Iuz the Evil
-
Posts
5,039 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Iuz the Evil
-
-
15 minutes ago, Tom said:
Probably not…. (With caveats….)That looks like a Glock mag, so if we assume it’s a Glock it’s only legal if it’s Gen 3 or earlier. However it’s got an RDS, so unless it was milled after-market it’s probably Gen 4 or 5 which makes it a no-go. Barrel threading would also have to be after-market for a Glock as well unless I’m seriously mistaken.
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.
-
2 hours ago, death tribble said:
For the non-Americans, what is FSC ?
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.
-
-
1 hour ago, DShomshak said:
All Things Considered reports the latest on the shoot-downs of the latest three "objects". All three reporters express disappointment at the government statement that there was nothing extraterrestrial about the objects. Mostly it's just that people loft a lot of stuff into the stratosphere, and now NORAD is looking for it.
Related:
Personally, I would be *so* tempted to troll the conspiranoids: "There is no evidence the objects were in any way extraterrestrial. They were unpowered and drifting. No energy discharges were detected, either directed or broadcast, on any frequencies, including those of human brain-waves. Remember that it is not possible, through electro-radionic technology, to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, or otherwise subvert the human will. There is no cause for alarm, no matter what you may see in the skies. Your government remains vigilant, trustworthy, and in Earthling -- I mean, human -- American-- hands."
It's probably a good thing I'm not in government.
Dean Shomshak
I am in government, and that would be hilarious. -
What the actual Hell?!
SpoilerMon-El is a racial supremacist? Seriously? Who thought this was a good idea?
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).
-
1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:
We're definitely struggling as a nation, but there's no evidence yet that this was politically motivated.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Tom said:
Tangentially referring back to Hermit’s “oathbreaker” comment, and the rioter’s (likely?) belief he was following the orders of ‘his’ POTUS, he may have believed he was following his oath.
It has been my personal observation that at least some people who claim to closely adhere to a particular text can be very selective in their reading and interpretation.
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.
-
-
3 minutes ago, unclevlad said:
It's horrific if it was simply random. If it's in any way political, it's a deep, deep warning cry that we're marching to the abyss.
I don’t disagree, she was a Republican, not that it matters. It’s a huge problem.
-
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…
- unclevlad and TrickstaPriest
-
2
-
-
-
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
-
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?
-
29 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:
It's just good to have these points ready, for when the subject inevitably comes up with our relatives/friends/coworkers/etc.
Because helping fellow human beings who are being attacked and killed by a foreign invader who wants to conquer them, just doesn't seem to cut it for a lot of people any more.
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
-
-
5 hours ago, Ranxerox said:
It will likely take years to reach SCOTOS. That is if it ever does. However, being decided by a lesser court is still being decided by a court.
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…
-
On 12/25/2022 at 4:11 PM, Hermit said:
My bitterness aside about my state I should say that you can find a lot of good folk here. Unfortunately, I sometimes feel their voices are quelled by our state leaders and an angry mean minority
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…
Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)
in Non-Gaming Discussion
Posted
A CCW doesn’t help you in California if you obtained possession of a weapon you do not own by non legal means. The physical location may matter though, if it’s in a private residence and the legal firearm owner is present (since you cannot loan someone a firearm in CA outside of VERY specific circumstances), it’s fine.
And Tom’s point is very true, if that’s a recently developed firearm like a Glock Gen 4 or 5, you better have a paper trail. They cannot be sold by civilians in CA through an FFL, but you can buy them from a LEO or get them from a family member. The point being either must be registered as a transfer into your name.
That dog is probably in big trouble. AG Bonta is really enthusiastic about pursuing firearm charges.