When the firearm industry eats its own.

[coltemp]

I applaud anyone who votes with their wallet regardless if I agree with you or not. Sometimes that is all we can do, but keep in mind some of the companies do the same. The juice may not be worth the squeeze for some of them especially when you have a state AG suing everyone for everything chasing his anti-gun agenda.

I agree but that is when they need to band together and file a class action against him. And really against him personally would be even better.
It's time to hold the cretins to accountability and not just allow them to defend on the public dime.

Would love to see the more conservative state AG's return the favor and hammer all the anti-gun orgs out there with the same lawsuits and civil rights violations. Open investigations into their purse strings. I'm sure there is plenty of shady practices and funding going on there.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

I agree but that is when they need to band together and file a class action against him. And really against him personally would be even better.
It's time to hold the cretins to accountability and not just allow them to defend on the public dime.

With only a few exceptions, the legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity" does not allow for government officials to be sued individually.

 

[bikemutt]

Did you point out that gun owners by a HUGE margin sat on their hands and did nothing to prevent this mess?

What evidence, or citations for your claim?

 

[arakboss]

Did you point out that gun owners by a HUGE margin sat on their hands and did nothing to prevent this mess? Did you offer to pony up the cash to hire lawyers for these companies that don't want to take a risk with the WA AG, who many gun owners kept in office? Or just throw the Co under the bus?

Probably because some gun owners wanted it or were ambivalent towards the mess. Gun owners cover a pretty wide gambit of the population. I suspect many of them have no problem with varying amounts of gun restrictions.

 

[Alexx1401]

Probably because some gun owners wanted it or were ambivalent towards the mess. Gun owners covers a pretty wide gambit of the population. I suspect many of them have no problem with varying amounts of gun restrictions.

A LOT of not just gun owners but people who want freedom just choose to pay no attention. Until something steps on them, then they get mad. A lot of gun owners when they hear of some new law or proposal are fine as long as they do not own what is being gone after. Of course anyone with a brain knows where this ends up. Sooner or later they come after some gun these people do own.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Probably because some gun owners wanted it or were ambivalent towards the mess. Gun owners cover a pretty wide gambit of the population. I suspect many of them have no problem with varying amounts of gun restrictions.

This is something I think we (including me) often forget. We assume that gun owners are all of a single political mindset, when in fact plenty of people who lean left to various degrees - or who are just political moderates - also own guns. And yeah, many of those people don't take issue with what they believe are "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership and use.

 

[arakboss]

This is something I think we (including me) often forget. We assume that gun owners are all of a single political mindset, when in fact plenty of people who lean left to various degrees - or who are just political moderates - also own guns. And yeah, many of those people don't take issue with what they believe are "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership and use.

Yep, and that makes it difficult for me to understand them since the 2A doesn't provide for any infringement. If I shared my stance with many gun owners they would think that I'm a nut.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Yep, and that makes it difficult for me to understand them since the 2A doesn't provide for any infringement. If I shared my stance with many gun owners they would think that I'm a nut.

Oh, I understand their perspective perfectly.

They agree with essentially what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the mostly conservative majority (Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy) said in Heller:

"[As with all other rights], the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms...The Second Amendment right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I.e., the Heller decision - from a textualist viewpoint of jurisprudence - does not accept the notion that the 2A can't be infringed.

For his majority opinion, Scalia caught flak from both the left and right. Scalia caught flak from the political left because his opinion confirmed that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to firearms ownership. (That was a new and groundbreaking change of precedent at the time.) He caught flak from the political right because his opinion simultaneously got rid of any notion that the Second Amendment prohibits any kind of gun control.

It's upon that latter basis that some people accept restrictions on gun ownership as being both entirely legal and Constitutional.

I personally don't agree with most of that interpretation, but I don't find it at all difficult to understand why others do agree with it. They are essentially just agreeing with and reiterating what the Supreme Court has already determined.

(Incidentally, this is also why we often lose arguments on this issue. We often argue, "The 2A says it clearly: shall not be infringed!" Problem is, even conservatives in the American judiciary don't accept that absolutist point of view. And they never have in America's 200+ years of existence. It's difficult for us to convince gun control advocates of that point of view when even the most conservative jurists don't buy it.)

 

[PiratePast40]

Probably because some gun owners wanted it or were ambivalent towards the mess. Gun owners cover a pretty wide gambit of the population. I suspect many of them have no problem with varying amounts of gun restrictions.

Can't tell you how many times I heard gun owners say they weren't opposed to required training for people buying guns. Several instructors were actually talking about how 114 was creating business opportunities for them.

 

[Alexx1401]

Can't tell you how many times I heard gun owners say they weren't opposed to required training for people buying guns. Several instructors were actually talking about how 114 was creating business opportunities for them.

When one large store decided to stop selling long guns to people old enough to join the Military I saw some here support it. When I said this leads to them coming for your AR they of course got mad. Amazing how some who own an AR can really believe that if they support changing the law to make an age cut off to buy one will not just lead to them later saying no AR's for anyone. The old thing of as long as they don't want to take what I have, all is fine. Problem is we know where this ends up.

 

[arakboss]

Oh, I understand their perspective perfectly.

They agree with essentially what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the mostly conservative majority (Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy) said in Heller:

"[As with all other rights], the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms...The Second Amendment right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I.e., the Heller decision - from a textualist viewpoint of jurisprudence - does not accept the notion that the 2A can't be infringed.

For his majority opinion, Scalia caught flak from both the left and right. Scalia caught flak from the political left because his opinion confirmed that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to firearms ownership. (That was a new and groundbreaking change of precedent at the time.) He caught flak from the political right because his opinion simultaneously got rid of any notion that the Second Amendment prohibits any kind of gun control.

It's upon that latter basis that some people accept restrictions on gun ownership as being both entirely legal and Constitutional.

I personally don't agree with most of that interpretation, but I don't find it at all difficult to understand why others do agree with it. They are essentially just agreeing with and reiterating what the Supreme Court has already determined.

(Incidentally, this is also why we often lose arguments on this issue. We often argue, "The 2A says it clearly: shall not be infringed!" Problem is, even conservatives in the American judiciary don't accept that absolutist point of view. And they never have in America's 200+ years of existence. It's difficult for us to convince gun control advocates of that point of view when even the most conservative jurists don't buy it.)

We do not cast doubt on laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.......


I do!

 

[MikeInOr]

I just tried to purchase a Savage 110 precision BOLT ACTION rifle online from Grab-A-Gun. The order was rejected with a note that it couldn't be shipped to Washington State. I requested and received a call from the company.
I was told that Grab-A-Gun has suspended all orders both firearms and non-firearms to Washington State. They said although legal, the management there thought our laws were too liquid. I pointed out that was a pretty anti second amendment approach for a company that sells firearms.

Seems like the local store should be legally required to change its name to Don't-Grab-A-Gun... to fend off false advertising lawsuits?

 

[Cerberus Group]

I just tried to purchase a Savage 110 precision BOLT ACTION rifle online from Grab-A-Gun. The order was rejected with a note that it couldn't be shipped to Washington State. I requested and received a call from the company.
I was told that Grab-A-Gun has suspended all orders both firearms and non-firearms to Washington State. They said although legal, the management there thought our laws were too liquid. I pointed out that was a pretty anti second amendment approach for a company that sells firearms.

Sadly this is what happens when people live in fear of their government...

 

[Nosferatu]

Sadly this is what happens when people live in fear of their government...

And more specifically, permission from your government to conduct your business.

 

[Alexx1401]

And more specifically, permission from your government to conduct your business.

The great hoax and lockdown shocked me at just how easy that was to pull off. Still amazes me how easy they proved that was to do.

 

[PiratePast40]

I just tried to purchase a Savage 110 precision BOLT ACTION rifle online from Grab-A-Gun. The order was rejected with a note that it couldn't be shipped to Washington State. I requested and received a call from the company.
I was told that Grab-A-Gun has suspended all orders both firearms and non-firearms to Washington State. They said although legal, the management there thought our laws were too liquid. I pointed out that was a pretty anti second amendment approach for a company that sells firearms.

I hope that everyone receiving emails such as this saves them for when the lawsuits start. This is the information needed to show that damages have occurred from the unconstitutional laws. If people don't do anything except complain on internet forums, absolutely nothing will change, except for the worst.