When the Feds get done with their "administrative rulemaking" I'll be a criminal on many levels. I'm probably in some pretty good company though.

Well correct, so I guess people who are "now" law abiding citizens when it comes to gun laws might be labeled as "criminals" in the near future. I was basically referring to those criminals like ummmm drug dealers, felons, gang members....you know, the low life of our society.

Oldie but still valid.

“When they outlaw guns only outlaws will have them”

I guess that will be some of us soon enough. Me, I lost all of them when the boat capsized.

I turned all of mine back in when I retired....

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/c...n-rights-case/

The law at issue in the case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, is similar to gun-control measures in other states. To receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home, a person must show “proper cause” – meaning a special need for self-protection.

Two men challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications, and they are backed by a gun-rights advocacy group. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the law, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

However, since then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose vote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit suggests that she might take a broader approach to the Second Amendment.

I have lost all faith in the SCOTUS after the Texas challenge to the election was denied.

CD

Concur. Rule of Law, date of death 11 December 2020.

I'm seeing all the hooplah with the Supreme Court taking this up (first gun control issue in 10 years taken up by USC). I think its headlines so they can slam the gun rights activists with a decision favoring the state.
As stated above rule of law (especially versus the constitution) has died.

We live in a Clown World, Politician's are in such a hurry to stomp on our rights it's sickening. They need a permanent boot shine boy on Capital Hill...:munchin

Leaked Document Shows ATF Spying on Gun Buyers Through NICS
 

Apparently the ATF is using the NICS to monitor law abiding citizens who make firearms purchases who they feel "MIGHT" commit future crimes....It would be interesting to know what litmus test the ATF uses to determine the pre-crime intentions of a person?

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/lea...#ixzz6tPndvLxV

^^^They and the FB_I are obviously not doing a very good job. Even when they get tips, direct phone calls and completed investigations into persons of interest.

Yes, how many times have we seen the phrase "the alleged perpetrator was a subject previously known to authorities" ?

Sometimes you'd almost think thngs are allowed to happen.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!:lifter

These occurrences are far too frequent to use words like Sometimes and Almost ;)

But the new domestic spy agency USPS is a doing a bang up job stranding mail for weeks.....I just wonder what they are doing with that stranded mail?

Voter registration cards ??



Look... lets all just say the quiet part out loud.
Your life is not your own.
Embrace it.
Learn to live within the system instead of pretending that you can hide from it. Throwing eggs at the orchestra conductor is not going to help you - it's only going to make your life worse. You are better off buying a tuba, joining the fucking band, and just playing off key every time you are on stage - go for the little victories - you silly angry easily enraged bunch of hucksters.

***edited to add - the left has demonstrated multi-generational expertise at doing that very thing - why does everyone think our American bureaucracy is so socially biased and ineffective***

If you live in the USA and you do ANYTHING beyond the realm of cash and barter while living alone in your log cabin deep in the wooded mountains like Jeremiah Johnson - you have already surrendered to the system - you just don't realize it.
Anyone wanna guess why they called The Preserving Life and Liberty (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, by the more cool sounding name, "The PATRIOT ACT" .
...because it was all just an act.

Pull out your wallet. Open it. Look at that funny little plastic coated ID card with your picture on it that you NEVER have any use for. It was issued to you BY THE STATE - and you have to periodically update that little plastic card to make sure that state has your updated information as well as a CURRENT picture.
If you drive the speed limits, obey the traffic laws, and don't get into any automobile accidents you will NEVER even have a reason to pull out and use that plastic card with your face and personal information on it.
...unless you are trying to buy sudafed at the Walmart pharmacy.

Consider the angle to that nuanced little bit of social control - the 22 year old check out assistant that hangs out in the self check out area at your local grocery store might ask to see your state issued identification if you don't look old as fuck when you buy a six pack pack of fermented oats or a bottle of rotten grapes, otherwise - you can expect to use that state issued racist ID card at Walmart more often that you'll use it for driving.

Bonus points - the state even makes you PAY to posses and maintain that drivers license that you will have produce before you are allowed to buy sudafed, booze, and guns.
Merchants see that racist little plastic invasion of privacy card more than the cops EVER will.

Then of course there is the legal documentation: when the ATF updated the 4473 to reflect Manufacturer, Model Number, Serial Number, Type, and Caliber to the FRONT side of the form - they succeed in creating a national gun registry.
Americans are generally just too ill informed or simply too disinterested to care.
Until that revision, the gun info was on the back, or buried a few pages deeper in the document. All they knew was that you bought something and all they got was a copy of the front page unless there was a good reason for the entire packet.
The 4473 that you sign NOW - every time you buy a gun - IS THE NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY they always wanted - so they don't really "need" to spy on you - they already know. We've already VOLUNTEERED that information to them.
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors - and a lot of noise to keep you distracted.

...shall not be infringed and all that jazz.




All is well, remain calm.
Nothing to see here...
...move along

Well, Bork said there was no general Right to Privacy in the Constitution. Notice that while they used that against him, nobody in the Gubmint bothered to rush out and get laws passed ensuring "Privacy."

Maybe they thought that rights not enumerated remain with the people?? Or am I misquoting the Constitution.

So Flood them with more data if they want more till the servers are full over and over. Hand the ID over for every transaction by writing See ID on the back of your ATM/Credit Cards instead of your name, point it out and say you did not ask for my ID that card could be stolen.

This is what clued me in as well.

Nicely done Box you have a complete grasp on the situation.

Despite heading in the opposite direction as most every day, and generally taking in the scenery on the side streets to get to wherever, I still end up at the same destination as most. And from there I trade in the freedom of cash for the security of piece of plastic. And the entire time I am wearing a AppleWatch that tracks my health, noise levels, sleep patterns and movements which is linked to a iPhone that transmits all the data to a "Trusted and Secure" cloud somewhere.

All that convenience has become a noose which most fail to realize...


Now for Part II of the mis-use of the NICS by our "Trusted" partner the FBI.

A snippet:


https://www.ammoland.com/2021/04/pro...#ixzz6tbp7hswb

The "FBI" !
 

REMEMBER, The individual who founded the FBI, was the life-long director, and even has the FBI headquarters building named for him. Everyone should read the biography of J Edgar....That's your FBI today on steroids.

AFT changing the game?
 

FYI
Just in, ATF rule chamges: :mad:
Haven't read completely, yet

Thanks JJ. I'm trying to think of the last time that "public comments" - even the 80% of comments auto-generated by liberal outfits over the FCC's net neutrality ruling - ever actually did anything that made an alphabet agency stop & rethink its direction. I could be wrong but in my recollection they have about as much import as a "strongly worded letter" from Lindsey Graham to the FBI.

They are bound and determined to pound the 80% receiver and will get to use "we got rid of the Ghost Guns" :eek: for the next SOTU and the mid-terms.

They have also - smartly - left themselves some wiggle room 'to be defined later' regarding their kerfuckery over the AR having 2 receivers, by their own definition, since they took a beat down in a couple of cases over that issue IIRC a few years back.

Plus ca change...
:rolleyes:

The important thing is the Teriyaki'd chicken I have marinating for tomorrow's gathering. I've found that a good meal tends to increase the enzymes that make me smile & say "No" and display a rather GTFO attitude toward certain authorities. Sometimes ya gotta indulge & channel your inner misfit. Helps the digestion.

On a bit of a positive note:

Of course, the fact that the suit was even allowed to advance to this point is disturbing. I'm surprised they didn't try to get it moved to Kali-Kourt

Story here

Thanks for that. It's going into the reverb tank and we'll hear the spinoff from that case in the future, of that I'm certain.

Proposed Rule? Still lacking completely is authority to sign into law!

Much of the "rules" are only in statute by reference or covered under broad, blanket authorities granted by statute.

Those agencies with statutory authority do not have to receive permission from elected officials to institute certain rule changes and updates as long as their lawyers feel it is within the scope of the existing statute.

Therefore, there is no "sign into law" that really needs to happen. The courts may stop an activity after a suit is filed...but that is another story.

Unfortunately, I agree with your analysis

It'll end up as "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" and a comments period published in the Federal Register. I'm still waiting for an historical precedent where peasant (or even kulak) comments swayed a piece of Leviathan from their intended agenda.

I'll just play boomer, as in, "I've got mine and bought it all & stacked it before prices were stupid, you little fiddling grasshoppers."
Harrumph!
:munchin

Not much attention from the mainstream media.
Unanimous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib...h=25f942de5c1e

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-157_8mjp.pdf

Was very glad to see that & then forgot, thanks for posting it. This is going to play hell with some states' notions of "red-flag" laws and even steps on (not-really-a-Constitution-guy) Trump's notion of "take the guns first, do due-process later."

EGADS!!! The Supreme Court thinks the Constitution is absolute!! Didn't they hear the Dear Leader when he said it wasn't absolute? :D

Possibly they're just mad because someone else said it. A kind of Animal House moment.

This is where we are...

It occurs to me that there is a persuasion problem in the gun rights debate.
This is primarily a political issue, not a logical problem to be solved, and therefore it should addressed using political persuasion methods.

Key points:
-who are we trying to persuade?
-what are the most effective methods of persuasion?

This is a republic, not a democracy.
We are trying primarily to persuade office holders and candidates, not voters.

Voters also matter, but they should be viewed as force multipliers in the persuasion mission.
Changing voters attitudes on guns isn’t as important as figuring out a way to use their influence to serve the primary objective of persuading office holders and candidates (hereafter referred to as politicians).

The most effective persuasion tool is fear.
What do politicians fear?

They fear being branded with something negative that “sticks” to them.
Once that happens, their political career has just become much more difficult.

So, how do we do this?
Don’t make the issue about guns, make the issue about the particular politician in question.

This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process.
Put them in a position of being guilty until proven innocent.

Now into specifics.
This is the messaging:

***
Why is it important that a politician be pro-gun?
Because it is the only way we can truly tell if they view themself as the people’s servant, or the people’s master.

If a politician doesn’t have a problem with the people being well-armed, then that politician doesn’t have a problem with the people saying “no”.
A politician who seeks to neuter the people doesn’t want the people to be able to say “no”.

They view themself as the people’s servant or the people’s master.
Choose.
***

Notice how this avoids getting into the weeds about magazine capacities, operative clauses of the Second Amendment, etc.
It bifurcates and brands with simple messaging.

It leaves absolutely no room for “reasonable” gun control.
(“Reasonable” gun control is just the persuasion technique known as “thinking past the sale”…gun control is assumed).

Also, there’s no limit to how “pro-gun” is enough.
A politician would have to be more pro-gun than the next politician to prove relative “people’s servant” credentials…it has a ratcheting effect.

It also feeds into the natural disdain most voters already feel for politicians.
Winning the title of “people’s servant” is difficult, whereas branding a politician as “people’s master” is easy.

The voters don’t even have to have a dog in the fight of the gun debate.
They’re pressed into service because everyone cares whether a politician seeks to be a servant or master.

Well, that’s my pitch.
Don’t talk about guns, brand the office holders and candidates as wanting to be the “people’s servant ” or the “people’s master”.

Very well done.

Politicians having concern over an armed citizenry is the proper state of a republic. The concern over the people saying 'no' is a good context in which to frame that. The only reason for disarmament is because they're willing to do something to you that you'd shoot them for.

That, good sir, is THE absolute BEST argument I have ever seen with regard to “gun control” and how to effect the battlefield of ideas.

BRAVO!

The one thing to navigate is the issue that 80 million votes were counted on behalf of a nation that is CLAMORING for a peoples master.

Nobody got upset when dear leader declared that the constitution was not absolute.
Nobody got upset when he said get a shot or wear a mask until you do.
Nobody got upset when he said MAYBE you'd be "allowed" to celebrate Independence day with your friends and family.
Nobody has shown any real concern that St Fauci betrayed the health and welfare of the entire world to the PRC for personal riches and power.
Nobody batted an eye when candidate biden angrily told a laborer "I don't work for you"

A servant to the people by definition means that the people are the ones doing the real work of building our nation while the government "serves". Sadly, every day there seems to be more proof that at least 51% of Americans are LOOKING for a benevolent dictator to lead our nation.


But don't mind me - I'm just a hopeless romantic and a shameless incurable cynic.

Originally posted by Grateful CitizenFinest Kind :lifter

An excellent post and analogy for a defense of the Second Amendment sir.
There is one hick -up in your post that creates a problem:

It is my belief that the average American citizen who are enamored with themselves and get all of their news from MSN, can't keep their nose out of fakebook, or the ever perusing of twatter, believe that this country is a democracy. They just don't understand that Republic part of things.

Just my opinion of course.

Good news story for the day.

Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

https://apple.news/Ays6D6gs8QI2U-VH3zvydyw

"Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned," the judge wrote.