Several Wins for Pro-2nd Amendment Campaigners! - Open Carry, 3D Printed, ect. - Polidicks

https://www.wthr.com/article/texas-company-cleared-put-3d-printed-gun-designs-online-2 Ninth Circuit Three Judge Panel Upholds Second Amendment Right t.. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180720/federal-appellate-court-upholds-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-surrender-requirement It's been a fantastic last two weeks for gun rights, and several other cases are still up on the podium at the moment. The latest one that I'm aware of is relating to the Massachusets AWB, and it's possible it could state that AWBs are unconstitutional. Giving a brief summary thus far: The 9th Circuit has basically made it so Open Carry is legal across the board, state governments cannot force the surrender of high capacity magazines, and DEFCAD will be coming back online on Aug. 1st. All around, it was a good week or two.

Fuck YES.

Good stuff. Still waiting on the HPA though.

Last summer, we reported on the welcome news that a federal court had blocked California’s plan to require owners of “large capacity” magazines to surrender or otherwise rid themselves of their formerly-lawful property. As the judge in that case had put it: “On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.” That was a bridge too far, he decided, and blocked enforcement of the law’s dispossession requirement. California appealed that ruling, and now over a year later a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling. The case, Duncan v. Becerra, is supported by both the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. "Congrats, you're now a criminal basically". That's fucked up, and I'm glad this was blocked.

Probably the only good thing coming out of this administration.

I dont believe I saw trump doing anything about gun rights though? can someone correct me if I am wrong?

Isn't grandfathering such a big thing in US law precisely to avoid situations like that?

He did say we should take people's guns without due process or anything like it. That's presently an official administrative position. Though, of course, being Trump literally anything and everything he says is subject to change in a heartbeat -- and at that time any position other than the one he has then was one he never had and would never support and the fake news media misquoted him on.

Yes, but from what it sounded like, it was going to override grandfathering considering the "have fun with your new life of crime if you don't give them up" quote in there.

NFA next thanks

Sad, more people are going to die unnecessarily now. I guess that's what America wants though.

Any more information on this?

Trump put out a letter just before/when he took office on gun rights initiatives he planned on pursuing, but thus far has done jack shit with it. He's been about as neutral as Obama was in his first few years of office.

Sad, more people from the EU butting in on something they know nothing about.

Please show me where Obama said anything that came close to this. How is this 'neutral'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2ahKYcMxDM

I'm not gonna stop voting progun until America looks like Doom Eternal actually even then no since I'll still need my shoggun to blat cacodemons in glorious self defense

Cute. In hindsight, you're right. I don't know enough about the statistics to say anything about open carry laws. The only thing we know for a fact is that concealed carry is correlated with increases in homicide and violent crime rates. I'm not sure if that carries over to open carry as well. Though obviously gun rights advocates don't read studies, as has been proven on Facepunch in the last two million times gun rights have come up.

You're probably gonna get more suicides and more people accidentally getting shot as a result of this.

gave u a dimond, who laughin now

Obama supported sweeping AWB legislation that ultimately failed, thankfully, issued EO's to prepare FFL's for universal background checks, but also passed laws allowing CHL holders to carry in National Parks. All in all he was pretty neutral. Trump released a letter stating his pro-gun initiatives, rescinded certain background check rules, and talked out of his ass several times but has done nothing to actually hinder 2A rights. Trump has effectively done nothing to actually revoke or rescind rights in regards to firearms, he's just talked loosely about it in his typical erratic fashion. Neither of these presidents have actually signed anything into law that hinders or hindered gun rights. They're both a solid neutral.

Because nobody can comment on the situation of violent gun crime in the place with the most access to firearms without living there. That's an awfully close-minded belief right there and essentially boils down to "don't criticize me because I don't have a defense!"

How? Why don't any of you guys who say shit like this in every single thread actually elaborate?

I'm fine with other people outside the US giving advice on gun control, but I don't like it when people walk in all snarky and go "oh, just use our solution! it worked for us, it'll work for you. everyone who disagrees with me supports murder" That's always how these debates start, and it just runs in circles until a new thread starts, where the cycle repeats.

How do you know his pro-gun intiatives are not him 'talking out his ass'?

Correlation is not causation. I'm still going with my earlier assessment that you don't know shit about dicks. If you'd actually read any previous study that's been cited over and over and over and over, you wouldn't be tooting the same broken horn you always do. Your second article isn't even related to concealed carry permits lol.

It's not like he'll even listen/care anyway. Time and time again, people like him just leave when proven wrong just to start shit in these threads when a new one pops up.

It's my staunch belief that handguns in urban areas need to be tightly regulated and restricted to law enforcement, on and off duty. Most violent crime with firearms starts with handguns in urban areas due to the simple amount of saturation of handguns. Right now, if I wanted to, I could essentially go to some kind of drug dealer and ask for a handgun in LA and they would probably call me back within an hour with one for as low as 100$. Despite all that; I do understand where you are coming from. In my mind, it should be a states rights issue. Highly populaced states like those on the coasts should be able to hold different laws banning specific weapons or types of weapons, since their density helps contribute to gun crime.

fucking what We have been referencing research and statistics and studies thread after thread after thread. I got so sick of constantly providing citations from research papers, studies, and databases in FP gun debate threads that I literally compiled all of them into a 1500+ page compendium of cold hard facts so that people like you would have no excuse for your ignorance. Please don't ever say something that arrogant and facetious ever again. Firearm Proliferation Resource Compendium

Boy that sure is a fucking outright lie, isnt it?

In the past it was, but many states such as California or new york bastardized it with some registration bullshit. Recently California tried to outright ban "high capacity" magazines that were already grandfathered under their previous mag restriction bill, thus turning all those in possession by July 1st into criminals.