peejman

I'm glad mine go to school in hillbillyville east TN.

Carrying on school property is a felony. But, the law also clearly states that you cannot be criminally charged for carrying illegally if you used the weapon in justifiable self defense. The key word there is "criminally". There's no protection from the civil suit that would likely occur.

Interesting. Seems like you'd be sitting ducks out there and easily cut off from supply, but I guess they served their purpose.

Me neither, what's the skinny?

Seems like OWB would be perfect if you're wearing a coat all the time. A nice looking, dark colored leather holster would blend in with a similar color belt pretty seamlessly.

Can you imagine the sound that thing made? Wow.

Yep. But "reasonable" will involve compromise from both sides. Neither seems terribly interested in that at the moment. Bitching and whining is so much easier.

Rule #1: treat every gun as if it was loaded. Sad for the family.

The 2nd Amendment, protecting the 1st since 1791. If you'd offered any of those kids a gun while the shooting was going on, I guarantee they'd have taken it.

That's just the thing... they want due process tossed out too. Mostly because they've never had something valuable to them taken without due process, and spent years and $$$ fighting to get it back.

I'm glad the schools here are on spring break this week. Of course they just wanted out of class for a while. Assuming there weren't any repercussions, I would have too.

What I find amusing is that many of the kids were shocked to hear that there might be repercussions (suspension, etc.) for walking out of class. Sounds like a good opportunity for them to learn decisions have consequences, regardless of whether or not they think they're supporting a good cause. Though it does appear that a lot of schools are allowing a fairly brief demonstration.

Welcome!

They exist in standard pressure as well, that's what's in my .45.

More or less what @Omega said. I don't think a suit would ever get to a judge because the law is clear (for now) that bump stocks are legal. I'd guess the only entity that could be sued is the ATF itself, and I'm surprised no one has yet. I'm sure the ruling on bump stocks wasn't handled by a single person. There's likely several layers of internal review prior to publishing a rule. My guess is the ATF couldn't find a way to disallow them within the letter of the existing law. Disallowing them would certainly have resulted in a law suit, and at that time, I presume they concluded it wasn't worth the aggravation. After all, killing people is already illegal.

Interesting. I thought the weight limit only applied to modified guns. IPDA has way too many rules.

All that's necessary to ban bump stocks is for the ATF to change the rules. There is no legislation or voting inherent in that process. The ATF publishes proposed rule change for public comment. Then they publish a final rule. "Public comment" doesn't mean anything anyone says will cause them to modify the proposed rule, its merely the time period in which they're obligated to accept comments. They are in no way obligated to act on those comments. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations

How is it not legal for IDPA?

Stick with it. It's unpleasant, bit worth it.

Same as the "when children are present" school zone speed limit signs. How am I supposed to know "when children are present" when my kids don't go to that school? And what exactly does "present" mean? When they're outside, in the building, or what? I think the laws are intentionally vague to permit selective enforcement.

Welcome!

https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/how-may-unlicensed-person-receive-firearm-his-or-her-state-he-or-she

A classic.

You have to take/send the gun to an FFL in their state to accomplish the transfer, or have an FFL here send it to an FFL there.

He and Kane would make a fun pair.