Iuz the Evil

Well sure, but maybe the dog has a lineal descendant living in Washington? And they did an inter family transfer through the DOJ, you could get a Glock 5th Gen that way. Or the dog could be law enforcement and so exempted… 😂😂😂 Yeah it’s probably not California legal.

Sorry, that’s California specific. Firearms Safety Certificate https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf You require one of these to purchase a handgun, which the dog apparently did. Unless he/she/they acquired it through a lineal intrafamilial transfer from their parent, grandparent or child or inherited it? Either of those are registered with the Department of Justice. Ammunition purchase is a separate thing. Just focusing on the dog carrying a handgun currently. I also am unsure if that is an approved firearm from the California roster approved for sale. And you cannot see if it has a threaded barrel, which is a major crime.

As the dog in question is carrying a handgun without a FSC, and doesn’t have a reduced capacity magazine, that’s two law violations in CA. Now if the dog is not the legal owner of the firearm (likely some dogs do not have recognized property rights), the firearm owner might face charges around the safe storage of the firearm depending on whether there are children around. Later this year, the presence of the firearm is likely illegal if this is a public space (due to the impending “sensitive spaces” bill). So while California doesn’t have a required carry permit, fear not. We have plenty, PLENTY, of regulation in this area to cover it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/chicago-mayor-election-results/index.html and that’s the end of Lori Lightfoot’s run as mayor of Chicago. Notably, both the runoff candidates are also Democrats and endorsed by the teachers union and police, respectively.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/18/politics/jimmy-carter/index.html

I am in government, and that would be hilarious.

What the actual Hell?! I have so few things left that I can watch and enjoy these days. Is it too much to ask that the various powers that be in the entertainment industry not utterly ruin them? Apparently so. Save yourself from the Legion of Superheroes (2023).

Which is why I noted the motive was pending. This thread has many such statements, including about the motivation of entire professions such as law enforcement. Mine certainly not more hyperbolic given the circumstances.

This “oathbreaker” fellow is an excellent example of why I have been saying in this thread politically motivated violence is not acceptable. Whatever your ostensible motivations, when you riot, assault or murder in the name of your beliefs those who disagree with you society must bring the full force of the law to bear. Someone can always justify their actions by saying “What choice did I have?” You had lots of other options. He is self admittedly guilty of violent insurrection and public mayhem. 68 months is a very reasonable amount of time, more would have been arguable as well.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/politics/us-tracking-china-spy-balloon/index.html

I don’t disagree, she was a Republican, not that it matters. It’s a huge problem.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/new-jersey-councilwoman-shot-killed-targeted-attack-home/story?id=96844342 This is very ugly. We are really struggling as a nation when this sort of thing happens to our elected leadership. She was ambushed and murdered, motive pending…

If there’s one thing that DC fans have been clamoring for, it’s a Wonder Woman movie without Wonder Woman in it…

I thought this was fascinating…

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

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.

California law holds gun owners liable for securing their firearm, in the event it is used by a child or individual not allowed to own a firearm. The gun owner faces serious criminal charges on these issues for lack of secure firearm storage (locked in a safe, or with a trigger lock at a bare minimum appears in statute the only legally defensible position if there is any reasonable likelihood another individual has access). As with many aspects of responsible firearm ownership, the laws vary by State (as they do with many issues).

So bring on Speaker Jeffries?

I don’t disagree with this, and it’s also in our strategic interest. That’s a compelling reason why it’s Ukraine (as a way to degrade Russian power) as opposed to Ethiopia or Myanmar. I would be in support of this action whether it’s Biden, Trump, Obama or GW Bush. It’s a rare opportunity to do the right thing and also advance national military and geopolitical interests for a relatively modest cost (to us, anyway). It’s unfortunate we are so polarized that isn’t good enough anymore.

If we can effectively cripple the Russian military for 6% of our annual military expenditure (mostly in repurposed gear that we will be replacing), with no loss of American lives, why wouldn’t we jump all over that? It’s a fantastic ROI

i wish this was actually the direction they were going. Hopeful, happy, heroes saving the day against terrible adversaries. I don’t think there’s any chance at all, but nostalgia will keep me coming back

That’s the way Legal action works and I fully agree, the legal process is being used for that purpose in multiple 2nd Amendment cases (to give an example from another direction) by CA, NJ, NY and now even Oregon and Washington, among others. Cuts both ways, you are entitled to due process, it may take a minute and some resources to make your case. The very reason why the Texas anti-abortion law is horrible and unconstitutional in many respects also will apply to California’s adoption of that for firearm lawsuits. Likely even more so, as the AG isn’t going to defend it (and the Governor’s attorney who stepped in with the absence of the State AG is getting clobbered - one can only hope that the same thing happens to the Texas law that inspired it). Citizens are entitled to challenge the actions of government in Court, which is far more concerned with the correct interpretation of the Law than haste. You can ask for preliminary injunctions for that…

We have that same problem here in California.

I managed to maintain my skepticism until the music played. I’m in, let’s do this…

It’ll be interesting to see what can be accomplished in the lame duck session remaining. Probably the debt ceiling, maybe electoral college protections, maybe Manchin’s energy bill. There’s talk about attaching some desired legislative action to bills that have already passed the House (firearms regulation, DACA reform) but I think that’s a mistake. Probably would kill the items they want to pass, don’t see much incentive for the Republicans to play along and it’ll probably result in dead bills. They should, in my opinion, get as much as they can out of this before what’s likely a period of gridlock. Which won’t bother me much, at this point. Better than I’d hoped and maybe it’ll compel some compromise and civility. … Ha!