Just be aware that, unlike cannabis, the Feds are not turning a blind eye to “second amendment sanctuaries”. They will send you to federal fuck-me-in-the-ass prison. The bigger issue is the unequal application of law; the courts tipping the scales toward states’ rights, only when it suits their agenda.
This. Brandishing is a misdemeanor in Oregon, but who knows what other charges he just caught. If you ever pull your weapon, be prepared to use it.
Also, practice your draw and carry with a round chambered. Those few seconds it took to fumble with his shirt and the slide could have cost him his life.
That’s like hiking the Appalachian Trail. It takes six months and people drop tons of weight. How much of a clown world do we live in when Democrats think random people have a right to just come into our country? Why don’t they just shutter the border crossing and tell these people to go ask Mexico for asylum?
I would rather we not replace Democrat corruption with Republican corruption. If it’s improper or illegal, then it should apply equally to both sides. This “just concede this one issue” path is the same taken by the NRA for the past 100 years. After seeing this case, I’m glad I just joined GOA as a lifetime member.
Insulting those that enjoy bump, crank, binary fire, etc. from an high-brow purist perspective is not a good way to win over people to your cause. They may be silly gimmicks, but that doesn’t mean we need to take them away from those who enjoy it.
The case is GOA vs Garland (6th Circuit). Here’s the opinion for those curious: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf
“Consistent with our precedent and mandated by separation-of-powers and fair-notice concerns, we hold that an administering agency’s interpretation of a criminal statute is not entitled to Chevron deference. Consequently, the district court erred by finding that the ATF’s Final Rule, which interpreted the meaning of a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), was entitled to Chevron deference. And because we find that “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, we further hold that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun because a bump stock does not enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Accordingly, we find that Plaintiffs- Appellants are likely to prevail on the merits and that that their motion for an injunction should have been granted. Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
No. 19-1298 Gun Owners of Am., Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al.
Wouldn’t be the first time his handlers did this: https://hannity.com/media-room/cheat-sheet-biden-again-uses-written-list-of-reporters-selected-by-team-to-take-questions-from/
That's actually a revisionist view of the founding fathers' beliefs. "Separation of church and state" appears in no national document. The phrase applies to the state not controlling the church. It is not a rejection of an individuals core faith and morals guiding their political beliefs, and subsequent work within the governmental system. Furthermore, our system of government recognizes that our rights derive from "God", whatever you believe that to be. Specifically, our founding documents reference a "Creator". The sentiments are rooted in Judeo-Christian theology. They have guided our nation for hundreds of years. Only until recently have we shunned the "laws of nature and of nature's God", leading us to the clown world in which we now live.
I generally believe that as well, but from a legal standpoint, it is complex (because the courts have made it so). It's easy to be reductionist, but we need to use the reasoning of this court, and the prior courts, under our common law system. The founders had varying ideas around the right to bear arms (e.g. https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/). To be successful in the courts, we need to have reasoning that backs up the context of the Second Amendment. We need have evidence to support our claims, unlike the Democrats.
Like I mentioned, Federalist No. 29 (which of course is not law, but historical context to the Constitution) actually argues for the states to control and regulate the militia. It specifically undermines arguments of the courts that say the Second Amendment is for "sporting purposes". Hamilton specifically argues that the militia is a check on the Federal government. We can use evidence like this to uphold our interpretation of the Constitution. However, we also need to be aware that Hamilton's argument lends itself to allowing states to dictate what type of firearms you have.
Again, as I mentioned, the 9th Circuit's logic points toward the Federal government not having the power to regulate firearms in your state. We can use this nuance of the common law to our advantage. Eventually, we may be able to invalidate the rest of the body of jurisprudence to remove the complexity.
Under Tennessee v. Garner, "law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
If this woman was fleeing after being accused of "white-collar" crime, I don't think the police would be justified in using lethal force. That would be a doorway to tyranny.
Yeah, if they want to use the government as a clearing house for private grant money, then go for it. I think it was $7M. Let’s see how long that lasts and if it lifts people out of poverty like they claim it will.
As a kid, I regularly got in trouble for holding adults to account for something they might have said months ago. I would recite the exact words they said and basically call them a hypocrite. My 3rd grade teacher once talked shit during "open house" night. I called her a liar in front of everyone. If she didn't hate me already, she sure did afterward.
Yeah, it takes about 2 hours after the stream for it to be available. I've already brought this up with their customer support. They say they're working on making it faster, but it is what it is right now.
Also, they have an Android app, but not an Android TV app. I have to use a Roku on my main TV in order to watch there. The web version of Blaze TV can be quite glitchy. Hopefully they keep improving with all this money coming in.