Given the fact that Pro gun group has lawyers, attorney and legal entity, why aren't pro-gun group going after Anti-2A group resources, financials? For example, like funds from Bloomberg, Soros or Mom Demand Action's donations? Is there a way to shut off their financial valve and redirect the financial to pro-gun group like gun safety educations?

From the Pacific Northwest to Florida, and from California to Vermont … and lots of places in between … there have been at least 107 defensive gun uses just so far this year, and that’s just those that were reported. Stay strapped and keep your powder dry. https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

Saw this post now on Reddit.

The cliff notes version: Melee weapons are hard to use and require a significant amount of time to train in their use. Also the longer the user uses that weapon in combat the less effective they are because if you get fatigued you can’t stab as hard. Once firearms became the main weapon any peasant could become effective in their use after a few hours. Also the firearm works no matter how strong or weak you are. Moving into the 1970s after solider portable anti-tank and anti-air weapons were available then everything on the battlefield could be killed with one shot.

It reminds me of a debate I once saw on MyArmoury.com about how much strength a crossbow required to use and one poster wrote something along the lines that giant war bows required the most raw strength to use, crossbow requires a moderate amount of fitness, and guns required the least amount of strength and stamina to use effectively. To the point in some battles riflemen refused to bring swords with them because they felt swords were too heavy to transport around and it felt more comfortable just having rifles (reflecting their relative lack of athleticism compared to other unit types). Unfortunately MyArmoury.com is down right now so I can't get and quote the specific comments from that htread.

But I have often seen the cliche that the real reasons guns revolutionized warfare into a completely whole new level basically reflect the above statement with the more specific tidbit that it was much faster to train troops in mass numbers quite quickly because it was both easier and less physically demanding to whip them into combat states teaching them how to use guns and the military formations and other tactics that come with it unlike say long bow and arrows or mass rectangular square blocks or interlocked swords and shields walls. That an person of teenager years or older who's decently fit can bet sent to bootcamp and within a few weeks be ready to sent out to fight a town's defenders from pirates, American Indian raiders, wandering banditos in the deserts of Mexico, and other threats. Which in turn led to much larger armies than in the past.

Now I finally got around to using guns yesterday. I went to a Turkey shooting contest where shotguns where the stuff being used......... I was able to shoot as a contestant because my state has pretty loose gun laws even though I'm below 18 and have no gun permits or whatever. Hell in fact there were kids 10 ears old and younger who were shooting in the tournament!

When I got to finally shoot, the guns where very hard to hold! I could feel the kick back lift the front barrel upwards a few inches despite holding it very tight! In addition the gun moved back and hut my right shoulder and it hurt like hell! In fact My right arm esp the shoulder still hurts today from shooting in several rounds int he contest!

So I really have to ask is it true that guns were so revolutionary because they required far less strength, agility, and endurance to use than earlier weapons like halberds and crossbows? Because I swear using the shotguns required all my strength to prevent it from being knocked around a dangerous manner. God despite holding tightly as possible the force of each shot was so tremendous it was terrifying! Oh did I mention the kickback which hit my shoulder and also sort of did a kick that made an ouch sensation in my elbow area?

And I must add its not just me alone. I could see a lot of 6 feet tall adults also experiencing the kickback despite being far more experienced than I am on top of being much stronger and larger people with obvious muscular and big biceps!

So I'm now really skeptical of the claim guns needing less physical fitness especially raw strength to use than longswords and other weapons before the Renaissance. Can anyone clarify whats meant by these often repeated cliches?

So my wife and I have each had a pistol for awhile. I recently bought myself a backup pistol, ar-15 and a bolt action rifle all in one purchase. Should I expect a visit to my house in the coming weeks?

From my understanding, RKBA’s core purpose is self-defense, especially from tyranny. What about defense of property like primary and investment homes? I ask because recently, squatters have been taking over and no justice has been served to the property owners.

What’s the common law doctrine or practice on exercising RKBA on defending property against “enemies” and threats like trespassers, which especially includes squatters? With the police helping squatters and arresting homeowners for exercising property rights, private civilians have been taking this in their own hands. There may be a time when private evictors need to use arms to actually enforce property rights in case the squatter uses violence to keep the evictors out.

I wonder would the tougher gun laws have a harmful impact on firearm sales

So I just went to pick up my glock 43x mos and filled out my form 4473 on the computer. Reviewed it then had the employee at my gun store review it as that is their policy. I swear I put everything down correctly but when I submitted it after the employee reviewed it, he said that I clicked ‘yes’ on renouncing my U.S. citizenship and that they would have to contact the ATF to see what the next course of action would be. Either they ship it back or the ATF resolves the error on the form. It’s bullshit. Is this going to effect future purchases if they contact the ATF? Also waiting on my LTC in Texas, would that effect it to?

Im just super pissed and salty af rn. Anyone have any knowledge on this they can share?

Just FYI if you shop at Sportman’s Warehouse. If your state has a mandatory wait period, SW corporate rules now require an additional 24 hour wait time on top of state law. They don’t have this posted anywhere online or in-store, so it’s up to the gun counter to inform you.

For example, Colorado law requires a 72 hour wait once the 4473 is submitted, so SW requires 96 hours before you can pick up your firearm.

I have confirmed that Scheels, Jax, and most local shops do NOT have this policy, so make sure you check before you shop.

The case name is US v. Stephon Whitney. Memorandum disposition here. This case was argued on March 5, 2024. Here’s the relevant part of the memdispo (not opinion):

The felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is facially constitutional. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), reflects a retreat from the Court’s earlier statement in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” are “presumptively lawful.” Id. at 626 & n.26; see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (plurality) (noting that the Court “made it clear in Heller that [its] holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill’” and that the Court “repeat[s] those assurances here” (citation omitted)). Indeed, Bruen repeatedly emphasized that it only addressed the Second Amendment rights of “law-abiding citizens,” a phrase it used some ten times. See 597 U.S. at 9, 15, 26, 29–31, 38, 60, 70. And two of the Justices whose concurrences were essential to the judgment in Bruen reiterated Heller’s and McDonald’s statements that “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful.” See id. at 81 (Kavanaugh, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., concurring) (citations omitted). Because such a prohibition remains presumptively constitutional, § 922(g)(1) cannot be said to be facially unconstitutional.

The panel here is Milan Smith, Mark J. Bennett, and Daniel P. Collins. Collins is the judge who sided with Judge Bea in ruling that HI’s butterfly knife ban violated 2A.

In reality, there’s another case named US v. Steven Duarte that was argued in December 2023 in front of Milan Smith, Carlos Bea, and Lawrence VanDyke. Duarte involves more on the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), based on the oral argument.

I guess one can say that Daniel P. Collins is presumably anti-2A in some cases, but if properly briefed, he may be otherwise be pro-2A in this issue.

I know that several states passed assault weapon bans from 1989 to 1994, in addition to the Federal Ban which lasted until 2004 (which thankfully expired).

But my question is, why is that in the early 2020s (2020 to 2024), more and more states are suddenly passing such laws?

We all know that Colorado is on the verge of passing one (and it probably will succeed as Colorado is now a hard-blue state). In Virginia, a ban was thankfully vetoed by the governor.

We also know that Delaware, Illinois, and Washington State have all passed such legislation in the past year or two.

How did this happen? For well over 20 years, there were no new states passing assault weapon bans (from 1994 to 2020) although the states with such laws kept tightening their assault weapon bans.

What is to explain the massive surge and spread in such laws? By this point, nearly all blue states have set magazine capacity limits of 10-17 rounds, and even a decade ago, this was not the case.

A bit of pretext. I am a life member of the NRA but haven't supported them financially for many years due to their exploits with Wayne and seemingly lack of action on critical legislation. I am also not looking to replace my support of other 2A organizations. That said...
On Friday the NRA won a great victory in NRA v ATF which is going a long way to reversing the insane bans and registration of brace equipped firearms. They are seemingly cleaning house in leadership. I am just wondering if it isn't time to start supporting them more. More lobbyists and supportive orgs are usually better IMHO.

Order list

Docket

On district level, Mark Blount challenged the federal full auto laws with a very long complaint. The judge dismissed his case because he thought that the mere desire to acquire or make a full auto doesn’t meet standing requirements. Blount appealed, where the 8th Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal without any briefing. Blount petitioned to rehear en banc, but got denied without any dissent.

I want to know some of the finer details.

So in school we had to read a speech as we were learning different tactics and methods to persuade/move people when making a speech and we read Emma Gonzales’s “we call bs” speech.

Now there she started yapping about how in Florida you don’t need to register your firearms and I thought hey there might be a reason for that. So I search up Floridas gun laws for 2013/14 and I find that in three articles they explain registration shouldn’t be enforced as a registry could be used against LAW-ABIDING citizens to target them by the government.

Should law abiding citizens be forced to register their firearms and give up some of their privacy just so some people feel safe?

I'm a foreigner who's likely going to move the US in the foreseeable future (gotta complete my studies first), and the idea of civilian firearm ownership is one of the main factors that makes me want to move here (I have other reasons as well, but they are outside the scope of this post). In an ideal world, I'd love for the pro and anti gun crowds to stop throwing manure on each other's front lawns and work together on measures to prevent gun violence without infringing on the 2nd amendment, instead of all that "cOmMoN sEnSe GuN lAwS" dogwhistling or the NRA being so corrupt as to be unable to uphold the rights of its members, leaving smaller organizations to do the heavy lifting, but I think I'm getting ahead of myself.

That said, I think we live in uncertain times regarding gun rights: on the one hand, New York Pistol and Rifle Association v Bruen was a massive victory that will most likely change the struggle for our rights for decades to come, but on the other we might have an Assault Weapon Ban on the horizon and trying to keep track on the state of gun rights makes confused at best and a cynical doomer at worst.

In short, I'm looking for your thoughts, opinions and experiences on the current state of gun rights in the US, highlighting both the good and the bad, in order to give myself a sense of "cleansed ignorance", if that makes sense.

And yes, I know firearm regulations vary wildly at the state level, but the state I plan to move to and find work in is generally gun friendly.

​