Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Tom]

37 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

With respect, these are straw-man arguments.

 

Baseballs, tennis balls, t-shirts, are not bullets. They don't do to whatever's on the receiving end what bullets do. They were never intended to. You're comparing apples to ducks.

 

True enough, my intent being to point out that simply sending a projectile down range is an awfully broad definition.

 

39 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Millions of dollars, vs hundreds of billions of dollars. The profit proportions alone show comparing these markets is grossly misleading.

 

Is it?  The clays market is just one segment, and no, it isn't necessarily dominant in any way.  There are also multiple other target sports, hunting, and collector markets - and that's before we get into the self-defense, security/LE, and assorted prepper markets.

 

Assuming every gun owner is "in to" the same guns is a little like assuming every TTRPG player is "in to" Dungeons and Dragons.

 

50 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

And do you really believe you can't kill someone with a skeet gun, more efficiently than with a non-gun?

 

As someone who actually owns a skeet gun, it wouldn't be my first choice.

 

While I can certainly load with buckshot or slugs instead of my usual skeet loads (1oz of #9 shot doing about 1150fps), I'd still need to be fairly close to be effective and an 8 pound shotgun with 28" barrels isn't particularly concealable or nimble in close quarters.

 

45 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Who would think the death toll would be significantly higher? Why? You're drawing assumptions about the proportion of people buying guns with the intention to use them to hurt or kill someone, with no basis in research.

 

Yes, I'm drawing an assumption.  Based on the assertion that the primary purpose of every gun is to be a weapon.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I've always said, it's not the number of guns in America that's the biggest problem, it's the overall attitude toward guns in American society.

 

I'm in agreement with you on this point. The "lone hero with a gun" thing is entirely overdone and over-glamorized in our entertainment media and many video games.

 

I've 'heard' guns are a part of the US's cultural mythology, and I can't disagree with that assertion. I've worked at two different shooting ranges over the years - and I've no idea how many times I've taught foreign visitors how to shoot.  In other countries, you visit landmarks or try the local cuisine - in the US, you find someplace where you can shoot a gun.

 

The 'funny' thing in my mind, is listening to the argument about actually teaching kids something about gun safety in schools is the mirror of listening to arguments about teaching them about sex.

 

One side insists knowledge will cut down on unintended consequences, while the other blindly insists we need to keep the kids from being taught anything about the subject and thinking they don't already have at least a faint idea from watching their screens.

 

Nothing bad could possibly come from that...

 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I'm not saying that you, Tom, are personally irresponsible.

 

Thank you.  I'd also like to think, when it comes to guns, I'm closer to the norm rather than being an exception.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

13 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

Yes, I'm drawing an assumption.  Based on the assertion that the primary purpose of every gun is to be a weapon.

 

 

Every gun is a weapon. But I accept the concepts of self-defense, home defense, and animal defense, only when necessary. If every gun owner in America had that attitude, was trained in not only how but when to shoot, and there were safeguards in place to weed out people with instability or destructive intentions, I'd be fine with that.

 

But I've said all I have to say on this topic, and would like to move on.

 

 

[Tom]

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

The two differences are why I still think mass shootings will be a thing over drones; it's short-sighted, short-tempered, and easily-convenient to get the equipment. 

 

You may be over-estimating how easy it is to get the equipment.

 

You can order a drone online and have it shipped to your door.  I'm not sure how hard it would be to find the recipes for simple explosives, but it's clearly not impossible.

 

A firearm either requires dealing with a licensed dealer or finding someone to sell you something off-the-books.  Neither being quite as simple as point and click.  (and on-book is a little harder now for the 18-20 set with the additional gun control legislation that passed following Uvalde)

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Very true, and you may have a better idea of why Uvalde fell apart (I do know leadership was a significant issue, I just wonder at the timing.  I may overemphasize the timing though!)

 

Cowardice.

 

The doctrine is to go in and engage ASAP, and not to wait for backup.

 

The new issue weapon isn't a ray gun, and won't change the doctrine.

 

These people were simply cowards with poor leadership.

[Lord Liaden]

The priority of a peace officer isn't supposed to be keeping yourself safe, it's to keep innocent civilians safe. If that means putting yourself between civilians and danger, that's the job. We don't expect soldiers to avoid the front lines, or firefighters to never enter a burning building to rescue people.

 

If you're unwilling to do the job, find another job.

[TrickstaPriest]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The priority of a peace officer isn't supposed to be keeping yourself safe, it's to keep innocent civilians safe. If that means putting yourself between civilians and danger, that's the job. We don't expect soldiers to avoid the front lines, or firefighters to never enter a burning building to rescue people.

 

If you're unwilling to do the job, find another job.

 

I mean, it's easy to say that, another to do...

 

but I do believe it was cowardice (and incredibly poor leadership) that created that event.

 

2 hours ago, Tom said:

You may be over-estimating how easy it is to get the equipment.

 

You can order a drone online and have it shipped to your door.  I'm not sure how hard it would be to find the recipes for simple explosives, but it's clearly not impossible.

 

Yeah, I may be over-estimating that.  Though the ratio of 'serious self injury' to 'other results' in attempting that kind of recipe is... higher than many tasks, at least.

 

I burned my spices and chili twice, separately, in the same batch of cooking I was doing Friday

 

It's a lot of work to control a drone, and they can't carry much weight.  You'd need to be networking a fleet of them, with individual payloads, to have enough explosives to kill people on the scale of 10 dead and 10 injured (or get a very good opportunity target, like a plane).  Any of which requires a lot of time and forethought and thinking... currently.

 

People aren't lazy... but studying, planning, thinking, a lot of it is the sort of thing we don't do very easily.  It's a lot harder when we are angry or depressed... it takes a level of dedication that takes it out of the range (at least to me) of a lot of shooters.

 

So comparatively, it's much easier to buy a gun (and spend almost zero time learning how to use it properly).  My area has almost no checks, and it's only a few hours drive to many other states.  So comparatively... it's mostly a question of definitions of 'what is a gun' and 'when is it a weapon'.  It's no longer a conversation about 'whether guns are a serious problem to society' and (fix edit:)more an argument over legal definitions.  If we are going to argue the point of 'when is a gun a dangerous weapon', we've already gone past 'can a gun be dangerous enough to society to legislate against'.  But we have laws against  CP even though p**n isn't easy to define as well.  There is a way to legislate, and many other countries have had that will and had the benefits of it.

 

Other circumstances and beliefs aside.

 

So I just don't find the argument over at what point is a gun a dangerous weapon very 'fruitful'.  It strikes me as a stalling tactic than a real honest question about the issue - it does wholly nothing in discussing whether something actually needs to be done or not.

 

It -was- worth having the conversation so far though - my opinion has changed on how long it'll take (at least) for direct firearms to scale up higher.  It still will take a while yet, though as mentioned... 3d printed guns are also a factor here.  And that's going to complicate things in the very 'hot' atmosphere of our political society.

 

Assuming there isn't an American societal collapse though, the ability to have access to more lethal arms will occur over the next 10-20 years.  Ammo, printed guns, aim assist, or new models of weaponry.  It's a matter of how we want to deal with that, and how we want to enforce that.  If we aren't going to have the discussion before blood is spilled, it will be after.

[Tom]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

The new issue weapon isn't a ray gun, and won't change the doctrine.

 

New weapons change doctrine all the time.  I doubt it in this case primarily because I don't think the XM-5 is particularly suited to an active shooter scenario compared to a typical AR-type rifle.

 

If, on the other hand, the rifle lives up to its hype and becomes readily available, expect doctrines to be adapted or developed accordingly.

 

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

These people were simply cowards with poor leadership.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The priority of a peace officer isn't supposed to be keeping yourself safe, it's to keep innocent civilians safe. If that means putting yourself between civilians and danger, that's the job. We don't expect soldiers to avoid the front lines, or firefighters to never enter a burning building to rescue people.

 

Cops, firefighters, and even soldiers aren't expected to throw their lives away needlessly either.

 

The point of small unit tactics is coordinated action.  Large groups of people mindlessly acting independently results in Keystone Kops.

 

That said, leadership would clearly seem to have been lacking.  Instead of Keystone Kapers, we saw everybody waiting on somebody (and not just anybody), so we ended up with nobody doing what needed to be done...

[Lord Liaden]

8 minutes ago, Tom said:

Cops, firefighters, and even soldiers aren't expected to throw their lives away needlessly either.

 

The point of small unit tactics is coordinated action.  Large groups of people mindlessly acting independently results in Keystone Kops.

 

No argument, but there's a big gulf between these statements and mine.

[Iuz the Evil]

I’m kind of thinking that post NYSRPA v Bruen it’s unlikely that major regulatory changes are in the works re: firearms - unless supported by the Nation’s text, history and traditions (like from 1793).

 

Maybe we should focus on preventative activities in other areas for the time being, I just don’t see how it’s legally possible given the current established case law to put the sort of restrictions I have seen proposed in CA, NY, Illinois, Oregon, and NJ in recent months. A strategy of “well it’ll take some time to overturn” isn’t really sustainable over the long term.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I mean, it's easy to say that, another to do...

 

 

Yes, it is hard. Giving someone weapons and the authority to use them in service to the state is a big responsibility. It's not something just anyone can do, which is why I don't want just anyone doing it.

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Tom said:

If, on the other hand, the rifle lives up to its hype and becomes readily available, expect doctrines to be adapted or developed accordingly.

 

It won't change anything in the case of school shootings. Also, this new weapon system's potential civilian version is being seriously overhyped. The scope will be prohibitively expensive, and it's the key component. And there are plenty of things that can penetrate level IV armor already available. Not to mention that actual AP ammunition is already illegal to sell. So, I don't think the concept of engaging the shooter is going to be altered by this. It's a lot of hype, just like "cop killer bullets" were hype.

 

SIG is hyping up their already commercially available piston-driven M4 clones. Which doesn't mean much except releasing them with the civilian version of their new ammunition (see edit below).The civilian version of this magical ammunition will not likely be any more armor piercing than existing loads for the AR platform. SIG is hyping this with typical gun company marketing material, trying to make their new thing sound cool and worth buying.

 

Edit: Here's the spec of the civilian version of the ammo, from Wikipedia:

 

Quote

Commercially, reduced-power .277 Fury Elite ball FMJ ammunition using non-hybrid conventional cartridge cases is offered, that fires a 135 grains (8.7 g) projectile with a G1 ballistic coefficient of ≈ .475 at a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second (838 m/s) from a 16-inch (406 mm) barrel.^[3]

 

This isn't particularly potent. Not more so than any number of rounds already on the market.

 

Edit: Just for clarity, it's potent for it's size, but it isn't bringing new levels of lethality to the table. .308 win / 7.62x51 ARs have been on the market for decades and are far more potent, for example.

 

4 hours ago, Tom said:

Cops, firefighters, and even soldiers aren't expected to throw their lives away needlessly either.

 

The Uvalde cowards were trained on school shooting response. The current doctrine being trained is to engage, not to sit back. So, yes, in this case they had an expectation to act.

 

5 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

3d printed guns are also a factor here

 

It's currently far less time and effort to simply buy a gun. 3d printing a firearm isn't quite so convenient as the press leads people to believe. I'm not a huge fan of Vice on these sorts of things, but this video was pretty well put together and gives some good insight to the whole process:

 

 

It's not quite there yet. Not enough to see widespread criminal use. (Though materials technology keeps advancing.) When talking 3d printing, you either do what this guy did to print the frame of a gun, then finish it by fitting it to the rest of the mechanisms, which gives you a somewhat less than durable frame that's a pain to assemble and get to function reliably, or you do the whole thing on a 3d printer, getting a single shot gun that's no more viable than making a zip gun from parts from a hardware store. Using a home CNC machine will produce a more durable receiver, but is still a pain to get working.

 

Frankly, I'd prefer to be shot at by someone using a 3d printed gun, because it's far more likely to malfunction. I think we don't have to worry too much about future tech, since the government seems to have figured out that the technology needs to be regulated. While it's legal to manufacture a firearm for your own  use, making it so easy that any idiot can do it is more than a little problematic. The tech is far from idiot proof, and I think the government (half of it anyway) is wary of letting things advance further without regulation.

[Tom]

7 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Edit: Here's the spec of the civilian version of the ammo, from Wikipedia:

 

Quote

Commercially, reduced-power .277 Fury Elite ball FMJ ammunition using non-hybrid conventional cartridge cases is offered, that fires a 135 grains (8.7 g) projectile with a G1 ballistic coefficient of ≈ .475 at a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second (838 m/s) from a 16-inch (406 mm) barrel.^[3]

 

This isn't particularly potent. Not more so than any number of rounds already on the market.

 

Edit: Just for clarity, it's potent for it's size, but it isn't bringing new levels of lethality to the table. .308 win / 7.62x51 ARs have been on the market for decades and are far more potent, for example.

 

Quibble - those are the numbers for the "non-hybrid" cases, which are using conventional brass.  If you read up a bit in the article you'll see the hybrid cases are firing that same 135 grain projectile at 3,000 feet per second.  Additionally, even the hybrid cases aren't being loaded to their maximum rated pressure at this point - for reasons(?)...

 

The expectation is that the hybrid cases will be available on the civilian market.  To my knowledge, the specs on the military loading of the cartridge haven't been released to the public and these numbers are for the civilian loadings.

 

And, yes, SIG is hyping the bejeepers out of the rifle and the cartridge.  You can count me as skeptical on how well the new rifle and cartridge (and scope) will work out in practice, but I'm not in a position to make more than quasi-informed guesses.

[Tom]

13 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I’m kind of thinking that post NYSRPA v Bruen it’s unlikely that major regulatory changes are in the works re: firearms - unless supported by the Nation’s text, history and traditions (like from 1793).

 

Maybe we should focus on preventative activities in other areas for the time being, I just don’t see how it’s legally possible given the current established case law to put the sort of restrictions I have seen proposed in CA, NY, Illinois, Oregon, and NJ in recent months. A strategy of “well it’ll take some time to overturn” isn’t really sustainable over the long term.

 

You might want to keep an eye on West Virginia vs EPA as well, though I'm not certain it's as big a stick as some of the "2A" crowd might want to believe.

 

ATF did, however, recently issue updated rules on 'stabilizing braces' which will generate a lot of lawyer fees in the near term and could result in a weakening of NFA requirements.  Worse case scenario, from a gun control perspective, given the current court would be overturning the NFA in its entirety.  I'm thinking that is wishful thinking on some people's part, but I'll be surprised if the final ruling only overturns the updated rule.

 

A more viable fix to the main problem isn't any easier than fighting/re-fighting the same fights about gun control legislation in the state houses and courts.

 

Getting people in crisis the help they need shouldn't be that hard, but it is.

Convincing people that 'every problem can be solved with a gun' is not true is also going to be harder than it should be.

[TrickstaPriest]

11 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

It's currently far less time and effort to simply buy a gun. 3d printing a firearm isn't quite so convenient as the press leads people to believe. I'm not a huge fan of Vice on these sorts of things, but this video was pretty well put together and gives some good insight to the whole process:

 

Yeah, I sort of figured this on inference - we haven't seen it being used yet, so its not there.  The rifle scenario was one I thought would be more concerning, but I didn't know its use-profile was more suited to sniper activity.  Or maybe hunting.  Which I do treat somewhat differently.  Straight capability was an argument against VCRs and copyright... (additional word edit:) but their utility wasn't just for stealing TV shows.  (though that's not literal life or death)

 

It kicks the can down the road, but my sentiment hadn't changed - a lot of societies simply tasted too much blood, or were worried about the amount of blood to be spilled (or other reasons).

 

Of course, besides the historical/cultural want to maintain access to weaponry like this, we have the current situation of having a political party toy with members who like to talk about violent revolution (presumably against the left), so there's other reasons to consider whether a leftist push to remove guns locally is unwise... or maybe actually wiser than it seems.

 

In the long run though, capability and explicit utility doesn't favor access to weapons like these.  The drone argument is a great contrast because it doesn't have that cultural bias.  The cost for drone harm isn't high nor demonstrated yet, but we are willing to recognize it before it even happens.

[Clonus]

On 1/23/2023 at 11:14 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Weren't bows and arrows also designed as weapons?  A hunter, a farmer needing to deal with wolves and other predators and a skeet shooter may not agree with your view, although the hunter and farmer both have "physical weapon" uses for their firearms.

 

A weapon is no less a weapon because it is being used to kill animals rather than people.  But it is true that guns have a secondary use as a toy.  

[Starlord]

Pence has classified docs now also?

 

Maybe I should go through my attic and garage just to be sure I'm in the clear....

[Ternaugh]

Maybe he's just holding them for a friend.

[TrickstaPriest]

12 minutes ago, Starlord said:

Pence has classified docs now also?

 

Maybe I should go through my attic and garage just to be sure I'm in the clear....

 

Doesn't really surprise me from what I heard about Rumsfeld... though it would be helpful to know the relative importance of some of these docs as compared to different people.  One doc can be serious, or nothing at all.

[Pattern Ghost]

7 hours ago, Tom said:

 

Quibble - those are the numbers for the "non-hybrid" cases

 

Yep, that's stated. Again, not a huge step away from a .308. The round has better capability out at 500+ yards due to it's sectional density, but at short ranges -- and we're talking about school shootings -- there are better options that are already available. If people aren't gravitating to .308 weapons, then they probably aren't going to spring for the sure to be very expensive hybrid cased ammo. Those cases have 3 components. Normal ammunition is expensive enough these days, so I don't think this is going to turn into the go to round for school shooters. Among those with the mindset to engage the police, it might be some concern. Even if a school shooter were armed with a heavier caliber, I don't see doctrine changing regarding immediate engagement of mass shooters/school shooters.

 

6 hours ago, Tom said:

ATF did, however, recently issue updated rules on 'stabilizing braces' which will generate a lot of lawyer fees in the near term and could result in a weakening of NFA requirements.  Worse case scenario, from a gun control perspective, given the current court would be overturning the NFA in its entirety.  I'm thinking that is wishful thinking on some people's part, but I'll be surprised if the final ruling only overturns the updated rule.

 

Honestly, I don't see the need for the rules on barrel length for rifles and shotguns. We've had a lot (far, far, far too many) of mass shooting incidents since they hit the market and only one case where the user used a "pistol" with a "brace" on it that I recall. You could just as well build an AR pistol then shove a regular stock on it, or toss a pistol upper on your rifle lower, if you wanted to go commit mass murder. It'd be the lesser offense. But for the decades before these braces were introduced (coincidentally also by SIG), nobody was bothering to do either. A standard carbine already breaks down to a length that can be easily concealed, should one want. Regardless, if it goes to court, it could end badly. (Or well, depending on what side of the debate one falls on, I suppose.)

 

All that aside, I confess to being highly amused at people taking offense to what was obviously a loop hole in a poorly-written rule being closed.

 

2 hours ago, Clonus said:

A weapon is no less a weapon because it is being used to kill animals rather than people.  But it is true that guns have a secondary use as a toy.  

 

Guns are tools . . . that fling a projectile at range, projecting enough force to cause catastrophic damage to tissue. If only we had a simple way to state all that. Like a single word. Maybe we should think of one. While we're at it, we probably need more "w" words . . . 🤔

 

What guns are not, is toys. My father was vehemently against letting me or my brother have BB guns or pellet guns because they might make us look at them like toys. Even a lowly Daisy or Crosman pump up pellet gun can kill someone. I was looking for a case that happened locally a few years back, with something like a Daisy 880, but instead found a case from November of 2022, in Beaver Dam, KY. Ironically, I lived there a  year in high school . . . and used to go shooting my friends' pellet guns (against my father's wishes). Total aside, that, but weird coincidence.

 

Guns may have a recreational use, but no gun is a toy. Flinging projectiles around is a power that requires great responsibility.

 

[BNakagawa]

 

[DShomshak]

2 hours ago, Starlord said:

Pence has classified docs now also?

 

Maybe I should go through my attic and garage just to be sure I'm in the clear....

I am fairly sure I have no classified documents, since the closest I came to government employment was a three month trial period with the Tacoma Public Library system...

 

The brief announcements I've heard about Pence's documents say it's not known what the docs are. But there's no mention that he's fighting their return to government custody, which I consider the core issue.

 

ADDENDUM: Just heard on ATC: Pence earlier said he was sure he didn't have any classified documents. A few days later... Oops! But he called the FBI promptly to retrieve them. So I am fully willing to believe that Pence is blameless in this.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

The Abrams delivery is probably a token gesture to satisfy Germany. The Abrams is not only more complicated than what the Ukrainians are used to, requiring additional training; they also use jet fuel rather than diesel, which is harder to supply.

 

Russia has many tanks in the field, but they're dated and inferior to the Leopard tanks. The Leopards are also lighter, which is an advantage when crossing muddy ground.

 

I have as much faith in Russia's anti-tank weaponry, as in everything else Russia has put in the field.

[Tom]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Honestly, I don't see the need for the rules on barrel length for rifles and shotguns. We've had a lot (far, far, far too many) of mass shooting incidents since they hit the market and only one case where the user used a "pistol" with a "brace" on it that I recall. You could just as well build an AR pistol then shove a regular stock on it, or toss a pistol upper on your rifle lower, if you wanted to go commit mass murder. It'd be the lesser offense. But for the decades before these braces were introduced (coincidentally also by SIG), nobody was bothering to do either. A standard carbine already breaks down to a length that can be easily concealed, should one want. Regardless, if it goes to court, it could end badly. (Or well, depending on what side of the debate one falls on, I suppose.)

 

All that aside, I confess to being highly amused at people taking offense to what was obviously a loop hole in a poorly-written rule being closed.

 

Oh, I agree.  I'm especially amused by people who claim ATF doesn't have the authority to make the change when the loophole was created by an ATF change in the first place.

 

And it will go to court, that much pretty much goes without saying.  The final rule has been approved, but it doesn't go into effect until after it is published in the National Register - which as far as I can tell, hasn't happened yet.

 

The major potential issue isn't the courts potentially legalizing short barreled rifles or shotguns for the masses (unless pistol braces are a major revenue stream for your company).  The question is whether the Court which issued Bruen may take offence with the "may issue" nature of the NFA's approval process.  With previous iterations of SCOTUS, I'd expect a certain amount of deference to the Government's position - especially with regards to an 89 (-ish) year old law.  

 

Now?

 

 

[BNakagawa]

A lot of Pence quotes about the importance of handling classified documents and thorough investigation following the discovery of such documents in Biden's possession are going to come back to haunt him.

 

It's only fair that the DOJ appoint a special counsel for him, too.

[Iuz the Evil]

11 hours ago, Tom said:

 

You might want to keep an eye on West Virginia vs EPA as well, though I'm not certain it's as big a stick as some of the "2A" crowd might want to believe.

 

ATF did, however, recently issue updated rules on 'stabilizing braces' which will generate a lot of lawyer fees in the near term and could result in a weakening of NFA requirements.  Worse case scenario, from a gun control perspective, given the current court would be overturning the NFA in its entirety.  I'm thinking that is wishful thinking on some people's part, but I'll be surprised if the final ruling only overturns the updated rule.

 

A more viable fix to the main problem isn't any easier than fighting/re-fighting the same fights about gun control legislation in the state houses and courts.

 

Getting people in crisis the help they need shouldn't be that hard, but it is.

Convincing people that 'every problem can be solved with a gun' is not true is also going to be harder than it should be.

I agree that’s unlikely to result in the overturning of the NFA, and the more extreme perspectives from the pro 2A side are also extremely unlikely to come to pass (abolishing the ATF is a pipe dream in my opinion). It’s definitely a strengthening of second amendment rights though, which is expressly stated in the majority opinion and already starting to play out in lower courts. Notably the SCOTUS is starting by kicking back lower court opinions with the instruction to reconsider them in light of Bruen. 
 

I think the micro stamping requirement in CA is likely going to be gone, possibly implications from that include the CA firearms roster itself. Not sure about magazine restrictions, that’s largely being argued on the anti 2A side from a “well we did that historically with minority groups and slaves” in the Benitez circuit cases which made me just shocked that AG Bonta would go there. But I guess they are trying to go with text, history and tradition as required. The AG refused to defend the governor’s law mirroring the Texas anti abortion law which I respected (its not okay either way to weaponize citizen litigation for the government’s purposes), but the governor’s office is litigating it instead.

 

 There’s a ton of action, it’ll be interesting to see how it goes but it’s seeming very unlikely more expansive regulation is goings stand given the initial Court rulings at any sort of national level. Probably not at the State level either, but we will see.

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/24/politics/california-gun-laws-under-threat-what-matters/index.html

 

Here’s a pretty anti 2A article from CNN on the subject