Messages
95
Reactions
146
So? The ATF didn't regulate stun guns, but the State of Massachusetts did. And SCOTUS says in Caetano that stun guns are arms and in common use therefore Massachusetts cannot prohibit them. In the same vein, States could in theory try to prohibit things like knives and bladed weapons of certain lengths and styles, but 2A says they're arms :rolleyes: if the ATF have admitted that AR15s are common use, then they may have opened themselves to a suit that could set a precedence that common use /common configured firearms cannot be blanket-banned (as California and others did); but could still leave them to be regulated similarly to NFA firearms.
I don't think this court is inclined to allow anything to be added to the NFA, certainly not anything in common use. Their nysrpa v bruen ruling is counter to both the NFA and the GCA. I don't have high hopes of either being repealed by the courts, but at the same time I lean towards this court saying no further encroachment under either.
 
Messages
2,127
Reactions
4,403
The problem with Mirriam Websters is they are infiltrated with the woke and they'll rewrite their dictionary to make any definition meet the definition the woke want it to mean.

Merriam-Webster Changed The Definitions Of The Words "Female" And "Girl"

They did this when justice Jackson was in hearings, to mess with the definition of a woman. They were caught doing it many times when various topics came up in the news. I have zero doubt that a message from Bloomburg or Giffords would get them to rewrite the definition of arms any way they request.
This is why the Bruen Decision locked in a time period for using the historical record. Anti-gunners are fond of using "modern" definitions to change the meanings of words.
 
Messages
10,459
Reactions
21,250
The problem with Mirriam Websters is they are infiltrated with the woke and they'll rewrite their dictionary to make any definition meet the definition the woke want it to mean.

Merriam-Webster Changed The Definitions Of The Words "Female" And "Girl"

They did this when justice Jackson was in hearings, to mess with the definition of a woman. They were caught doing it many times when various topics came up in the news. I have zero doubt that a message from Bloomburg or Giffords would get them to rewrite the definition of arms any way they request.
Which is why I used the 1800s definition, as Bruen used (text, history, tradition)
I don't think this court is inclined to allow anything to be added to the NFA, certainly not anything in common use. Their nysrpa v bruen ruling is counter to both the NFA and the GCA. I don't have high hopes of either being repealed by the courts, but at the same time I lean towards this court saying no further encroachment under either.
More likely they'll slap the ATF for "legislating without authority " and then tell the ATF that only Congress gets to expand or add or repeal US laws as is their duty.. thus putting the ball into Congress' court to put forth bills to amend, repeal, expand, or make laws relating to NFA/GCA/FOPA.
 
Messages
11,618
Reactions
26,485
Worth noting, if NFA goes down the jackboots in Martinsburg will just declare all Title II's "non-sporting and prohibited" under the Sporter Clause of GCA68. This was what they were really trying to do with Hughes Amendment that closed the MG registry, except that somehow they got forced to back off.
 
Messages
18,708
Reactions
39,333
Yeah, I googled that and read some. Those royals are really nuts when it comes to talking about knives being violent and dangerous. Not the people mind you. The weapons themselves are dangerous.
 
Messages
8,807
Reactions
14,757
Yeah, I googled that and read some. Those royals are really nuts when it comes to talking about knives being violent and dangerous. Not the people mind you. The weapons themselves are dangerous.
The royals lose their heads over swords. Or under swords.
 
Messages
156
Reactions
266
Yeah, I googled that and read some. Those royals are really nuts when it comes to talking about knives being violent and dangerous. Not the people mind you. The weapons themselves are dangerous.
The scary thing is that many Europeans, in all countries, have been schooled into saying things like, "I understand carrying a knife when camping, but why every day? I don't understand this."

American friend of mine (woman who EDC's a blade) just went off to Europe to join her Euro-husband. They'll live in a country where you ... cannot carry a knife. So if ya gotta cut that seatbelt off someone, you outta luck unless you got choppers like a wolf. In that case might be able to manage it ....
 
Messages
18,708
Reactions
39,333
The scary thing is that many Europeans, in all countries, have been schooled into saying things like, "I understand carrying a knife when camping, but why every day? I don't understand this."

American friend of mine (woman who EDC's a blade) just went off to Europe to join her Euro-husband. They'll live in a country where you ... cannot carry a knife. So if ya gotta cut that seatbelt off someone, you outta luck unless you got choppers like a wolf. In that case might be able to manage it ....
I'd feel naked without my 4" Old Timer folder on my side. WTH are people supposed to do without that simple tool with them? Amazing how many times a week I'll need that "Tool". I only carry my firearm when in the out doors or on long road trips because I'm more confident in a quick draw of that knife in city situations. Less chance to get screwed by garbage elected elites in a crap hole like potland too.
 
Messages
180
Reactions
251
All the commie terms are carefully crafted to mislead ....
  • assault rifle
  • high-capacity magazine
  • gun violence
  • cis gender (err, whut??)
Ya get the pitcher, rite? Don't use their brainwashing terms/tools ...
I agree !!!! i freaking cringe when people use their propaganda terminology and give in to it. Say it enough times and it becomes true is their tactic. Lie enough times till everyone just beleives the lie. Communism dictatorship 101 !!!!!
 
Messages
7,688
Reactions
12,883
Good discussion here about the arguments that Federal anti-gun judge immergut (OR M114) is trying to use (>10 round mags are not protected because they are rarely used in self defense). Immergut says that while >10round mags are in common use, that many rounds is rarely used for self defense. Another issue is that 2A protects all arms in common use for all purposes (which the video talks about in other places), but I'm just trying to focus on Immergut's "rarely used" bs anti-gun argument in this post.

This BS that immergut is spewing that self defense shootings are rare so common use doesn't apply is BULL.

Skip to the 12:45 mark for short and excellent discussion. The rest may be worth watching if you are into the detail (imo).

 
Last Edited:
Messages
10,459
Reactions
21,250
You know.. Caetano was not even a SCOTUS Constitutional Declaration. It was vacated and remanded by the SCOTUS and Massachusetts dropped all charges, thereby ending the case right there. Ramirez was a case after Caetano that ended with the State of Massachusetts' Prohibition of possession of stun guns being overturned.. using the opinion of Honorable Alito with Honorable Thomas concurring, from Caetano, that stun guns were commonly possessed for lawful purposes and not "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons.

Because it's only the Opinion of SCOTUS Justices, it isn't enough to be used against other cases relating to the NFA regarding Heller's "Common use test" (are specific classes of arms commonly owned for lawful purposes?)

Honestly though, there is a route where it can be set up to reference Caetano and Heller/McDonald/Heller 2 as well as Bruen to overturn the majority of NFA categories except for Destructive Devices and Any Other Weapon.... because in the Caetano Opinion; Honorable Alito stated that 200,000 of a type of arms is enough to be considered in common use and commonly possessed for lawful purposes.


Depending on how the lawsuits in Texas goes, it is quite possible for the District Court to rule that firearms with stabilizing braces are in fact handguns/pistols and as Heller stated; pistols/handguns cannot be banned or put into the NFA without Congress amending NFA to redefine certain things to classify such arms.... it is also possible for the District Court to decide partly in favor of the DOJ; but to recommend overturning/nullifying the SBR portion of the NFA following both Heller and Caetano Opinion; pointing out that by DOJ's own words, there are over 530,000-641,000 registered SBRs and potentially 3-7 million "unregistered SBRs" and citing the Caetano Opinion along with Heller; are "commonly possessed for lawful purposes" and cannot be "Dangerous and Unusual Weapons".
 
Messages
504
Reactions
886
The problem with "common use" that I see is that anything new could be banned.

The AR15 might have been banned in the mid 1960's, using "not in common use" and maybe "unusual and dangerous," too.

Bruce
 
Messages
10,459
Reactions
21,250
The problem with "common use" that I see is that anything new could be banned.

The AR15 might have been banned in the mid 1960's, using "not in common use" and maybe "unusual and dangerous," too.

Bruce
They couldn't at the time because at the time the AR15 was simply this strange plastic and black semiautomatic (of which, there's the M1 Garand, M1 carbine, quite a few other semiautomatic rifles existing before the AR15) and it was not quite as loathed by the anti-gunners as handguns were... remember Brady Group for Gun Control was originally "Handgun Control Inc"?
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
ONRI Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top