- Thread Starter
- #61
Either has mine. I never walk out of a store without at least 1 box of ammoMy ammo purchasing never stops.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Either has mine. I never walk out of a store without at least 1 box of ammoMy ammo purchasing never stops.
Agree. It's pages and pages of horse sh!t. One example is they say it meets historical tradition. No one anywhere has yet provided any evidence of similar restrictions present in 1791, the time of drafting the second amendment.HTH does the human mind become so distorted and twisted like that?
It's well established that any ammendment right that is infringed, in and of itself, constitues and satisfies the "harm" aspect when suit is brought. IOW, there is no burden to prove tangible damages/harm.Agree. It's pages and pages of horse sh!t. One example is they say it meets historical tradition. No one anywhere has yet provided any evidence of similar restrictions present in 1791, the time of drafting the second amendment.
I hope the OFF lawyers don't screw this up. They need to be thorough and stay focused on the legal arguments needed and not drift. I didn't read that much of it but this one argument that Oregon makes, which is completely false, should be enough to prove "it will succeed on its merits" (which is only one of the criteria needed for an injunction. We've seen case after case almost exactly the same "it meets historical tradition" and then there is zero evidence of that.
So Imo this case is won, unless either OFF screws or up OR it fails one of the other criteria for an injunction such as "harm", but based on the likely to succeed on its merit, that one criteria is a slam dunk. Don't know about the other criteria as I haven't read it all.
Yea that whole "people legally purchasing guns will risk public safety" is explicitly stated in the AG toilet-wipe filing. That is some fundamentally screwed up thinking there. He is explicitly saying that people buying more guns (a second amendment right) risks public safety. This shows that the fundamental thinking of all anti-gunners is reducing the # of guns. That is their real goal, eventually getting rid of all guns.Mag bans and permits do not infringe.
This cannot be delayed, or the citizens of Oregon will continue purchase guns.
Oregon AG
...and she said the fine print out loud... the intention of 114 was to stop all gun sales in OR... under the guise of a purchase permit they never provided a means for and had no intention of it being put in place.Yea that whole "people legally purchasing guns will risk public safety" is explicitly stated in the AG toilet-wipe filing. That is some fundamentally screwed up thinking there. He is explicitly saying that people buying more guns (a second amendment right) risks public safety. This shows that the fundamental thinking of all anti-gunners is reducing the # of guns. That is their real goal, eventually getting rid of all guns.
They even threw in the hyperbole of "preventing a massacre in Oregon".Yea that whole "people legally purchasing guns will risk public safety" is explicitly stated in the AG toilet-wipe filing. That is some fundamentally screwed up thinking there. He is explicitly saying that people buying more guns (a second amendment right) risks public safety. This shows that the fundamental thinking of all anti-gunners is reducing the # of guns. That is their real goal, eventually getting rid of all guns.