It has passed the House and the Senate. Tennessee law now is basically a duplication of federal NFA laws. So, the state bans suppressors. However, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that you jumped through all the federal hoops and have a tax stamp. So, if the national Hearing Protection Act passes, Tennessee should be good.
My kids always, in an annoyed tone, ask: Why do you always lock the doors? And I respond with So I don’t have to shoot anyone. I also lock my truck doors. Just the other week, someone broke into several vehicles around here. Just the unlocked ones. I have video of the perp trying to open my truck, realizing they were locked, and leaving. It works.
So reports Spiegel Online. You’ll have to translate it to English. But basically, they’re spending $23M on their first factory abroad. And they like Trump’s trade policies.
After the Gun Salesman of the Century left office, folks thought gun sales would drop. However, they continue to remain near record levels.
The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by several other groups and individuals, today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California, challenging that states law prohibiting the possession, use or acquisition of so-called large capacity magazines, calling the ban hopelessly vague and ambiguous.
Joining SAF are the Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation and six individuals including one retired California peace officer. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The complaint is a constitutional challenge to California Penal Code 32310, as recently amended by Senate Bill 1446 and Proposition 63, and Penal Code 32390 (the Large-Capacity Magazine Ban). The lawsuit alleges that if these measures are enforced as applied, they would individually and collectively prohibit law-abiding citizens from continuing to possess, use, or acquire lawfully-owned firearms, in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense (inside and outside the home), competition, sport, and hunting.
This one seems a bit risky to me. But, historically, SAF has been pretty good at these sorts of things.
The NRA has decided to get in on the self defense insurance game, much like the USCCA. NRA even uninvited USCCA from the annual meeting. I’m not really sold on the concept no matter the provider. Aside from that, a couple of people have made some decent points on why this could be a bad idea:
What if George Zimmerman had Carry Guard?
And now you have the NRA saying that liability insurance for gun owners is a good thing. And anti-gun politicians have been trying to make that required by law for a while.
I wasn’t there this year, a bit busy. But others were.
Bitter has the NRA board of directors vote totals. The bylaw changes were approved overwhelmingly. I’m rather surprised at how few people, as a percentage, vote in the election. I suppose that may be because it’s life members and annual members with 5 years that vote?
The XD-E. At first I was all Meh another XD. But you can carry it cocked and locked, which is kind of cool.
Because Trump and racism: More black women are learning to use guns: ‘this is a movement, and it starts now’
It’s always good to see more people taking their self defense seriously.
In NY: Ex-NYPD officers took cash, prostitutes in gun license bribe scandal
Making something hard to get often turns it into a business.
As the dude says: I, for one, want them to be overrun by lobbyists. Thats what I pay them for.
The Paper of Making Up The Record:
Sure, they are.
And Newsweek:
TRUMPS PROPOSED TAX PLAN COULD COST THE GOVERNMENT $6 TRILLION.
Uhm, do you guys know what “cost” means?
It comes in at $1,500. But an integrally suppressed 9mm pistol is a pretty cool thing.
A teenager fired a shotgun through the front door, hoping to scare off intruders. The intruders were cops.
They guy was just following Joe Biden’s advice.
Is This the Supreme Court’s Next Big Second Amendment Case?
The case is Peruta v. California, which challenges the good cause requirement.
It’s said that these people get to decide what can actually land a person in jail. A bit back, they gave stabilizing braces approval. Then, in a really stupid letter, said that if you shouldered one, that made it a SBR. Well, they’ve gone and changed their mind again:
SB Tactical, inventors and manufacturers of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace, is excited to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has issued SB Tactical a reversal letter containing a sensible clarification of the Bureaus position on the lawful use of SB Tactical braces.
The new clarification of opinion letter states, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational use of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute redesign, such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATFs interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.
Tam thinks something is afoot: The extent to which these three factoids are related is an exercise left up to the reader.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
