Jump to content

LeoAtrox

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LeoAtrox

  1. She absolutely is allowed to rule in the case. Usually a justice in that position would abstain from casting a vote on the issue, but there isn't a requirement to do so. I think she should have abstained too; but she's a Supreme Court Justice now, and is (and should be) above politics. So she can vote on whatever cases she has heard, even if there is an apparent conflict of interest. What is more suprising is that the liberal justices all voted against incorporation, and against previous court precedence. Liberal judges have generally been in favor of incorporation, and conservatives have been against it; but this case went the other way. I guess legal principals took a back seat to moral beliefs in this case. That, and the fact that the liberal justices ignored past precedence, is very troubling. If we cannot trust the Supreme Court to rule on the basis of the law without regard to personal emotions and political agendas, then there is a world of hurt coming to this nation sooner rather than later. Past legal precedence puts ammunition within constitutional protections. The ammunition is a functional component of a firearm, and therefore a ban on ammunition is tantamount to a ban on firearms. There is room for "reasonable restrictions" under the law--as with any firearm or firearm component--but nobody can agree on what what is "reasonable". (Like "common sense.") And, again, when the Supreme Court stops caring about past precedence, things can change pretty quick.
  2. Nope. Not even if I can have a blunderbuss. (And I do want me a blunderbuss.)
  3. I'm not going to waste too much time trying to explain why I'm excited. I am. If you aren't, then that's your choice. I wish you'd be a bit more optimistic; but there's room in this world for other points of view. More power to you, friend.
  4. Well, I can't argue with that ... Which is why I celebrate these decisions as prolonging my opportunity to exercise my rights and stock up on boom-sticks. I'm not saying that we can rest on our laurels now that the SCOTUS has incorporated the Second Amendment; but I am still pleased that it has done so and it does relieve the great weight on our shoulders significantly.
  5. I'm saying the means are the means regardless of how you feel about the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment has changed. It's not at issue. What is at issue is the Second Amendment, and the right result has come of this case.
  6. Be cautious, sure. But who cares why the Second Amendment has finally been applied to States and local municipalities? Celebrate the fact that it finally has been!
  7. The summary is that 5 out of 9 of our Supreme Court Justicies think our rights should apply even if we don't live in Washington, D.C.. (The other 4 are idiots. ) The Second Amendment Foundation wins another one. This ruling is probably the greatest ruling on the Second Amendment in US history. It will have the greatest impact. It means that every American living within the United States has the right to keep and bear arms. California (unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership) and Illinois (no right to carry) laws will soon be targeted. This ruling is tremendous. It is a HUGE win. The only question is how exactly it will be applied in future cases.
  8. By a 5-4 vote, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is now applied to the States by the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
  9. That would work for my safe. Ain't nobody going to lower a forklift big and heavy enough for that kind of job into my basement. Nothing in the safe is worth the cost of leaving the forklift behind either.
  10. I kind of have the same concern. The safe I've ordered (don't have it yet) is rated waterproof for 2 hours. And though it sits in the basement right next to the water main, I'm far more concerned about a would-be thief tipping the thing over to get leverage than I am about a basement flood damaging all my firearms. Plus, my safe manufacturer will only warranty the safe as waterproof if it is bolted down ... Which, incidentally, makes me wonder if it would float away like an old ironclad warship.
  11. Now, if you'd break down which are US manufactured, the 922® fellows will be happy.
  12. I don't suppose Kip has a "will buy anything" list that he's maintaining ...
  13. Very intersted in one myself. Don't care about the cost or the visuals (though I would like a picture too). Just happy to get the latest from a fellow Devil Dog. Not that my support is needed; the niche is already carved I think.
  14. Good heavens that is expensive. I saw some breaching rounds a few months ago for about $20 per 5. Had I know that was such a good deal, I might have bought them.
  15. Chapters 8-20 and 8-24 of the MUNICIPAL CODE OF CHICAGO covers firearms. There is a section on "unregisterable" firearms (8-20-050). You'll also have to read the definitions in 8-20-030 to understand what they're referring to when they say "assault weapon". There's also some grey area when it comes to the legality of shotguns. For now, they're legal; but that could change any time the CPD wants it to because of this text from 8-24-020: " (b) No person shall sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or carry any weapon from which eight or more shots or bullets may be discharged by a single function of the firing device." City ordinance does not define "shot" or "bullet," but a bullet is technically any "a round or elongated missile (as of lead) to be fired from a firearm". So a single shot of a shotgun shoots numerous "bullets" by this definition (from Merriam-Webster) which could, by Chicago's city ordinance, classify any shotgun as a "machine gun" any time the city or CPD decide that it is. Would that stand up to legal challenge in US circuit court? No. But it would be quite an inconvenience for the year or so the case is pending appeals. But don't let all this scare you off. It's merely hypothetical. Shotguns are currently legal; and you'd have to be a complete idiot to consider a shotgun a "machine gun." Of course, Chicago city government is filled with complete idiots ...
  16. As far as stiffness, all I care about is the tendency of the webbing to roll or "cut" into my neck and shoulder. The stiffer it is, the less likely to roll; and the less likely to roll, the less likely it will be to get very uncomfortable. For a heavier firearm, I want stiffer webbing in a sling. But the stiffness is less important with lighter firearms. For my M4, the sling is not a shooting aid whatsoever. I'm not "snapping in" to the shotgun like I would a rifle; so the sling isn't used to get a more stable shooting platform. The sling is kept on only for retention purposes. Frankly, I go back and forth between letting it hang and keeping it on for transitions. I've found that letting it hang slows me down less than a half second on transition to another firearm, but it is much less restrictive and saves an equal amount of time on weak-side transition. Sling weight really doesn't matter; it's the weapon's weight and length that affects the type of sling I want to use. A single-point doesn't make sense for my M4 on my frame. The muzzle device would be on the ground if I wasn't standing perfectly stright, and that's not good. So two-point for me. A carbine is another matter. I'm quite fond of single-point slings on my carbine, and find that the two-point configuration on my MS2 only gets used if I'm planning on hands-free carry for more than a couple minutes, or when doing lifting.
  17. That's kind of a let down. ;( The guy in the video made it look so awesome and easy to use. Personally, I have and use the MS2 sling. I think it is one of the most versatile slings on the market. Great hardware. There is some truth to Duggan's claims that the webbing is too flexible (it's made from tube webbing for strength, and the trade-off of that durability is reduced rigidity) and I'd add that it catches on Velcro-type hooks a bit too easily too. That said, I don't have any trouble with using the sling on my carbine. It definitely wouldn't be well suited for a Benelli M4 though. The M4 demands a more rigid middle-weight or heavy-weight sling.
  18. Welcome aboard Ron. I have an M4 (as do many in this forum) and haven't noticed any semblance of "pickiness" from it. As others have suggested, lube it well and break it in with some high-power shells, and you should be good-to-go.
  19. My Truloc also gets a bit loose after a lot of firing. I don't think it's a matter of not tightening down enough; but I suppose it could be. I wouldn't necessarily put a thread-locker on it. I don't suppose it would hurt if you are going to leave it on there for some time but I'm probably going to switch to another choke when something better becomes available.
  20. Careful now, those are dangerous words now days... Yeah. Big Brother doesn't look too fondly on anti-government sentiment!
  21. I'd add that you don't need acetone or even a wire brush. A nylon brush worked fine for me. By the time the thread locker was broken down enough for me to unscrew the magazine tube, it was also broken down enough for me to remove with the nylon brush and my finger (when it cooled down a bit).
  22. How many people have solid wood closet doors, anyway? Must be a nice house. All my closet doors are hollow; even the "paneled" doors.
  23. Yeah, really. What the heck happened to that door? Interesting that the M4 has it's sling mount on the left side. I guess that gun must have been used by someone who actually needed a sling at some point. Or Ashton isn't afraid to pop a snap ring for fun.
×
×
  • Create New...