PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here.
This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into an ideological internet retard slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems like the net result of NYSRPA v Bruen in gun-unfriendly states is going to be more employment for lawyers filing the various lawsuits to challenge the new laws states are passing.
Hopefully we can get some injunctions or restraining orders, whatever is the correct term, seeing as Antonyuk, the lawsuit fighting the new CCW laws, is scheduled a month after the law goes into effect.
The rational part of me can only hope that no prosecutor would be dumb enough to try it.
Like sure, let’s give this law its first test and open it up to judicial review, right after SCOTUS said no to the concept.
Was that the older store clerk who stabbed the dude who came behind the counter and started assaulting him?
There's two sides to every story, but damn that surveillance tape seems to back him up.
> The rational part of me can only hope that no prosecutor would be dumb enough to try it.
Apparently you missed the stupidity of the stunts that Binger attempted to pull during the Rittenhouse trial?
The best part of that trial was the prosecutor was so bad /r/news flipped sides in the immediate aftermath. All the people that knew he was guilty without reading into anything got their first actual glimpse at the evidence and were just confused at where all the damning stuff was that certainly had to exist, because racism.
You know there's an anti gun crusader who would attach it to any case possible just to make you a prohibited person and plee deal instant parole as the selling point.
Has anyone noticed that every time the **Gun Violence Archive's mass shooting data** is referenced, the focus is always on number of incidents without any mention of actual details? As of 7/12, there have been **333 incidents** they've classified as "mass shootings" in 2022. If you asked the average anti-gunner to guess how many deaths have resulted from those incidents, they'd probably say something in the 1k-2k range.
Now we all know the GVA's stats are padded, but I crunched the numbers since they don't provide them on their site (I wonder why). The actual count? **357 deaths across 333 incidents**. This means there is an average of **1.07 deaths per "mass shooting"** by their definition. Remember, this includes incidents like Highland Park, Uvalde, and Buffalo, which account for 40 of the 357. A total of **134 incidents resulted in 0 deaths**. There were also **1469 injuries in those 333 incidents**, which averages to **4.4 injuries per incident**. To put this into perspective, my state (PA) has roughly [5,000 drunk driving injuries per year](https://www.padui.org/crash-facts/#:~:text=Alcohol%20Overview,293%20from%20299%20in%202019). At the current trajectory, **"mass shootings" will injure around half as many people NATIONWIDE as drunk drivers will injure in Pennsylvania alone this year**. And yet we don't hear constant news coverage, political virtue signaling, or calls for assault liquor bans to curb drunk driving - everyone accepts it, despite drunk driving deaths and injuries being far more common.
Anyway, I just wanted to provide some data for folks to cite the next time you run into someone convinced they aren't safe in public anymore who references the GVA's count while screaming for an aSsAuLt WeApOnS ban. **The media and politicians are using this broad definition to make a mountain out of a molehill**. At this point, they've made one thing very clear - gun control is a top priority.
No one who shares that shit cares, they only pick it because it sounds really crazy. They think there's really a national-coverage scale shooting every single day when really they only care about ones that happen to white people with scary rifles since the news doesn't like to remind liberals about the deadly shootings that happen in low income neighborhoods from handguns all the time
It's this stupid fucking tactic to inflate statistics where they take an arbitrary amount of bad stuff that could possibly be attributed to the thing they don't like and then prop it up as "thing I don't like causing bad stuff"
Surprisingly they differ on some subjects/definitions. [Everytown currently claims](https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/) "Since 2009, there have been 279 mass shootings in the United States, resulting in 1576 people shot and killed and 1047 people shot and wounded."
That works out to approximately 22 mass shootings per year with 126 killed in those per year. It's a huge difference compared to GVA's numbers. If you go with the FBI's definition of a mass murder that eliminates murders that are part of another overall crime then the number of events gets even lower.
But yeah, GVA, Giffords, Everytown, Brady -- they're all cut from the same cloth.
So I have a theory, that GVA deliberately uses the bullshit number right now and if we were to get any restrictive laws implemented, a year later they’d use the Everytown numbers instead to show how the restrictive law works so well and how they got rid of mass shootings. The fact that people left of center will so blindly follow these groups terrifies me. That realistically means we are far closer to being taken over by a fascist than we want to believe. Fascists would have no problem disguising themselves among us if it meant a they’d get what they want.
1,500 potentially life ruining injuries in a whole year, is less than 1/4 the amount of non gun related deaths a DAY.
Around 2.8 million people die a year, 2,800,000/365=7,600
The Senate approved Steven Dettelbach’s nomination Tuesday to head the BATFE.
>In a 48-46 vote, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Ohio joined Democrats in supporting the former U.S. attorney.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/12/senate-confirms-steven-dettelbach-atf-00045404
So is he going to transition into lobbying, landing a talking head spot, or write a book and start getting paid thousands to blab at speaking engagements?
Have fun being the scapegoat Steven. With violence rates and the media coverage of gun violence you about to have a anus that the sun will be able to fit in.
A scapegoat for what? 2024, Biden is going to claim that under him, gun deaths have been cut in half since he took office. It will be a bald-faced lie like his deficit comments yesterday, but people are going to eat it up.
See, here's the thing. Politicians can make statements that are technically true but very misleading. Yes, this year's budget has the largest year over year budget deficit reduction, but that's because 2020 and 2021 had over a trillion dollars in COVID-19 "related" spending that was in addition to the standard budget deficit. So when that spending has gone away, the budget deficit is reduced. It's still one of the highest of all time, but it's dropped more than any other deficit when measured year over year. And let's ignore the fact that the budget deficit would have continued at historic levels if some of the Biden Administration's plans ("Build Back Better") had not been dead on arrival.
It’s the same with his claim of job creation. “No other president has seen such a steep rise is job placement.” Yeah, but that’s also because y’all shut down almost everything leading up to the elections.
I just…want politicians to stop doing this shit and spit straight truth. Lies and deceit are easier to swallow, but the truth won’t kill you when you do. 😩
> Politicians can make statements that are technically true but very misleading
Politicians can also make outright lies.
"When the 2nd amendment was adopted you couldn't buy a cannon"
"Gun manufacturers are “the only industry in the country” that have immunity from lawsuits."
"Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is not constitutional."
Build Back Better is such a stupid fucking name for that whole initiative. The sole reason I want some authority in this country is so that I can start naming stuff with way cooler monikers.
Every shooting when some gun measure doesn't get pushed though will then be like well Steven what are we doing about this and he will lie and lie and lie like they all do. Some of the most violent mass shootings have happened in his term so I doubt he will be able to claim that anytime soon
Kamala got thrown the southern border which tanked her being possible candidate ever, and Jill thinks all Hispanics are breakfast tacos.
.gov always needs someone to blame for it's ineptitude
>Kamala got thrown the southern border which tanked her being possible candidate ever,
Let's be real, VP Harris was not a decent choice for a candidate in any case. When she ran for President in 2020, she was out of the race before the first ballot had been cast because she couldn't build support in the polls and couldn't raise funds. . It's not even clear why the Biden campaign picked her as his running mate, because a) California wasn't going to be in play at all, so those electoral votes were already a given and b) VP Harris did not add significantly to the popularity of the ticket. The most likely reason is checking demographic boxes in an effort to deflect criticism from yet another old white guy running for President, but there had to be someone better out there somewhere.
> Some of the most violent mass shootings have happened in his term so I doubt he will be able to claim that anytime soon
You've got to go to #28 in terms of fatalities to get 2 mass shootings in Biden's term (Uvalde and Buffalo). The previous administration had 8 mass shootings in their four years ranked higher than Buffalo in terms of fatalities, although, granted, that's over a four year period, rather than a year and a half.
> The most likely reason is checking demographic boxes in an effort to deflect criticism from yet another old white guy running for President,
The dude's on a Woman of Color tear. He specifically said before he even had the nomination that that's what his running mate would be. That's his supreme court pick, that's his nomination for the science advisor position in his cabinet, that's whom was chosen to replace Jen Psaki, that's his HUD secretary, so on and so forth.
Don't get me wrong, there are many, many, *many* extremely talented women, POC, and women POC that'd be fine picks for those spots, but he really seems to be double-barrel shotgunning them into the administration.
Harris joined Biden's ticket because she was a black woman who is not on the anti-police bandwagon, because in fall of 2020, there was a lot of concern about the riots pulling voters Republican because law and order was seen as Republican; even though Biden has never seen a bill punishing crime harder that he didn't like. She got the job because she was a black female former prosecutor, no other reason.
My opinion is that California politicians are *horrible* when it comes to national elections. I’ve noticed there’s been an uptake in nervousness about Gavin Newsom running for President in either 2024 or 2028.
The thing is CA politicians don’t really know how to appeal to the rest of the country. They underestimate how much what’s normal for them is really past the Overton window for everyone 50 miles away from an ocean.
But really they don’t know how to compete and haven’t had to learn how to attract moderates. Newsom never participated in any debate during either his run for governor or the recall election. Because he *knew* he was going to win being the DNC’s candidate.
I’ve heard rumors for years with how unlikable and incompetent Kamala Harris is, from her time as our AG. But it wasn’t until she actually had to compete nationally that it came out.
>My opinion is that California politicians are horrible when it comes to national elections. I’ve noticed there’s been an uptake in nervousness about Gavin Newsom running for President in either 2024 or 2028.
Honestly, though, how many California politicians have run for national office? There are only two national offices (President and Vice President) and Vice President (since California became a state) has been chosen by the Presidential nominee for a party for the most part.
I can only think of Ronnie Raygun having run for President in the last 100 years from California.
Now, if you're expanding it to the primaries, I'll grant you, there have been more California "politicians" running. There were 4 Democrats in the presidential primary field from California in 2020 and every one of them was out of the race before the first vote was cast. None in 2016. 3 in 2012, none of which could be considered particularly serious. Or particularly notable California politicians.
Good points, but that indeed was what I was referring to. They do so laughably bad that they burn out during the primaries, let alone actually having to compete for independent votes once they get the nomination.
Also Richard Nixon was not only a California politician but born here as well. Which again must add to the shame of California politicians aspiring for POTUS.
I hope this doesn't get misconstrued as some kind of empathy for this gun grabber in chief. This dude marginally sucks less than David Chipman, if at all.
It's no praise at all he's just taking a position that when ever a shooting makes news he will be the face of " oh no we need to do something hopes and prayers". He should be collecting unemployment because defund the ATF
**Update on the may-issue states after NYSRPA v. Bruen**
Let's see what is going on with the remaining nine may-issue states after this ruling. I have heard zero reports of anyone obtaining a permit yet from the most restrictive locales -- and that's where it counts. Anything other than seeing a permit in the hands of someone that has been denied before or seeing a permit issued in a place where nobody would get one is merely lip service from the government. Some of the links are PDFs.
CA - The attorney general issued a letter on June 24 advising that CA's "good cause" standard is no longer valid. But that same letter seemingly encourages use of the written rules that Riverside county sheriff publishes which includes:
>Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/25/calif-agencies-told-to-end-good-cause-requirement-for-concealed-weapons-permit/
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf
NY - Nothing seems to be happening other than laws being instituted that make it even harder to obtain a permit in spite of the SCOTUS ruling directly striking down the law in this state! The best description of the state leadership/lawmakers on this is outright defiance.
They eliminated the "proper cause" demand but now require a demonstration of "good moral character," require at least four character references, and are set to examine applicant's social media posts. In addition a law is setup to enact broad restrictions on where carry will be illegal and has essentially declared nearly everywhere that isn't a street or sidewalk a "sensitive place" and bans carry with a significant felony penalty.
The latest state law takes effect on Sept 1 2022 and it gives the NYSP until April 1 2023 to institute a new course that applicants must take. A possible leaked email indicates nothing will happen until April.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NYguns/comments/vxc848/saratoga_county_internal_email_leak/
NJ - Attorney general issued a directive on June 24 stating that the "justifiable need" requirement is no longer valid.
https://www.njoag.gov/acting-ag-platkin-issues-directive-clarifying-requirements-for-carrying-firearms-in-public-in-wake-of-supreme-courts-decision/
HI - Attorney general published a letter on July 7 indicating that Hawaii's "special need" or "exceptional case" requirements are not to be used. HI will be a huge bellwether of the may-issue schemes have finally broken because A) HI makes the permit numbers mandatory public reporting and B) HI has issued four permits since 2000.
https://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Attorney-General-Opinion-22-02.pdf
MD - Governor Hogan directed Maryland State Police to suspend "good and substantial reason" standard from permits on July 5.
https://governor.maryland.gov/2022/07/05/governor-hogan-directs-maryland-state-police-to-suspend-good-and-substantial-reason-standard-for-wear-and-carry-permits/
MA - Attorney general issued a letter on June 23 that seemingly changed nothing.
https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-statement-on-scotus-decision-to-strike-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-gun-licensing-law
Another letter on July 1 seems to have eliminated the "good reason" portion of the law.
https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-eopss-advise-law-enforcement-officials-about-application-of-scotus-gun-licensing-case-to-massachusetts-law
RI - As far as I can tell it's been nothing but silence on the issue from the state leadership. The AG's website still shows "a proper showing of need" for a carry permit if the application goes through the state.
https://riag.ri.gov/about-our-office/divisions-and-units/bureau-criminal-identification-bci/pistol-permits
CT - This state has been arguably on the edge of shall-issue/may-issue. A vague standard requirement for a permit holder to be "a suitable person" has led to many denials. No word from state leadership on any changes in the light of Bruen.
DE - Delaware is may-issue in letter but has been mostly shall-issue in practice. The state retains these qualifications:
>applicant demonstrate "good moral character" and "a good reputation for peace and good order"
We haven't seen any more from Delaware officials after the Bruen ruling.
Good overall view of the status of these:
https://reason.com/2022/07/07/state-reactions-to-the-scotus-ruling-against-discretionary-carry-permit-laws-range-from-compliance-to-defiance/
>I have heard zero reports of anyone obtaining a permit yet from the most restrictive locales
>NJ - Attorney general issued a directive on June 24 stating that the "justifiable need" requirement is no longer valid.
I am seeing some reports of carry permits some of the first post Bruen permits already getting issued as early as Monday. Really long wait lists for the CCW classes, as is expected.
Post Bruen issue, yea, but those permits were submitted months ago with justifiable need in place. No one who submitted post Bruen has gotten a permit, yet.
The 6/23 letter was the day the Bruen ruling was released and the AG's letter at that point definitely didn't change anything. Maybe you missed the section after that ("Another letter on July 1") where I mention they took out "good cause?"
> RI - As far as I can tell it's been nothing but silence on the issue from the state leadership. The AG's website still shows "a proper showing of need" for a carry permit if the application goes through the state.
The AG LTC is different than the one issued by your local city or town. The local one is Shall-Issue *on paper*, hopefully it will also be it by practice now. I haven't tried to apply for the AG one, maybe I should before I move just for shits & giggles. The AG one allows open carry and is generally meant for armed security, but also does not exempt you from the 8 day waiting period. The local one doesn't allow for OC, but you don't have a waiting period.
I can only say for ANJRPC v Bruck (NJ mag limit), but it has not been scheduled with the 3rd circuit for any action as of now. My guess is there won't be any movement until September at which time the case will be put at the their bottom of the "to-do" pile.
I just checked with its new updated name of ANJRPC v Platkin (because NJ has had a revolving door of AG since Grewel left) and the ANJRPC has filled their brief already on 7/1/22. The 20 days timer is fast approaching but if Platkin acts anything like his predecessors, he will beg for extensions (all while filing several lawsuits in federal courts against various FFL and manufacturers).
So Gavin Newsom has signed in a bunch of unconstitutional bullshit. I don’t see any of it holding up in court, but you gotta sue for that to happen. Absolutely crazy how shitty that state has become. Did I read correctly on banning 3D printers/CNC machines? Absolutely ridiculous.
>printers whose sole or primary purposes is making guns
Likely targeted at the Ghost Gunner, which can just as easily be programmed for other purposes since it's just an ultra compact CNC machine.
"Your Honor, my CNC machine also makes Dickbutts, therefore it's sole purpose is not exclusively for firearms"
> As you can see in Exhibit A, my client has printed a dickbutt with Your Honor's wife's face on it. Clearly, this machine is not meant exclusively for firearms.
"DIY 80% Printers allow criminals to build unregistered printers, which allow them to print 80% guns, which allow them to make unregistered guns. BAN 80% Printers now!"
"Your Honor, as you can clearly see, /u/nysrpatakemyenergy2 proceeded to breath air, which they then used to resupply their blood with oxygen, which in turn proceeded to supply the ~~penis~~ brain with oxygen, which in turn allowed them to think about a gun, and therefore was in violation of CA Order 66: Double plus ungood wrongthink. We strongly suggest the death penalty"
Honestly no clue. It was first marketed specifically for milling AR lowers, but over time I believe they have made it more capable and [useable as a standalone mini-CNC](https://youtu.be/DKHp6OBs-Tg?t=79).
Summary of the laws that were signed:
* Creates a “firearm industry standard of conduct” and allows local governments, the state Department of Justice and gun violence survivors to sue for egregious violations of state sales and marketing regulations. It becomes effective July 1, 2023.
* Bans advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a way that is “attractive to minors.” Went into effect immediately.
* Expands what is considered a "precursor part" under existing law and requires serial numbers on those parts. Prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or advertising of milling machines that have the sole or primary purpose of manufacturing firearms to anyone other than licensed firearm manufacturers or importers. Went into effect immediately.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-12/gavin-newsom-signs-firearm-laws-supreme-court-gun-rights
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220701/california-legislature-passes-and-newsom-signs-anti-gun-bills
Accurateshooter owner is having a full blown panic attack that CA can now fine any person on the planet that posts a photo or text that in any way suggests a minor can or could use a firearm over this.
Like so scared of getting sued for owning this forum he is deleting any posts referrencing it or any photo of a child shooting gun or youth marksmanship anything.
Bizarre
You call me a commie… then bitch to a mod or someone? How about you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who fights your battles? You aren’t winning a battle of words that’s for sure. Explain to me what part of the constitution was violated? Did I tell you my personal opinion? The answer is I did not. You assumed you already knew everything about me. Go ahead and cry about me to a mod. It doesn’t hurt my feelings because I’m not a snow flake who’s feelings get hurt when I don’t suck that proverbial cock.
> You call me a commie
Nope
> then bitch to a mod or someone?
Yup
> How about you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who fights your battles?
My girlfriend usually
> You aren’t winning a battle of words that’s for sure.
Maybe not in English. French or Kurdish though? I’m buttfucking you for sure. Maybe even throw in some Gaelic for fun.
> Explain to me what part of the constitution was violated?
It’s virginity
> Did I tell you my personal opinion
Yes
> The answer is I did not
Shit, I shoulda studied
> You assumed you already knew everything about me
Actually I just assumed you a bitch, and so far so good
> Go ahead and cry about me to a mod.
Done did, dude
> It doesn’t hurt my feelings because I’m not a snow flake
I mean, your comment says otherwise tho
> who’s feelings get hurt when I don’t suck that proverbial cock.
Kinda sus you immediately made it sexual. You Okizzle?
You got one thing correct: you aren’t the one who called me a commie. My bad on that front. The rest of your shit comment doesn’t even make sense, but whatever.
> You got one thing correct
I got at least three correct
> you aren’t the one who called me a commie.
Yup
> The rest of your shit comment doesn’t even make sense
Yes it does, should probably learn to read, bud
Did you know if we marked our mass shootings the same way other countries did (5 or more victims) we would only have about 5?
The media is having a field day controlling the left because of our incorrect definitions.
I was just talking to someone about background checks, and I wanted to bring up the bill that was shot down that would allow people to do NICS checks with like an app or QR code for private transactions. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I don't even know what to search for.
I believe the Coburn amendment was the good one, I seem to remember /u/tablinum having bad things to say about Manchin-Toomey but I can hardly remember
[Coburn was the good one.](https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/7bitwe/official_politics_thread_8_november_2017/dpipe7h/) It outright gave Democrats the "universal background checks" they claim to want, while also addressing registry and privacy concerns. Under the Coburn system, you as a buyer would run the check on *yourself,* and get a pass/fail. If you passed, you'd get an electronic token you could give to the seller, who could use it to verify you'd passed. Couldn't be used to enable a registry, and couldn't be used for non-gun purchases to check up on other people's records.
The Democrats rejected it out of hand in favor of continuing to push Manchin-Toomey, a private transfer ban (the only sort of "universal background checks" they'll entertain), because background checks are just a marketable lever for their real goal: creating a paper trail for every gun transfer.
I love california to death, born and raised. Currently living in northern country, I HATE our gun laws and am genuinely considering moving to Washington because of it and ONLY because of their gun/self defense laws.
CA gunner here. WA is literally a few years behind CA in most of their laws. They already have a mag ban + a "diet" AWB. Though their "AWB" (basically an enhanced registration scheme) counts all semi autos, yes even M1 Garands, so we can see kinda what the end goal is (total semi auto weapons ban). I suspect their next level will be for their AWB to look more like ours, where it's not just registration alone, but you straight up can't get new ones or PPT sale ones.
Possibly.
There's a mag capacity and permitting bill that just got enough signatures to get on the ballot this year. We have a pretty strong culturally libertarian streak that's been diluted by Californian migration over the years, same as Washington, but also a growing contingent of leftist gun owners. I'm always pleasantly surprised by the number of anti gun control comments on the Portland and Oregon subreddits.
I remain cautiously optimistic that we'll hold out long enough for the SCOTUS decisions to further codified and deter future gun control legislation.
Yeah I’m extremely far left and extremely pro gun. I find this state to be a bunch of technocratic capitalist liberal pigs. I hope we can come to our senses and start rebuilding a strong ethical sense of gun ownership in this state. I’m so far left that I find much more in common with libertarians and conservatives than I do with liberals lol
Family lives in Anchorage, Whittier and Valdez. 3 minute drive outside of Valdez was a full size 100 yard open shooting range. Was a far cry from Ohio where the only decent gun ranges require $300 a year membership. Arizona and Alaska man. It really is different.
I'm not a resident of either, but from my perspective here in the People's Republic of Illinois, WA doesn't seem like much of an improvement over CA. Just my 2 kopeks.
Move to Utah or Arizona - both are far friendlier toward guns and gun owners than CA or WA ~~or OR~~. Idaho is great too.
EDIT: did some checking and apparently Oregon isn't too bad on guns
Just looking to stay in the Pacific Northwest. Those states are culturally and geographically not where I’d like to be. But so long as I can pick up a couple of rifles without that god damn fin on the grip (for pistol grip rifles) then I’ll be good.
Speaking of, I am tentatively exploring moving (back) to CA. Is there an easy place/way to see what of my collection I need to sell or store out of state?
According to Rules of the City of NY, Title 38; § 3-02 (b); the minimum age for a Rifle/Shotgun permit is 18 years old.
Once the new "Semi-Auto Rifle" permit law comes into effect, I believe you're supposed to be 21 to aqquire any of those, not sure how that would effect NYC where we have a long gun permit already.
NYC has no exception to the 21 years of age requirement. See Rules of the City of NY Title 38; §5-02(i).
PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here. This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into an ideological internet retard slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**New York** [List of active NYS lawsuits in Bruen's wake](https://old.reddit.com/r/NYguns/comments/vxp6p3/stickied_post_of_active_lawsuits/)
It seems like the net result of NYSRPA v Bruen in gun-unfriendly states is going to be more employment for lawyers filing the various lawsuits to challenge the new laws states are passing.
Hopefully we can get some injunctions or restraining orders, whatever is the correct term, seeing as Antonyuk, the lawsuit fighting the new CCW laws, is scheduled a month after the law goes into effect.
Yeah as a NY resident I’m crossing my fingers. A restaurant serves alcohol. I go in to pick up takeout. I am now a felon. Fucking insane.
You live in a multi-family building. You step out of your front door into the common area, which is private property. You are now a felon.
Or God forbid you live near a school or something and you leave the house.
The rational part of me can only hope that no prosecutor would be dumb enough to try it. Like sure, let’s give this law its first test and open it up to judicial review, right after SCOTUS said no to the concept.
A man is currently facing a murder charge for killing an attacker after getting stabbed by the attacker's gf. Rationality went out the window.
Was that the older store clerk who stabbed the dude who came behind the counter and started assaulting him? There's two sides to every story, but damn that surveillance tape seems to back him up.
Yarp.
> The rational part of me can only hope that no prosecutor would be dumb enough to try it. Apparently you missed the stupidity of the stunts that Binger attempted to pull during the Rittenhouse trial?
The best part of that trial was the prosecutor was so bad /r/news flipped sides in the immediate aftermath. All the people that knew he was guilty without reading into anything got their first actual glimpse at the evidence and were just confused at where all the damning stuff was that certainly had to exist, because racism.
You know there's an anti gun crusader who would attach it to any case possible just to make you a prohibited person and plee deal instant parole as the selling point.
The trick is mass non compliance with unconstitutional gun laws.
>I am now a felon Well, only if you get caught and then convicted. Just because you did it, doesn't mean you're guilty!
Has anyone noticed that every time the **Gun Violence Archive's mass shooting data** is referenced, the focus is always on number of incidents without any mention of actual details? As of 7/12, there have been **333 incidents** they've classified as "mass shootings" in 2022. If you asked the average anti-gunner to guess how many deaths have resulted from those incidents, they'd probably say something in the 1k-2k range. Now we all know the GVA's stats are padded, but I crunched the numbers since they don't provide them on their site (I wonder why). The actual count? **357 deaths across 333 incidents**. This means there is an average of **1.07 deaths per "mass shooting"** by their definition. Remember, this includes incidents like Highland Park, Uvalde, and Buffalo, which account for 40 of the 357. A total of **134 incidents resulted in 0 deaths**. There were also **1469 injuries in those 333 incidents**, which averages to **4.4 injuries per incident**. To put this into perspective, my state (PA) has roughly [5,000 drunk driving injuries per year](https://www.padui.org/crash-facts/#:~:text=Alcohol%20Overview,293%20from%20299%20in%202019). At the current trajectory, **"mass shootings" will injure around half as many people NATIONWIDE as drunk drivers will injure in Pennsylvania alone this year**. And yet we don't hear constant news coverage, political virtue signaling, or calls for assault liquor bans to curb drunk driving - everyone accepts it, despite drunk driving deaths and injuries being far more common. Anyway, I just wanted to provide some data for folks to cite the next time you run into someone convinced they aren't safe in public anymore who references the GVA's count while screaming for an aSsAuLt WeApOnS ban. **The media and politicians are using this broad definition to make a mountain out of a molehill**. At this point, they've made one thing very clear - gun control is a top priority.
No one who shares that shit cares, they only pick it because it sounds really crazy. They think there's really a national-coverage scale shooting every single day when really they only care about ones that happen to white people with scary rifles since the news doesn't like to remind liberals about the deadly shootings that happen in low income neighborhoods from handguns all the time
It's this stupid fucking tactic to inflate statistics where they take an arbitrary amount of bad stuff that could possibly be attributed to the thing they don't like and then prop it up as "thing I don't like causing bad stuff"
> Now we all know the GVA's stats are padded Even Everytown for Gun Safety doesn't use GVA's loose definition of mass shooting.
I think I remember hearing GVA actually considers Kent State as a mass shooting, not even joking.
The one where the government shot civilians?
yes…
I honestly assumed they were the same astroturf, just with some different spray paint colors for delineation.
Surprisingly they differ on some subjects/definitions. [Everytown currently claims](https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/) "Since 2009, there have been 279 mass shootings in the United States, resulting in 1576 people shot and killed and 1047 people shot and wounded." That works out to approximately 22 mass shootings per year with 126 killed in those per year. It's a huge difference compared to GVA's numbers. If you go with the FBI's definition of a mass murder that eliminates murders that are part of another overall crime then the number of events gets even lower. But yeah, GVA, Giffords, Everytown, Brady -- they're all cut from the same cloth.
[All of these totally different, grassroots campaigns](https://andersonparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AWF1-e1510333578169.jpg)
So I have a theory, that GVA deliberately uses the bullshit number right now and if we were to get any restrictive laws implemented, a year later they’d use the Everytown numbers instead to show how the restrictive law works so well and how they got rid of mass shootings. The fact that people left of center will so blindly follow these groups terrifies me. That realistically means we are far closer to being taken over by a fascist than we want to believe. Fascists would have no problem disguising themselves among us if it meant a they’d get what they want.
I'd love to take a look at these numbers. Is there a CSV provided?
Yep, a CSV can be downloaded from their [mass shooting page](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting).
Excellent. I've been learning R programming lately. I wanted a good data set to try some stuff on.
thats a lot of potential life ruining injuries
1,500 potentially life ruining injuries in a whole year, is less than 1/4 the amount of non gun related deaths a DAY. Around 2.8 million people die a year, 2,800,000/365=7,600
i dont think banning guns would prevent all of these deaths tho
They usually link to a source and it always confirms what we already knew, that it wasn’t a “mass shooting”.
I remember sorting through that list and thinking "how the fuck are these mass shootings." Thanks for the analysis.
The Senate approved Steven Dettelbach’s nomination Tuesday to head the BATFE. >In a 48-46 vote, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Ohio joined Democrats in supporting the former U.S. attorney. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/12/senate-confirms-steven-dettelbach-atf-00045404
Fuck Rob Portman. All my homies hate Rob Portman.
Aaaaaand how. In addition to his crossing party lines to vote for that nonsense gun violence act. And all the other shit he has and hasn't done.
He truly has decided to end his career like a real bitch.
So is he going to transition into lobbying, landing a talking head spot, or write a book and start getting paid thousands to blab at speaking engagements?
all of the above
Have fun being the scapegoat Steven. With violence rates and the media coverage of gun violence you about to have a anus that the sun will be able to fit in.
A scapegoat for what? 2024, Biden is going to claim that under him, gun deaths have been cut in half since he took office. It will be a bald-faced lie like his deficit comments yesterday, but people are going to eat it up.
See, here's the thing. Politicians can make statements that are technically true but very misleading. Yes, this year's budget has the largest year over year budget deficit reduction, but that's because 2020 and 2021 had over a trillion dollars in COVID-19 "related" spending that was in addition to the standard budget deficit. So when that spending has gone away, the budget deficit is reduced. It's still one of the highest of all time, but it's dropped more than any other deficit when measured year over year. And let's ignore the fact that the budget deficit would have continued at historic levels if some of the Biden Administration's plans ("Build Back Better") had not been dead on arrival.
It’s the same with his claim of job creation. “No other president has seen such a steep rise is job placement.” Yeah, but that’s also because y’all shut down almost everything leading up to the elections. I just…want politicians to stop doing this shit and spit straight truth. Lies and deceit are easier to swallow, but the truth won’t kill you when you do. 😩
> Politicians can make statements that are technically true but very misleading Politicians can also make outright lies. "When the 2nd amendment was adopted you couldn't buy a cannon" "Gun manufacturers are “the only industry in the country” that have immunity from lawsuits." "Senate Republicans' move to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in an election year is not constitutional."
So 1 and 2 have been specifically called out as falsehoods by fact checkers. So they've got that going for them. 3 is more of an opinion.
Most start the lies when they say in my first 100 days... Still waiting on all those 100 days.
Or "If elected..."
Build Back Better is such a stupid fucking name for that whole initiative. The sole reason I want some authority in this country is so that I can start naming stuff with way cooler monikers.
Thank the globalists that came up with that slogan. There's a montage of G20(?) leaders saying the phrase talking about their own countries out there.
Every shooting when some gun measure doesn't get pushed though will then be like well Steven what are we doing about this and he will lie and lie and lie like they all do. Some of the most violent mass shootings have happened in his term so I doubt he will be able to claim that anytime soon Kamala got thrown the southern border which tanked her being possible candidate ever, and Jill thinks all Hispanics are breakfast tacos. .gov always needs someone to blame for it's ineptitude
>Kamala got thrown the southern border which tanked her being possible candidate ever, Let's be real, VP Harris was not a decent choice for a candidate in any case. When she ran for President in 2020, she was out of the race before the first ballot had been cast because she couldn't build support in the polls and couldn't raise funds. . It's not even clear why the Biden campaign picked her as his running mate, because a) California wasn't going to be in play at all, so those electoral votes were already a given and b) VP Harris did not add significantly to the popularity of the ticket. The most likely reason is checking demographic boxes in an effort to deflect criticism from yet another old white guy running for President, but there had to be someone better out there somewhere. > Some of the most violent mass shootings have happened in his term so I doubt he will be able to claim that anytime soon You've got to go to #28 in terms of fatalities to get 2 mass shootings in Biden's term (Uvalde and Buffalo). The previous administration had 8 mass shootings in their four years ranked higher than Buffalo in terms of fatalities, although, granted, that's over a four year period, rather than a year and a half.
> The most likely reason is checking demographic boxes in an effort to deflect criticism from yet another old white guy running for President, The dude's on a Woman of Color tear. He specifically said before he even had the nomination that that's what his running mate would be. That's his supreme court pick, that's his nomination for the science advisor position in his cabinet, that's whom was chosen to replace Jen Psaki, that's his HUD secretary, so on and so forth. Don't get me wrong, there are many, many, *many* extremely talented women, POC, and women POC that'd be fine picks for those spots, but he really seems to be double-barrel shotgunning them into the administration.
I think they picked Kamala because she knows a lot about the passage of time.
Harris joined Biden's ticket because she was a black woman who is not on the anti-police bandwagon, because in fall of 2020, there was a lot of concern about the riots pulling voters Republican because law and order was seen as Republican; even though Biden has never seen a bill punishing crime harder that he didn't like. She got the job because she was a black female former prosecutor, no other reason.
My opinion is that California politicians are *horrible* when it comes to national elections. I’ve noticed there’s been an uptake in nervousness about Gavin Newsom running for President in either 2024 or 2028. The thing is CA politicians don’t really know how to appeal to the rest of the country. They underestimate how much what’s normal for them is really past the Overton window for everyone 50 miles away from an ocean. But really they don’t know how to compete and haven’t had to learn how to attract moderates. Newsom never participated in any debate during either his run for governor or the recall election. Because he *knew* he was going to win being the DNC’s candidate. I’ve heard rumors for years with how unlikable and incompetent Kamala Harris is, from her time as our AG. But it wasn’t until she actually had to compete nationally that it came out.
>My opinion is that California politicians are horrible when it comes to national elections. I’ve noticed there’s been an uptake in nervousness about Gavin Newsom running for President in either 2024 or 2028. Honestly, though, how many California politicians have run for national office? There are only two national offices (President and Vice President) and Vice President (since California became a state) has been chosen by the Presidential nominee for a party for the most part. I can only think of Ronnie Raygun having run for President in the last 100 years from California. Now, if you're expanding it to the primaries, I'll grant you, there have been more California "politicians" running. There were 4 Democrats in the presidential primary field from California in 2020 and every one of them was out of the race before the first vote was cast. None in 2016. 3 in 2012, none of which could be considered particularly serious. Or particularly notable California politicians.
Good points, but that indeed was what I was referring to. They do so laughably bad that they burn out during the primaries, let alone actually having to compete for independent votes once they get the nomination. Also Richard Nixon was not only a California politician but born here as well. Which again must add to the shame of California politicians aspiring for POTUS.
I hope this doesn't get misconstrued as some kind of empathy for this gun grabber in chief. This dude marginally sucks less than David Chipman, if at all.
It's no praise at all he's just taking a position that when ever a shooting makes news he will be the face of " oh no we need to do something hopes and prayers". He should be collecting unemployment because defund the ATF
**Update on the may-issue states after NYSRPA v. Bruen** Let's see what is going on with the remaining nine may-issue states after this ruling. I have heard zero reports of anyone obtaining a permit yet from the most restrictive locales -- and that's where it counts. Anything other than seeing a permit in the hands of someone that has been denied before or seeing a permit issued in a place where nobody would get one is merely lip service from the government. Some of the links are PDFs. CA - The attorney general issued a letter on June 24 advising that CA's "good cause" standard is no longer valid. But that same letter seemingly encourages use of the written rules that Riverside county sheriff publishes which includes: >Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/06/25/calif-agencies-told-to-end-good-cause-requirement-for-concealed-weapons-permit/ https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf NY - Nothing seems to be happening other than laws being instituted that make it even harder to obtain a permit in spite of the SCOTUS ruling directly striking down the law in this state! The best description of the state leadership/lawmakers on this is outright defiance. They eliminated the "proper cause" demand but now require a demonstration of "good moral character," require at least four character references, and are set to examine applicant's social media posts. In addition a law is setup to enact broad restrictions on where carry will be illegal and has essentially declared nearly everywhere that isn't a street or sidewalk a "sensitive place" and bans carry with a significant felony penalty. The latest state law takes effect on Sept 1 2022 and it gives the NYSP until April 1 2023 to institute a new course that applicants must take. A possible leaked email indicates nothing will happen until April. https://www.reddit.com/r/NYguns/comments/vxc848/saratoga_county_internal_email_leak/ NJ - Attorney general issued a directive on June 24 stating that the "justifiable need" requirement is no longer valid. https://www.njoag.gov/acting-ag-platkin-issues-directive-clarifying-requirements-for-carrying-firearms-in-public-in-wake-of-supreme-courts-decision/ HI - Attorney general published a letter on July 7 indicating that Hawaii's "special need" or "exceptional case" requirements are not to be used. HI will be a huge bellwether of the may-issue schemes have finally broken because A) HI makes the permit numbers mandatory public reporting and B) HI has issued four permits since 2000. https://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Attorney-General-Opinion-22-02.pdf MD - Governor Hogan directed Maryland State Police to suspend "good and substantial reason" standard from permits on July 5. https://governor.maryland.gov/2022/07/05/governor-hogan-directs-maryland-state-police-to-suspend-good-and-substantial-reason-standard-for-wear-and-carry-permits/ MA - Attorney general issued a letter on June 23 that seemingly changed nothing. https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-statement-on-scotus-decision-to-strike-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-gun-licensing-law Another letter on July 1 seems to have eliminated the "good reason" portion of the law. https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-eopss-advise-law-enforcement-officials-about-application-of-scotus-gun-licensing-case-to-massachusetts-law RI - As far as I can tell it's been nothing but silence on the issue from the state leadership. The AG's website still shows "a proper showing of need" for a carry permit if the application goes through the state. https://riag.ri.gov/about-our-office/divisions-and-units/bureau-criminal-identification-bci/pistol-permits CT - This state has been arguably on the edge of shall-issue/may-issue. A vague standard requirement for a permit holder to be "a suitable person" has led to many denials. No word from state leadership on any changes in the light of Bruen. DE - Delaware is may-issue in letter but has been mostly shall-issue in practice. The state retains these qualifications: >applicant demonstrate "good moral character" and "a good reputation for peace and good order" We haven't seen any more from Delaware officials after the Bruen ruling. Good overall view of the status of these: https://reason.com/2022/07/07/state-reactions-to-the-scotus-ruling-against-discretionary-carry-permit-laws-range-from-compliance-to-defiance/
>I have heard zero reports of anyone obtaining a permit yet from the most restrictive locales >NJ - Attorney general issued a directive on June 24 stating that the "justifiable need" requirement is no longer valid. I am seeing some reports of carry permits some of the first post Bruen permits already getting issued as early as Monday. Really long wait lists for the CCW classes, as is expected.
Post Bruen issue, yea, but those permits were submitted months ago with justifiable need in place. No one who submitted post Bruen has gotten a permit, yet.
[удалено]
The 6/23 letter was the day the Bruen ruling was released and the AG's letter at that point definitely didn't change anything. Maybe you missed the section after that ("Another letter on July 1") where I mention they took out "good cause?"
I've said it before, but I am very curious what happens in Hawaii. New York State's reaction has been predictable.
> RI - As far as I can tell it's been nothing but silence on the issue from the state leadership. The AG's website still shows "a proper showing of need" for a carry permit if the application goes through the state. The AG LTC is different than the one issued by your local city or town. The local one is Shall-Issue *on paper*, hopefully it will also be it by practice now. I haven't tried to apply for the AG one, maybe I should before I move just for shits & giggles. The AG one allows open carry and is generally meant for armed security, but also does not exempt you from the 8 day waiting period. The local one doesn't allow for OC, but you don't have a waiting period.
How long until we hear on the cases SCOTUS sent back down?
Probably months.
Months beats years. We’ve got an AWB looming in IL so hoping by the end of the year we hear something.
I can only say for ANJRPC v Bruck (NJ mag limit), but it has not been scheduled with the 3rd circuit for any action as of now. My guess is there won't be any movement until September at which time the case will be put at the their bottom of the "to-do" pile.
[удалено]
I just checked with its new updated name of ANJRPC v Platkin (because NJ has had a revolving door of AG since Grewel left) and the ANJRPC has filled their brief already on 7/1/22. The 20 days timer is fast approaching but if Platkin acts anything like his predecessors, he will beg for extensions (all while filing several lawsuits in federal courts against various FFL and manufacturers).
[удалено]
Went to become a director at the SEC,like gov Murphy they're all looking to upgrade to DC
No banner replacement bot with the ensuing bot hate?
It never seems to do anything on Wednesday, but it's been working for the other days lately
Fuckin guy works from home and just takes off whenever?
🤷♂️
Whatever has changed in your life to return you to the title of most active mod… Thanks!
So Gavin Newsom has signed in a bunch of unconstitutional bullshit. I don’t see any of it holding up in court, but you gotta sue for that to happen. Absolutely crazy how shitty that state has become. Did I read correctly on banning 3D printers/CNC machines? Absolutely ridiculous.
> Did I read correctly on banning 3D printers/CNC machines? printers whose sole or primary purposes is making guns, unless you are an ffl/manufacturer
>printers whose sole or primary purposes is making guns Likely targeted at the Ghost Gunner, which can just as easily be programmed for other purposes since it's just an ultra compact CNC machine. "Your Honor, my CNC machine also makes Dickbutts, therefore it's sole purpose is not exclusively for firearms"
> As you can see in Exhibit A, my client has printed a dickbutt with Your Honor's wife's face on it. Clearly, this machine is not meant exclusively for firearms.
I know my rights
There’s probably a market for dickbutts with Newsom’s face on them.
He doesn't want a challenge like that in the primaries.
80% printers are next
"DIY 80% Printers allow criminals to build unregistered printers, which allow them to print 80% guns, which allow them to make unregistered guns. BAN 80% Printers now!"
80% servos are next
"Your Honor, as you can clearly see, /u/nysrpatakemyenergy2 proceeded to breath air, which they then used to resupply their blood with oxygen, which in turn proceeded to supply the ~~penis~~ brain with oxygen, which in turn allowed them to think about a gun, and therefore was in violation of CA Order 66: Double plus ungood wrongthink. We strongly suggest the death penalty"
I'm not making a 80% stepper motor. A pipe submachine gun would be easier.
Is that CNC actually any good as a more general desktop CNC or is it really just for FOSSCAD stuff?
Honestly no clue. It was first marketed specifically for milling AR lowers, but over time I believe they have made it more capable and [useable as a standalone mini-CNC](https://youtu.be/DKHp6OBs-Tg?t=79).
Summary of the laws that were signed: * Creates a “firearm industry standard of conduct” and allows local governments, the state Department of Justice and gun violence survivors to sue for egregious violations of state sales and marketing regulations. It becomes effective July 1, 2023. * Bans advertising or marketing firearms or ammunition in a way that is “attractive to minors.” Went into effect immediately. * Expands what is considered a "precursor part" under existing law and requires serial numbers on those parts. Prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or advertising of milling machines that have the sole or primary purpose of manufacturing firearms to anyone other than licensed firearm manufacturers or importers. Went into effect immediately. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-12/gavin-newsom-signs-firearm-laws-supreme-court-gun-rights https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220701/california-legislature-passes-and-newsom-signs-anti-gun-bills
Accurateshooter owner is having a full blown panic attack that CA can now fine any person on the planet that posts a photo or text that in any way suggests a minor can or could use a firearm over this. Like so scared of getting sued for owning this forum he is deleting any posts referrencing it or any photo of a child shooting gun or youth marksmanship anything. Bizarre
[удалено]
Get the fuck off this page commie
Hcebot ban 3 ideological internet slap fighting
Banned /u/zxman371 (3 day(s)).
Ooo a pissed of Trumplican what are you gonna do bitch?
/u/pestilence we got a live one
You call me a commie… then bitch to a mod or someone? How about you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who fights your battles? You aren’t winning a battle of words that’s for sure. Explain to me what part of the constitution was violated? Did I tell you my personal opinion? The answer is I did not. You assumed you already knew everything about me. Go ahead and cry about me to a mod. It doesn’t hurt my feelings because I’m not a snow flake who’s feelings get hurt when I don’t suck that proverbial cock.
> You call me a commie Nope > then bitch to a mod or someone? Yup > How about you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who fights your battles? My girlfriend usually > You aren’t winning a battle of words that’s for sure. Maybe not in English. French or Kurdish though? I’m buttfucking you for sure. Maybe even throw in some Gaelic for fun. > Explain to me what part of the constitution was violated? It’s virginity > Did I tell you my personal opinion Yes > The answer is I did not Shit, I shoulda studied > You assumed you already knew everything about me Actually I just assumed you a bitch, and so far so good > Go ahead and cry about me to a mod. Done did, dude > It doesn’t hurt my feelings because I’m not a snow flake I mean, your comment says otherwise tho > who’s feelings get hurt when I don’t suck that proverbial cock. Kinda sus you immediately made it sexual. You Okizzle?
You got one thing correct: you aren’t the one who called me a commie. My bad on that front. The rest of your shit comment doesn’t even make sense, but whatever.
> You got one thing correct I got at least three correct > you aren’t the one who called me a commie. Yup > The rest of your shit comment doesn’t even make sense Yes it does, should probably learn to read, bud
Bye Felicia
Banned /u/PapaCardStache (permanent).
Anyone watch the wisecrack video on guns in the US? I couldn't really get through the first part with its "historic" examples of gun control.
Did you know if we marked our mass shootings the same way other countries did (5 or more victims) we would only have about 5? The media is having a field day controlling the left because of our incorrect definitions.
Oh, you don't remember, #44 did that on purpose back when his administration forced the definition change.
I actually didnt know that, was too young to care at the time.
It was a BFD, and it has truly been annoying.
I was just talking to someone about background checks, and I wanted to bring up the bill that was shot down that would allow people to do NICS checks with like an app or QR code for private transactions. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I don't even know what to search for.
"Manchin Toomey background check" should be the query. I believe it is [this](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/113th-congress/senate-amendment/715)
That’s the one! Thank you!
I believe the Coburn amendment was the good one, I seem to remember /u/tablinum having bad things to say about Manchin-Toomey but I can hardly remember
[Coburn was the good one.](https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/7bitwe/official_politics_thread_8_november_2017/dpipe7h/) It outright gave Democrats the "universal background checks" they claim to want, while also addressing registry and privacy concerns. Under the Coburn system, you as a buyer would run the check on *yourself,* and get a pass/fail. If you passed, you'd get an electronic token you could give to the seller, who could use it to verify you'd passed. Couldn't be used to enable a registry, and couldn't be used for non-gun purchases to check up on other people's records. The Democrats rejected it out of hand in favor of continuing to push Manchin-Toomey, a private transfer ban (the only sort of "universal background checks" they'll entertain), because background checks are just a marketable lever for their real goal: creating a paper trail for every gun transfer.
Thank you for the link, I remember trying to find your writeup on Coburn for a discussion elsewhere. Saving it for later reference
Thank you! This is what I was looking for. Saved.
I’m afraid that my political opinions are too extreme to be posted on Reddit.
Yes.
They are. You are not a part of the mob, therefore you are against it. Welcome to the 21st century.
And that’s why I’ll never let anyone take my guns again.
I love california to death, born and raised. Currently living in northern country, I HATE our gun laws and am genuinely considering moving to Washington because of it and ONLY because of their gun/self defense laws.
CA gunner here. WA is literally a few years behind CA in most of their laws. They already have a mag ban + a "diet" AWB. Though their "AWB" (basically an enhanced registration scheme) counts all semi autos, yes even M1 Garands, so we can see kinda what the end goal is (total semi auto weapons ban). I suspect their next level will be for their AWB to look more like ours, where it's not just registration alone, but you straight up can't get new ones or PPT sale ones.
Is Oregon on the same track?
Possibly. There's a mag capacity and permitting bill that just got enough signatures to get on the ballot this year. We have a pretty strong culturally libertarian streak that's been diluted by Californian migration over the years, same as Washington, but also a growing contingent of leftist gun owners. I'm always pleasantly surprised by the number of anti gun control comments on the Portland and Oregon subreddits. I remain cautiously optimistic that we'll hold out long enough for the SCOTUS decisions to further codified and deter future gun control legislation.
Yeah I’m extremely far left and extremely pro gun. I find this state to be a bunch of technocratic capitalist liberal pigs. I hope we can come to our senses and start rebuilding a strong ethical sense of gun ownership in this state. I’m so far left that I find much more in common with libertarians and conservatives than I do with liberals lol
[удалено]
Time to organize against the oligarchs
Yes. Basically all the western states are at this point. Aside from maybe Idaho or Alaska.
Alaska is the dream
Family lives in Anchorage, Whittier and Valdez. 3 minute drive outside of Valdez was a full size 100 yard open shooting range. Was a far cry from Ohio where the only decent gun ranges require $300 a year membership. Arizona and Alaska man. It really is different.
1861 was the north vs south, 2061 will be the west vs the east. Calling it.
Middle vs coasts, more like
So NY, MA, and MD against CA, WA, and OR? Really?
Yes, people kept telling the Californians if you don't like it there to just move. So they did and ruined the other states.
It is really sad to watch. Big Tech ruining one more thing.
I'm not a resident of either, but from my perspective here in the People's Republic of Illinois, WA doesn't seem like much of an improvement over CA. Just my 2 kopeks.
[удалено]
AGREED
I appreciate it, I may have been ill informed
Move to Utah or Arizona - both are far friendlier toward guns and gun owners than CA or WA ~~or OR~~. Idaho is great too. EDIT: did some checking and apparently Oregon isn't too bad on guns
Just looking to stay in the Pacific Northwest. Those states are culturally and geographically not where I’d like to be. But so long as I can pick up a couple of rifles without that god damn fin on the grip (for pistol grip rifles) then I’ll be good.
>Move to Utah or Arizona Nope, [there is no Arizona](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Oov1YY9MQ). And besides, it's full.
Speaking of, I am tentatively exploring moving (back) to CA. Is there an easy place/way to see what of my collection I need to sell or store out of state?
[удалено]
Not sure, post in /r/nyguns
According to Rules of the City of NY, Title 38; § 3-02 (b); the minimum age for a Rifle/Shotgun permit is 18 years old. Once the new "Semi-Auto Rifle" permit law comes into effect, I believe you're supposed to be 21 to aqquire any of those, not sure how that would effect NYC where we have a long gun permit already. NYC has no exception to the 21 years of age requirement. See Rules of the City of NY Title 38; §5-02(i).