SpudmanWP

@hodge_bc @EricLDaugh Those buses are too long

@EricLDaugh Bring the in the buses

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Violent leftists are actively trying to RIP DOWN the security fence around the Los Angeles federal building to terrorize agents And of course, there's the Palestine flag. ARREST THEM, NOW! Don't let these traitors get away with it!

@EricLDaugh fat tards

@EricLDaugh Imagine how much healthcare, homeless, etc that could have paid for. What a waste of money.

🚨 JUST IN: In a spur of the moment decision, No Kings protestors formed a HUGE "TRUMP MUST GO NOW!" message in San Francisco DEFINITELY no communist, leftist funders behind this one! 🤡 This ought to FINALLY get Trump to leave office 🤣

Hey @X @elonmusk Why did you lock X Pro behind a FORTY DOLLAR PAYWALL???? That is insane It was free under Twitter (TweetDecK) and I even paid $8 to get with Premium, but $40 is INSANE. Was putting ads on Premium not enough $$$ for you that you had to take away the one tool that makes sense of X use when we're trying to track multiple sources?

@HLC_actual lol, 1st couple hit empty bunkers... then JACKPOT

Yeah not gonna lie I haven’t seen this level of precise destruction even in Ukraine

@MorosKostas I don't see how this is any different than a poll tax and just as unconstitutional.

Pittman-Robertson is unconstitutional. Maybe I could stomach it before, given the money goes to the great cause of conservation. But now that it is being cited to justify new state-level 11% taxes that have made firearms even more unaffordable in California than they already were, I think its time has come. (And the funds raised with those state taxes do NOT go to a good cause. It's a gun control slush fund.)

Where did they get "presumptively lawful" in relation to Footnote 9? I read it again and it says no such thing. All it means is that the licensing regimes themselves were not part of the case so SCOTUS was not ruling on them as a whole. The 9th Circuit kept treating it like it was a final ruling. The last part of the footnote makes it clear that you can still make facial claims vs these schemes. "That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."

@HowardMSklar It started worse. It was a ten day permit when Alan filed it. Thry upped it to 30 to try and weaken his case. I think the post-purchase inspection also used to apply to all gun sales, now its just certain ones.

The thing that bothers me about this is that the case here is stupid. Or maybe that's unfair. Tangential. We're nibbling around the far edges of infringement at an en banc 9th circuit. We're not talking about AR bans, or not being able to carry anywhere. We're talking about whether 30 days or 10 days or 24 hours to buy a firearm is a meaningful constraint. I'm having a hard time caring about this.

@choreczko @MorosKostas @CRTC_Nichols Hey Charles, why did you block me to keep me from refuting your BS claims? @CRTC_Nichols

@SpudmanWP @MorosKostas @CRTC_Nichols Mr. @SpudmanWP may be one of the forum posters about whom Mr. @CRTC_Nichols spoke.🤷🏻‍♂️

That was a very interesting discussion! The recording is available here for those who want to listen. It is a bit of a slow start admittedly, but we find our rhythm in the discussion a bit more after the first stretch. I was perhaps a bit too socratic at the start, as I was trying to let Mr. Nichols explain his views, and ended up interviewing more than debating. 🤣

OMG the are bending Bruen over a barrel (it is the 9th after all). I am still listening to the State talk and I want to reach through the internet and strangle her. She keeps saying that as long as you can "eventually" keep and bear arms, that any regulation is ok. What's this BS about "surety laws" being part of step one?

Right off the bat they are twisting the Bruen test. They are trying to say that the regulation is in any way part of Bruen's "plain text" prong. The passage is "In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct." The conversation around "meaningful constraint" has not business there.

En banc oral arguments are starting now at the Ninth Circuit in a lawsuit challenging Hawaii's short handgun permit validity and gun inspection laws. You can watch the arguments live here: youtube.com/watch?v=l8j2pz…

@choreczko @MorosKostas @CRTC_Nichols Then you have never read my posts. Carrying concealed is about ME choosing when and how to defend myself and not giving the criminal a reason to confront me with violence first.

@choreczko @MorosKostas @CRTC_Nichols No It's FAFO, not FOFA Your behavior should not be dependent on knowing whether I can kick your ass or not. That would be like saying that all cops should be in uniform, no stings, etc.

@MorosKostas @CRTC_Nichols I rather like the T-shirt idea you floated at the end!😉 "Open Carry gives fair notice to the people around you that you are armed so that they may govern themselves accordingly. If they chose not to govern themselves accordingly, well, they were given fair notice." -- C. Nichols

@2aHistory @MorosKostas I could see at the time how they would think that, but that is not how the 2nd is viewed today.

@SpudmanWP @MorosKostas Bruen acknowledged that some early sources said banning open carry would be unConstitutional. So.. yes they did.

@2aHistory Try to get a job without documentation. ;)

The 2nd Amendment isn't an "extra privilege". Try buying a gun from a dealer without docs. Go ahead. Tell them you don't have to have any "docs". Take video. Come back with it. Doof.

You're falling into the "historical twin" trap. Bruin never used the phrase open or concealed when talking about bearing arms. They only ever referenced it as the right to public carry. The category of historical traditional of regulation that is at issue is "manner of carry". Some states banned all concealed carry, other states only banned certain arms that were concealed. That's where we got the dangerous and unusual language.

Open carry wasn't in question in Bruen, and they didn't do a thorough analysis of it. BUT.. the historical tradition was that open carry was universal and unregulated. Rulings said concealed carry could be banned because open carry was universal. No historical tradition of regulating open carry.

Sorry, but the whole "duty to notify by carrying open" is BS, to say it politely. Much like what arm I decide to carry is my decision, the manner of carry is mine to decide. Quite frankly open carry is an invitation to be a victim of violence. I have seen way to many YouTube videos and read too many articles where someone who was open carrying was the 1st target of violence, often losing their life. If a robber goes in a bank and sees someone with an ram, the robber will target that person first and he'll lose the opportunity to choose the moment he decides to defend himself. Someone should ALWAYS govern themselves accordingly regardless of if they know someone is armed. That's an excuse. It's FAFO personified.

@crumpyss I'd pick one up...... If I did not live in the People's Republic of California :(

Just a heads up. Optics Planet has the Partisan Trigger Disruptor on sale for $274.99. This is what RBT is suing Optics Planet over. Lawsuits are expensive, and Optics Planets has to sell a lot of them to make the lawsuit worth it. alnk.to/4Xzi9yW

@MorosKostas @General_Raptor @2aHistory At least Caetano let us know, even if in the concurrence, what "in common use" numbers might look like.

@General_Raptor @2aHistory That was about stun guns, which are way less controversial, and didnt even settle the issue.

I've been saying for years that AWB and mag ban laws only need a per curiam. There's nothing new in them outside of Heller/McDonald. The people overwhelmingly choose them. Semiauto handguns are protected - how could a longer barrel, buttstock or more rounds change a finding?

@bacarrie_1 @fourboxesdiner @cgfgunrights If SCOTUS made the States pay for all of the paperwork and training, I guarantee that it would all vanish overnight.

@fourboxesdiner @cgfgunrights These are the poll tax and literacy tests to suppress your 2nd amendment rights.

Watch closely: They’re shifting from banning firearms… to controlling access to everything around guns. Training. Certification. Ownership pathways. It’s a slower squeeze. Still unconstitutional.