JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Keep notes fellers and felletts, those Judges need to be Recalled, time to start that process!

You cannot allow bent justices appointed by a governor and not elected by the people, as required!
 
The news from Hawaii is sounding pretty good. Don't have details yet but it sounds like the permit to purchase and subsequent inspection rule was declared unconstitutional by a ninth circuit judge.

The only thing I have is this video from Langley Outdoors and haven't watched the the whole thing yet. Possibly HUGE ramifications for Oregon and California. Might even be worth it's own thread.
 
Here's a link to the 9th circuit decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/14/21-16756.pdf

I'll let the legal people tell us what it means. As far as permits, I think it says that permits are valid since they require a background check but that Hawaii's time limits were invalid. BUT, like I said, we may want to wait for the legal scholars to chime in before drawing concrete conclusions.
 
The news from Hawaii is sounding pretty good. Don't have details yet but it sounds like the permit to purchase and subsequent inspection rule was declared unconstitutional by a ninth circuit judge.

The only thing I have is this video from Langley Outdoors and haven't watched the the whole thing yet. Possibly HUGE ramifications for Oregon and California. Might even be worth it's own thread.
My first pass through it looks like it was super narrow focused toward JUST the Hawaii issue, but it could have an impact on Oregon, i'm just not that smart to see it yet! Hoping Mark Smith does a video on it, I trust his word far more than all the others out there!
 
This Shooting News Weekly article sums it up in a pretty straightforward manner:


"If you're not familiar with Hawaii's ludicrously restrictive gun laws — and there's no reason you should be — once a permit to purchase is issued, the individual then must buy the firearm within a certain time period. The law originally limited the period to 10 days (for handguns…long gun purchase permits are good for a year). Once the challenge was filed and began to progress, Hawaii extended the time period to 30 days, no doubt hoping that would be enough to moot the case.
There's a second aspect of the law. Once the firearm is purchased, it then needs to be registered. That's done by physically bringing the gun into your local police department for a "safety inspection" and registration. But the law gives citizens only five days to get that done.

Both requirements — the period allowed to buy the gun and the even shorter period to get it registered — were what was being challenged in Yakutake. Today, in a two-to-one ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld a lower court that ruled both needlessly short time limits violate the Second Amendment."
 
Interesting.... so the Circuit Court came to this understanding, but the Appeals Court is effectively saying...

1: It might impact some but not all, so there's no problem.

Whatever happened to "in common use" or even "commonly used for self defense" ???
Boy do they love to shift the goal posts around. Effectively, they've just made it their own game, their own rules, and they win no matter what.
 
This Shooting News Weekly article sums it up in a pretty straightforward manner:


"If you're not familiar with Hawaii's ludicrously restrictive gun laws — and there's no reason you should be — once a permit to purchase is issued, the individual then must buy the firearm within a certain time period. The law originally limited the period to 10 days (for handguns…long gun purchase permits are good for a year). Once the challenge was filed and began to progress, Hawaii extended the time period to 30 days, no doubt hoping that would be enough to moot the case.
There's a second aspect of the law. Once the firearm is purchased, it then needs to be registered. That's done by physically bringing the gun into your local police department for a "safety inspection" and registration. But the law gives citizens only five days to get that done.

Both requirements — the period allowed to buy the gun and the even shorter period to get it registered — were what was being challenged in Yakutake. Today, in a two-to-one ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld a lower court that ruled both needlessly short time limits violate the Second Amendment."
Thanks. Was also reading that they did not take up the issue of the permit to purchase constitutionality. I believe all we can expect from Bruen is the Gorsuch opinion that permits to carry outside the home are constitutional since Bruen never did address permit to purchase as a separate concept.
 
Whatd be nice is for the US AG to start charging State AGs, Governors and officials under 18 USC Sections 241 and 242, (conspiracy to deprive citizens of civil rights, and conspiracy to deprive civil rights under color of law) and remove them from power; " qualified/total immunity" be cursed.
I think this would be our only shot. Oregon is the most failed representation of "democracy" with Washington being a very close contender. Mob mentality being used by one half of the state to strip rights from and oppress the other half.
Qualified immunity might prevent them getting charged or landing in prison....I'd at least like to see them lose their power.
 
Just make sure you don't shoot those rocks TOO fast.

IMG_6230.jpeg
 

Upcoming Events

New Classified Ads

Back Top