As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the finished frame or receiver of the weapon, or the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver:
Another Californian bill ripe for its abuse. Readily converted is the key here and how it will be interpreted by your friendly local D.A. with aspirations of re-election. Wait, do you think it only meant the 80% receivers? How about the DIY Polymer Receivers that you just pour out of a mold? Is having the appropriate liquid plastics and mold a “readily converted frame’?
With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement — where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes — in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.
They have no legal or worse, constitutional standing. Are they are using the same Law Firm that was used to sue Cheaper Than Dirt and got the case lost via judicial spanking?
“Commercial speech” as a constitutional doctrine — initially (and even today) an exception from the First Amendment’s normal rules — was casually suggested by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in 1942. Then, in 1976, it was altered substantially when the Court recognized that such a talismanic exemption from the Constitution’s mandates was unsustainable. Later, it was transformed by repeated Court cases that resulted in a solid First Amendment rule that commercial speech that is neither false nor misleading is fully protected speech. By 2001, the doctrine approached maturity when the Court recognized that even tobacco advertising was entitled to significant First Amendment protection.
Come on, the lawyers must know, are they really that stupid? Or is there something else?
From the original article:
“It’s a long shot,” Culhane concedes, but the plaintiffs’ argument holds powerful potential if the suit manages to reveal the thinking behind the riflemaker’s marketing strategy for the military-grade firearms. Positioning the case as a contest between commercial exploitation and parents mourning murdered children puts enormous pressure on the industry, he says.
Basically it is a two-pronged approach: Death by thousand legal paper cuts and associated expenses and gather enough material to use in public campaign to mute gun advertising via “shame.” I don’t know if Connecticut has the legal recourse of forcing the plaintiff to pay for legal and other costs if they lose, but if they do, Daddy Bloomberg better have the checkbook ready.
And as for shaming…Do we really look like we give two damns and a donut? It is not like Bushmaster took an ad in the New York Times or posted a sales banner at the local Piggy Wiggly. Gun advertising is pretty much localized in magazines and gun-related media.
I think they are grasping at legal straws. Mind you, Bushmaster is in enemy Judicial territory so the fight might not be over soon.
Diaz de la Portilla blocked two other bills that attempted to expand gun owners’ rights to carry their weapons. One bill would have allowed concealed permit holders to carry handguns on college campuses, and the other would have allowed them to openly carry handguns. Diaz de la Portilla said Simpson’s bill, like the others, offered no benefit toward safety.
We’ve been here before. This time we got gouged by a RINO so, it is open season on the Florida GOP idiots…. ALL OF THEM.
If I wanted a Liberal Democrat in the Legislature, I would have voted for one. So, I am planning on abstaining to vote for my State Rep and Senator until De La Portilla gets removed from his Chair or allows the bills to be heard. I encourage every Florida Gun Owner to do the same and let his/her State critters know why are we doing so.
And if they piss me any more, I am voting Grayson for US Senate. That would be electing Florida Man to represent the Sunshine State.
The Norwegian Military is having all of its non-combat deployed personnel turn in their sidearms (original source) due to budgetary reasons. The Aftenposten article doesn’t give a reason (according to Google translate), but it’s not hard to figure out. Norway has an economy dominated by oil and gas, which took a hit in price, but that isn’t enough to cause such a shortfall for a military that is only 11,600 troops in size. Norway prides itself on its Welfare State, which has been sapped to the breaking point by Refugees. Norway, with its population of 5.2 million people took in some 30,000 refugees and put them on the government dole, and gave another $1.2 BILLION away in aid. That’s $240 per Norwegian citizen. If the Glock Blue Label pricing is any reflection on what the military pays for the P80, for what the Norwegian government gave in foreign aid, they could have bought 2.6 million new pistols.
Norway has disarmed its troops because it over spent on welfare and aid to the same people it now has to teach not to rape their way across Norway. Congratulations Norway, at least you can stand as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to welfare and military spending.
Brave New Books is a small bookstore in Austin, TX. and apparently they made the ultimate sin of not only allowing Open carry in the premises, by offering a 10% discount for those who OC. Somebody in the Opposition took umbrage and actually snail-mail them a comment.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia, died on Saturday.
His death, for more than the election of Barack Obama, or the potential election of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or even Michael Bloomberg is the biggest threat to guns rights in the United States, since the introduction of the Brady Bill in 1993.
No, that is not Hyperbole.
There was no greater friend to the Second Amendment on the Supreme Court than Justice Scalia. It was Justice Scalia that gave the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller shaped the outcome of McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, on which he voted for the majority.
Justice Scalia’s origianalism on the Second Amendment was well founded by historical prescient. If you have the time to listen to the two hours of oral arguments in Heller, it is an amazing lesson.
The Supreme Court has been gun-shy recently, and has refused to add gun rights cases to the docket. My fear is that in the absence of Justice Scalia, especially if (when) his seat is filled by a more liberal justice, the Supreme Court might revisit the issue of gun rights with the intent to reverse some of the more important parts of Heller and McDonald. While it would not be likely that the Supreme Court could completely reverse the decision that gun rights are individual rights, it can chip away at gun rights significantly. Such a decision would not be hard to do. Simply taking on a challenge to a state level assault weapon’s ban, and deciding that the AR-15, the most popular long arm in America, is a “dangerous or unusual weapon” and “not it common use” to uphold an AWB. Although the individual right would, technically, be maintained, the teeth to the right would be pulled.
An anti-gun Supreme Court is a far greater threat to gun rights than any president or legislator. The politicians can be voted out of office and new politicians voted in. But the Supreme Court holds sway for decades and generations. With the passing of Justice Scalia we must redouble our efforts, and then redouble them again to push for gun rights. Anti-gun legislation that does not get passed cannot go before the court to be upheld. We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect our rights. All challenges to gun rights must be nipped in the bud.
UPDATE
I wanted to put some work into this post, I have a great deal of respect for Justice Scalia, even if I didn’t agree with him on every decision.
My heart is broken by all the people calling Justice Scalia a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe. It is disgusting to belittle a man who was a staunch defender of individual rights. Justice Scalia’s dissent in Maryland v. King, on the issue of 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search is blistering. Justice Scalia was an ardent defender of the 1st Amendment. His opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association is a masterpiece in the defense of free speech. Justice Scalia was famous for noting that while he didn’t like flag burning, burning the flag is a protected form of free expression. Justice Scalia was a defender of property rights, joining the dissent in the much hated ruling in Kelo v. New London. Lastly, his dissent in King v. Burwell is beautiful.
While I may not completely agree with Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, allowing the popular culture to use it to cement Justice Scalia’s legacy is wrong and dangerous. To listen to way so many people have been talking about Justice Scalia, one would get the impression that they were absolutely fine with the government banning books, movies, and video games, seizing your property, banning your guns, taking your DNA and searching you with a proctoscope on the side of the highway during a dubious traffic stop, and limiting your ability to complain about it, as long as the gays can marry. On second though, that is exactly what progressives stand for, so no wonder they hate Justice Scalia.
I’m lukewarm on Jeb Bush. I lived in Florida when he was governor and he was a pretty decent governor, but he lacks the fighting spirit that the GOP needs right now. But that is neither here nor there at the moment. Jeb Bush tweeted this:
OK, that’s cool. Needs night sights though. I assume it was a gift to the governor and not something that he had engraved for himself.
But of course, Think Progress can’t leave well enough alone, and decides to chime in with about a ton of equivocation.
We’ve been told for years that violent lyrics in Hip Hop, and violence on TV doesn’t cause crime (I agree on both points). So how does one tweet about one gun make the Governor of a state, with his legally owned handgun, morally culpable for crimes committed by other people. That’s right, it doesn’t. But that doesn’t stop Think Progress from distorting all logic to make that claim.
Frankly, I wan’t my president to be a gun owner. I want my president to have a CCW permit. I want the chief executive of the United States, tasked with enforcing America’s gun laws (as well as all other federal laws), to have a little bit of first hand knowledge of America’s gun laws.
Also, if I were president, I would have to have a 1911 engraved with my name with the Seal of the POTUS inlaid in the grips. I’d carry that everywhere.
