Chucktshoes

No.

Welcome back.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/10/13/atf-drops-lower-receiver-case-for-fear-of-doing-damage-to-other-atf-regulations/ A little commentary on the story.

I found this initially shocking to read because the Hydra Shok is such a well respected and effective bullet design. Then I checked out the gelatin tests for it and was flabbergasted at how terrible and erratic its performance was in a snub nosed .38. I guess it just goes to show that not every design works in every capacity.

I don’t know, and I don’t agree with your prediction on what TN would do so I can’t really give you any sort of answer on that one.

Pretty much.

The first clause is the dependant clause, not the second. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” is not a complete sentence and cannot stand on its own as it doesn’t convey a complete thought. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” is a complete sentence that does convey a complete thought and can stand on its own grammatically. There is plenty of documentation from the Founding Fathers at the time regarding who and what the milita were according to them. Probably the one I like the best is from George Mason while he was arguing for changes to the Constitution that would eventually result in the Second Amendment. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table [the Constitution] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.” George Mason A bit of a detour into the arguments that can be made both ways admittedly with the Mason quote. To reiterate and return back to topic, your grammatical reading is reversed from correct order.

No, it isn’t. The language of the second is pretty clear and all forms of gun control are an infringement. Only through heavy mental gymnastics have any of them been justified.

These are the good old days.

That is really interesting.

Only thing I think you got wrong in this post is which one of us is more obnoxious.

I wasn’t impressed with his appearances here, that’s for sure. Maybe in the time since the Zimmerman trial he’s learned how to self promote without being completely obnoxious.

I have a sneaking suspicion rent is about to be dropping at that apartment building. I don’t know about y’all, but I’d be moving out at the end of my lease.

I don’t see why anyone would move laterally from one to the other, but it does present another option for the high capacity, baby 9.

I feel like there’s a joke in there somewhere about using that information to pick them up for a song at their estate sales, but that might be a little dark.

I’m slightly more confident. I don’t believe it will result in a blanket coverage of a right to carry a firearm outside of the home. That’s not really the subject before the Court at this time. What I do believe has a high likelihood of being the outcome is the application of strict scrutiny to firearms laws. If that happens, this could ultimately be as important to 2A litigation as Heller.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/new-york-gun-case-to-move-forward/ NYC fails in its argument for mootness. The case will be heard before the SCOTUS.

@DaveTN up above did me better and gave a good link. When I worked in a gun store in Memphis we had folks who used UPINs and while I can’t say for sure that they were used by TICS, I know nobody who used one ever had a delay.

It may be of value to attempt to get a Unique Person Identifier Number. Of course, if they had actually run the social it sounds like that would have solved it as well. Do you have your HCP? It really seems like some either some serious incompetence or a big failure point in the TICS system is at play here. Just further proof that the TICS system shouldn’t exist. We should be using NICS.

You say they’re shields, but are you sure you didn't buy rabbits by mistake?

Yep. It’s a wiggler.

There’s a lot of leverage in not being a motivated seller.

This is similar to my interpretation of that statement. The way I interpreted it was that it was simply a judgment on himself. He determined for himself that the burglar wasn’t a threat, at that moment he was left with a decision. He found himself in a position where he could have shot someone, but he didn’t have to. And by choosing not to shoot that person even know he knew he could have and been legally covered, he learned something about himself.