up as a felon in possession, they could add on lying to an FFL, lying on the 4473.
This would stop the bad guy from doing bad things.
Since evil people are going to do evil, and criminals will do criminal acts, this didn’t actually work like the gun-control infringers said it would. It didn’t stop anybody. To get a feel of just how bad this is:
On a personal note, the form fails to keep certain persons from obtaining firearms. This failure is seen in Question 11.f.
—Linda Gilbertson, The History of ATF Form 4473: Transaction Record Explained, Blog.GritrSports.com (Jul. 27, 2017)
This was a former ATF agent. He truly believes that a piece of paper stops people. This is the same sort of person that gets women killed by denying them firearms but giving them a restraining order.
One of Hagar’s friends was murdered by her estranged husband. She had a restraining order against him. This didn’t stop him from killing his wife and children. Nor did taking some of his guns from him. He had decided to commit murder. Why would violating a restraining order slow his rampage down?
I’m sure that when she held up the restraining order, it stopped the bullets he fired at her.
In the 90s, the infringers started screaming that the 4473 wasn’t stopping criminals. They demanded that background checks be done before a person took possession of their firearm.
The original goal was to add waiting periods while the background check was being done. There are states that have excessive waiting periods. I was upset when purchasing some rifles and all pistols required me to wait 21 days. Oh, even though that sounds like three weeks, it is really 4 weeks and 1 day. Because those are business days. This was when I was back in Maryland.
The NRA was the group that got NICs as part of the deal. When some moron tells you that the NRA supported background checks, they didn’t. What they did was fight for a compromise of an instant background check, with the default being you get the firearm.
Some “compromises” they defeated were options where the state had 30 days to reply, but there was no penalty if they took longer. Just ask J. Kb. how the state is perfectly willing to use their incompetence as an excuse to deny you, your Second Amendment protected rights.
So, is form 4473 “Constitutional”?
The answer is yes. This is because the form is a proper implementation of the GCA of 1968.
Is the GCA of 1968, as amended, Constitutional?
Bruen did not answer that question. Bruen told the inferior courts how to properly apply the Heller methodology.
If the individual’s (proposed) conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, the state has the burden to show representative regulations from this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
If we have a hypothetical case, where a person was stopped for a routine traffic stop, and during that stop admitted to smoking a little weed and the cops find he is in possession of a firearm. According to §922(g)(3), he is a prohibited person. He is going to jail. See the Range case.
Did his conduct implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment? Yes. Gun, bear, possess, Second Amendment implicated.
If the Second Amendment is implicated, the state has the burden to prove this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation (in the 1790s) would have prohibited a person who smoked weed (or drank) from keeping or bearing arms.
Since the state cannot do so, §922(g)(3) is Unconstitutional.
Which takes us to lying to an FFL.
for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.
—Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC § 921 (U.S. 1968)
If §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional, then lying about being a drug user is not a material fact. Thus, no violation of §922(a)(6).
Which only leaves §924(a)(1)(a). This gives a penalty for making a false statement or representation. This is where I yell IANAL!!!!
My reading says that this could stand.
Regardless, the 4473 is still here. It is being challenged because §922(g) is being challenged.
Final note:
Q7: Has ATF issued a new Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, federal agencies are required to seek public comment and assess the burden associated with any changes to federal forms, through a process managed by the Office of Management and Budget. Consistent with that process, ATF has not been required to issue nor has it issued any changes to the Form 4473, since April of 2012. When the form was last changed (2012), ATF published the changes in the Federal Register and provided a 60 day comment period for the public to comment on the form, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. ATF received no public comments.
—ATF Form 4473 FAQs | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, (last visited Jun. 16, 2024)
See, the ATF is not changing the form very frequently, OOPS!
ATF Form 4473 (5300.9)
Revised August 2023
— ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Rev. Aug 2023
It seems like the ATF lies even when they have nothing to lie about.
This is “the bump stock” ban case. It has been kicking around for a while.
In October 2017, there was a mass casuality event in Las Vagas, Nevada. 58 people were killed and over 500 were wounded.
When the police breached the room they believed the shots were coming from, they found a corpse, IIRC. I don’t believe the cops shot him.
They found a number of weapons, some of which were AR15 style semi-automatic rifles. They found magazines and at least one of the rifles was equiped with a bump stock.
President Trump, looking at the make up and the will of the congress told the ATF to ban bump stocks.
One version says that Trump is a traitor to the Second Amendment for doing this. Another says that Trump was playing 5D chess and kept congress from acting.
The ATF promligated a new regulation where they redefined “machinegun” to include semi-automatic firearms equiped with bump stocks as machineguns, and demanded that all owners of bump stocks turn them in within 90 days or face charges.
Mr. Cargill turned over 2 bump stocks to the ATF, under protest, then filed suit challenging the final rule as being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
This is NOT a Second Amendment challenge. This is an Administrative Act challenge. It is a claim that the ATF did not have the authority to exerciese its power the way that they did. The ATF can not change laws nor can they make laws.
The district court found for the ATF. A merits panel of the Fifth Circuit court afrimed. The case was then heard en banc where the Fifth Circuit reversed the merits panel. Note that this was a weak finding.
The Fifth Circuit en banc found that under the rule of lenity, the plaintiff, the good guy, wins.
The rule of lenity is that when the law is ambiguous, The People win.
This means that the case was appealed to the Supreme Court which granted cert and issued their opinion today.
So what did the Supreme Court actually say?
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. He answered the question put to them. Did the ATF exceed its statutory authority? The Supreme Court said they had.
With this, the ATFs rule is gone. Does this mean that we can now own bump stocks? The answer is a strong “maybe”.
If your state has banned bump stocks, those laws are still good. This opinion only affects the ATF’s Rule. It was found that the ATF did not have the authority to redifine the meaning of “machinegun.”
Even if your state’s government waved the magic pen and banned bump stocks, those bans have to be fought in court. This case is not even good case law for a state level executive ban.
This case is even weaker as case law IF your state’s legislature passed bills that were signed into law banning bump stocks.
On the good news side, Justice Thomas does a great job of describing the trigger group of an AR-15. This makes it absolutely clear that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm. This can be used to slap down the Woods and Easterbrooks of the country that find that AR-15’s aren’t even arms protected by the Second Amendment.
This is why I like originalist Justices. Justice Alito concurered. He wrote that he was agreeing with the majority because that is what the law said. He then goes on to say that if the Congress that defined what a machinegun was knew about devices like bump stocks, they would have considered a bump stock to be a machinegun.
But he says very clearly:
There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.
—Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Jun. 14, 2024) Justice Alito, concurring.
But the biggest take away comes not from the majority opinion, but from the minority dissent.
On October 1, 2017, a shooter opened fire from a hotel room overlooking an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in what would become the deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history. Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles. These simple devices harness a rifle’s recoil energy to slide the rifle back and forth and repeatedly “bump” the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, creating rapid fire. All the shooter had to do was pull the trigger and press the gun forward. The bump stock did the rest.
—id. Justice Sotomayer, dissenting
The dissent gives us “in common use” for semiautomatic rifles and implicitly says that AR-15s are not M-16s
Meh, not that controversial. Hell, I might even agree. That does not change the fact that the quality of the movies/shows have been going downhill for quite a long time, especially after the second trilogy. This is just the most recent example of the franchise falling deep into the "crap zone".
I think you can make a compelling argument that those working "within the system" are protected more than the commoners, if only because they have friends and collogues also within the system that can assist them avoiding what the proles would have to experience. That needs to change.
Frankly, I'd support a rule/law that those found to have helped someone avoid the legal consequences of their actions should share a similar punishment as the offender.
Ass kicking woman: If it's not sci fi or fantasy where you can bend the rules, ain't no female (in general) gonna ass kick men. It just doesn't make sense. Some good writing and scenes of how she uses intelligence, or the environment to aide her? Nope. Acts just like Rambo. Sure.
But what's worse, is that there is no "journey" of the character. Rey knows how to pilot the millennium falcon? She innate knows how to do all this stuff? There is no struggle, no failure or flaw to overcome? Nope.
"So I’m the only one that thinks that the entertainment media should be about entertaining people and not preaching to them about politics or some such?"
So I'm the only one that thinks that the original idea of the media (news) was to report the facts? I don't need bias in the media I consume. Just the facts man. If I want bias, I can watch a opinion/commentary piece.
"All year, Democrats had been on a joyless and exhausting grind through the 2024 election. But now, nearly five months from the election, anxiety has morphed into palpable trepidation, according to more than a dozen party leaders and operatives. And the gap between what Democrats will say on TV or in print, and what they’ll text their friends, has only grown as worries have surged about Biden’s prospects."
Posted with no comment as I have no horse in the race.
Based upon a sample set of 2, where I used the self checkout and missed scanning something twice, the cameras, or the staff, or the folks watching the cameras, aren't doing a bang up job.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “From NY Mag: Freddie deBoer On Forcibly Treating the Mentally Ill”
And here we are. Status quo gonna status. Nothing left but the collapse of empire and the rise of a new empire. My monies on China.
On “Weekend Plans Post: GenX is, apparently, the last generation to use a top sheet”
Gotta have something when it's hot and the ceiling fan is blowing down on you and you're just a smidge cold, but turning off the fan makes you too hot. :)
On “From NY Mag: Freddie deBoer On Forcibly Treating the Mentally Ill”
More Isolationist leaning. I lean many directions in fact. Besides, you're not going to get the American people to support tax increases or cutting domestic spending. Pretty much leaves the military and "foreign adventures".
"
Hey, I'm totally cool with swapping spending on support for Ukraine, Israel, NATO, and the UN, & the elimination of all US military bases on foreign shores, and shoving that money back to this cause...minus a massive upgrade in the care we give our vets.
On “Supreme Court Strikes Down “Bump Stock Ban” 6-3”
The operative organization, regardless of who it was, isn't the point. The point was "“won’t SOMBODY think of the children” happened, and lawn darts are basically banned. They were not banned because someone did some research and made it known that thousands of kids were dying from lawn darts, they were banned as a PR move to show "we did something". A complete overreaction.
"
"One kid was killed and others injured in a few well-publicized lawn dart instances, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned those, for example. Because new information had come to light that they were more dangerous than previously thought, specifically, that they could kill kids!"
No.
Anyone with a modicum of reason understands the inherent danger of lawn darts, and knew how to play with them safely. Somebody didn't and died. The press made a federal case about it, mom's shouted "won't SOMBODY think of the children" and lawmakers seized a chance to "do something" and ban them while aiding their reelection campaigns.
That's what happened.
On “The Battle of the Big Brains”
It's sad that these are the two morons that voters have to choose from.
On “Supreme Court Strikes Down “Bump Stock Ban” 6-3”
“Indian Scouts”
I was in that. It was basically scouts with an native American theme. I assume it was done away with due to it's potentially "problematic" costumes and such.
"
Here's a video on the difference between semi auto, bump stock,, and full auto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag&ab_channel=KRGV
Summary:
AR 15 Semi auto 30 round mag: 6 Seconds to empty the mag.
Same weapon with bump stock: 4 Seconds to empty the mag.
Full Auto AR 2 Seconds to empty the mag.
"The bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm" That's a bit of an exaggeration.
"
Add'l info/commentary on topic. Same site.
Isn’t Form 4473 Unconstitutional?
Jun 16, 2024 Awa 0 Comments
In —Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Jun. 14, 2024), the Supreme Court found that the BATFE had exceeded their authority in changing the definition of “machinegun”. The ATF argued that they were just interpreting the law that congress had passed.
This is in keeping with our governmental forms. The three branches of the government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch creates laws, which must be approved by the head of the executive branch. Or the congress must override the president’s veto. The executive branch then implements those laws. The judicial branch defines what the laws actually mean.
In addition, the judicial branch is tasked with evaluating laws that are in conflict to determine which law overrides the other.
So, if the ATF can just make up laws, where did the 4473 come from?
It came from a Democrat, of course. Instead of yelling about “mass shootings” and “school shootings” the cry in the 60s was about assassinations. That is to say, three assassinations. JFK, RFK, and MLK. Because three assholes killed three men, we had our ability to acquire firearms infringed.
In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. This codified the first full on gun control in the country. The NFA attempted to establish full gun control with full registration and prohibitive taxes on all firearms, but it only did it to machineguns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, and suppressors.
The reason given was that this would force all the bad guys to buy guns in person.
The 4473 was part of the executive’s implementation of the GCA of 1968. Every question on the 4473 is supported by code, not regulation. If you read §922(g) you will see that it is translated directly into questions in from 4473.
From 1968 through 1993, the process was a buyer went to the FFL, decided what firearm they wanted to buy. Filled out the 4473 and walked out with the firearm.
There was no waiting.
If a bad guy wanted to buy a gun, he could walk in, fill out the 4473 and just lie. This meant that when he decided to use his gun in an illegal way, or was picked up as a felon in possession, they could add on lying to an FFL, lying on the 4473.
This would stop the bad guy from doing bad things.
Since evil people are going to do evil, and criminals will do criminal acts, this didn’t actually work like the gun-control infringers said it would. It didn’t stop anybody. To get a feel of just how bad this is:
On a personal note, the form fails to keep certain persons from obtaining firearms. This failure is seen in Question 11.f.
—Linda Gilbertson, The History of ATF Form 4473: Transaction Record Explained, Blog.GritrSports.com (Jul. 27, 2017)
This was a former ATF agent. He truly believes that a piece of paper stops people. This is the same sort of person that gets women killed by denying them firearms but giving them a restraining order.
One of Hagar’s friends was murdered by her estranged husband. She had a restraining order against him. This didn’t stop him from killing his wife and children. Nor did taking some of his guns from him. He had decided to commit murder. Why would violating a restraining order slow his rampage down?
I’m sure that when she held up the restraining order, it stopped the bullets he fired at her.
In the 90s, the infringers started screaming that the 4473 wasn’t stopping criminals. They demanded that background checks be done before a person took possession of their firearm.
The original goal was to add waiting periods while the background check was being done. There are states that have excessive waiting periods. I was upset when purchasing some rifles and all pistols required me to wait 21 days. Oh, even though that sounds like three weeks, it is really 4 weeks and 1 day. Because those are business days. This was when I was back in Maryland.
The NRA was the group that got NICs as part of the deal. When some moron tells you that the NRA supported background checks, they didn’t. What they did was fight for a compromise of an instant background check, with the default being you get the firearm.
Some “compromises” they defeated were options where the state had 30 days to reply, but there was no penalty if they took longer. Just ask J. Kb. how the state is perfectly willing to use their incompetence as an excuse to deny you, your Second Amendment protected rights.
So, is form 4473 “Constitutional”?
The answer is yes. This is because the form is a proper implementation of the GCA of 1968.
Is the GCA of 1968, as amended, Constitutional?
Bruen did not answer that question. Bruen told the inferior courts how to properly apply the Heller methodology.
If the individual’s (proposed) conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, the state has the burden to show representative regulations from this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
If we have a hypothetical case, where a person was stopped for a routine traffic stop, and during that stop admitted to smoking a little weed and the cops find he is in possession of a firearm. According to §922(g)(3), he is a prohibited person. He is going to jail. See the Range case.
Did his conduct implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment? Yes. Gun, bear, possess, Second Amendment implicated.
If the Second Amendment is implicated, the state has the burden to prove this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation (in the 1790s) would have prohibited a person who smoked weed (or drank) from keeping or bearing arms.
Since the state cannot do so, §922(g)(3) is Unconstitutional.
Which takes us to lying to an FFL.
for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.
—Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC § 921 (U.S. 1968)
If §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional, then lying about being a drug user is not a material fact. Thus, no violation of §922(a)(6).
Which only leaves §924(a)(1)(a). This gives a penalty for making a false statement or representation. This is where I yell IANAL!!!!
My reading says that this could stand.
Regardless, the 4473 is still here. It is being challenged because §922(g) is being challenged.
Final note:
Q7: Has ATF issued a new Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, federal agencies are required to seek public comment and assess the burden associated with any changes to federal forms, through a process managed by the Office of Management and Budget. Consistent with that process, ATF has not been required to issue nor has it issued any changes to the Form 4473, since April of 2012. When the form was last changed (2012), ATF published the changes in the Federal Register and provided a 60 day comment period for the public to comment on the form, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. ATF received no public comments.
—ATF Form 4473 FAQs | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, (last visited Jun. 16, 2024)
See, the ATF is not changing the form very frequently, OOPS!
ATF Form 4473 (5300.9)
Revised August 2023
— ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Rev. Aug 2023
It seems like the ATF lies even when they have nothing to lie about.
"
Stolen from here:
https://gunfreezone.net/
Cargill v. Garland, what does it mean?
This is “the bump stock” ban case. It has been kicking around for a while.
In October 2017, there was a mass casuality event in Las Vagas, Nevada. 58 people were killed and over 500 were wounded.
When the police breached the room they believed the shots were coming from, they found a corpse, IIRC. I don’t believe the cops shot him.
They found a number of weapons, some of which were AR15 style semi-automatic rifles. They found magazines and at least one of the rifles was equiped with a bump stock.
President Trump, looking at the make up and the will of the congress told the ATF to ban bump stocks.
One version says that Trump is a traitor to the Second Amendment for doing this. Another says that Trump was playing 5D chess and kept congress from acting.
The ATF promligated a new regulation where they redefined “machinegun” to include semi-automatic firearms equiped with bump stocks as machineguns, and demanded that all owners of bump stocks turn them in within 90 days or face charges.
Mr. Cargill turned over 2 bump stocks to the ATF, under protest, then filed suit challenging the final rule as being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
This is NOT a Second Amendment challenge. This is an Administrative Act challenge. It is a claim that the ATF did not have the authority to exerciese its power the way that they did. The ATF can not change laws nor can they make laws.
The district court found for the ATF. A merits panel of the Fifth Circuit court afrimed. The case was then heard en banc where the Fifth Circuit reversed the merits panel. Note that this was a weak finding.
The Fifth Circuit en banc found that under the rule of lenity, the plaintiff, the good guy, wins.
The rule of lenity is that when the law is ambiguous, The People win.
This means that the case was appealed to the Supreme Court which granted cert and issued their opinion today.
So what did the Supreme Court actually say?
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. He answered the question put to them. Did the ATF exceed its statutory authority? The Supreme Court said they had.
With this, the ATFs rule is gone. Does this mean that we can now own bump stocks? The answer is a strong “maybe”.
If your state has banned bump stocks, those laws are still good. This opinion only affects the ATF’s Rule. It was found that the ATF did not have the authority to redifine the meaning of “machinegun.”
Even if your state’s government waved the magic pen and banned bump stocks, those bans have to be fought in court. This case is not even good case law for a state level executive ban.
This case is even weaker as case law IF your state’s legislature passed bills that were signed into law banning bump stocks.
On the good news side, Justice Thomas does a great job of describing the trigger group of an AR-15. This makes it absolutely clear that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm. This can be used to slap down the Woods and Easterbrooks of the country that find that AR-15’s aren’t even arms protected by the Second Amendment.
This is why I like originalist Justices. Justice Alito concurered. He wrote that he was agreeing with the majority because that is what the law said. He then goes on to say that if the Congress that defined what a machinegun was knew about devices like bump stocks, they would have considered a bump stock to be a machinegun.
But he says very clearly:
There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.
—Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Jun. 14, 2024) Justice Alito, concurring.
But the biggest take away comes not from the majority opinion, but from the minority dissent.
On October 1, 2017, a shooter opened fire from a hotel room overlooking an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in what would become the deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history. Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles. These simple devices harness a rifle’s recoil energy to slide the rifle back and forth and repeatedly “bump” the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, creating rapid fire. All the shooter had to do was pull the trigger and press the gun forward. The bump stock did the rest.
—id. Justice Sotomayer, dissenting
The dissent gives us “in common use” for semiautomatic rifles and implicitly says that AR-15s are not M-16s
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/10/2024”
“it’s all just fluff” but there is a difference between good fluff and poor fluff and absolutely terrible fluff.
Bingo. A while back I was watching this...nodding my head in agreement. I can't disagree with any of it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ92cggLMx8&ab_channel=TheCriticalDrinker
"
I enjoyed your trolling :)
"
Meh, not that controversial. Hell, I might even agree. That does not change the fact that the quality of the movies/shows have been going downhill for quite a long time, especially after the second trilogy. This is just the most recent example of the franchise falling deep into the "crap zone".
"
The Acolyte Episode 3 - I'm Done And So Is Star Wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofjGi6LOVc&ab_channel=TheCriticalDrinker
God that was a brutal review.....I was done on the second trilogy, but it only looks to be getting worse.
"
I think you can make a compelling argument that those working "within the system" are protected more than the commoners, if only because they have friends and collogues also within the system that can assist them avoiding what the proles would have to experience. That needs to change.
Frankly, I'd support a rule/law that those found to have helped someone avoid the legal consequences of their actions should share a similar punishment as the offender.
"
I'm sure Uri thought management would realize their error, fire all the "idiots" and keep him.
"
Remember....EVERYONE signed a piece of paper saying it smacked of a Russian disinfo campaign.
On “Safe Nerdy and the Early Adopter Problem”
Ass kicking woman: If it's not sci fi or fantasy where you can bend the rules, ain't no female (in general) gonna ass kick men. It just doesn't make sense. Some good writing and scenes of how she uses intelligence, or the environment to aide her? Nope. Acts just like Rambo. Sure.
But what's worse, is that there is no "journey" of the character. Rey knows how to pilot the millennium falcon? She innate knows how to do all this stuff? There is no struggle, no failure or flaw to overcome? Nope.
"
Okies....let me change some words....
"So I’m the only one that thinks that the entertainment media should be about entertaining people and not preaching to them about politics or some such?"
"
So I'm the only one that thinks that the original idea of the media (news) was to report the facts? I don't need bias in the media I consume. Just the facts man. If I want bias, I can watch a opinion/commentary piece.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/3/2024”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
"Louisiana lawmakers"
I wasn't aware congress was in Louisiana.
On “Open Mic for the week of 5/27/2024”
Yes, SOP for most reporting. Can disclose your sources or they dry up. :) Assuming their ARE sources.
"
"Dems in full-blown ‘freakout’ over Biden"
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/democrats-freakout-over-biden-00160047
"All year, Democrats had been on a joyless and exhausting grind through the 2024 election. But now, nearly five months from the election, anxiety has morphed into palpable trepidation, according to more than a dozen party leaders and operatives. And the gap between what Democrats will say on TV or in print, and what they’ll text their friends, has only grown as worries have surged about Biden’s prospects."
Posted with no comment as I have no horse in the race.
On “When Government Makes Your Customer Service Job Worse”
Based upon a sample set of 2, where I used the self checkout and missed scanning something twice, the cameras, or the staff, or the folks watching the cameras, aren't doing a bang up job.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.