The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Too much fun not to.Pawpaw wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:38 pmPlease don't feed the troll.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:25 pm Clips? Firepower? Need? 9?
How fast does your car go? Does it exceed the maximum speed limit? Do you a car that goes that fast?
How Big is your house? I bet you don't ned a house that size?
Fortunately, our country isn't a needs based society.
You guys are pretty tough on a new guy who seems to be agreeing with y'all. He wasn't trolling just agreeing. Sometimes it's a good idea to think and reread before we comment.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 pmToo much fun not to.Pawpaw wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:38 pmPlease don't feed the troll.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:25 pm Clips? Firepower? Need? 9?
How fast does your car go? Does it exceed the maximum speed limit? Do you a car that goes that fast?
How Big is your house? I bet you don't ned a house that size?
Fortunately, our country isn't a needs based society.
You apparently didn't see his now deleted post in the meme thread. He wasn't agreeing, he was trying to educate the poor gun nuts.Liberty wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:34 pmYou guys are pretty tough on a new guy who seems to be agreeing with y'all. He wasn't trolling just agreeing. Sometimes it's a good idea to think and reread before we comment.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 pmToo much fun not to.Pawpaw wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:38 pmPlease don't feed the troll.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:25 pm Clips? Firepower? Need? 9?
How fast does your car go? Does it exceed the maximum speed limit? Do you a car that goes that fast?
How Big is your house? I bet you don't ned a house that size?
Fortunately, our country isn't a needs based society.
I was wrong. I saw thePawpaw wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:41 pmYou apparently didn't see his now deleted post in the meme thread. He wasn't agreeing, he was trying to educate the poor gun nuts.Liberty wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:34 pmYou guys are pretty tough on a new guy who seems to be agreeing with y'all. He wasn't trolling just agreeing. Sometimes it's a good idea to think and reread before we comment.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 pmToo much fun not to.Pawpaw wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:38 pmPlease don't feed the troll.mojo84 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:25 pm Clips? Firepower? Need? 9?
How fast does your car go? Does it exceed the maximum speed limit? Do you a car that goes that fast?
How Big is your house? I bet you don't ned a house that size?
Fortunately, our country isn't a needs based society.
icon and assumed he was a newbie, making an awkward post agreeing with every one. I looked like it was his first post. What I didn't notice is that he gave his location as everytown dot org. Please accept my humble apologies for jumping the gun.No. He is not right.Grumpy1993 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:37 pm The problem is he's right. If ATF can ban bump stocks by misinterpreting the NFA definition of machinegun, what's to stop ATF from banning other firearm accessories by misinterpreting other laws? I don't know what laws they could twist to ban standard capacity magazines (and if I did, I wouldn't post details on a public forum) but allowing this gross misinterpretation to stand further undermines the rule of law. The people giving Trump a free pass, when they would have fought tooth and nails against the Obama administration doing the same thing, are no friends to the second amendment.
Yes
I expect a SCOTUS decision on this.rtschl wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:14 pm RW Arms has filed a lawsuit against the US claiming losses of $20 million.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... million-in
The company, which touts itself as the nation’s largest supplier of bump stocks, claims the government enacted the ban on the devices “without just compensation … in violation of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Press release from RW Arms: https://www.rwarms.com/industry/largest ... overnment/
Not until we get a replacement for Ginsburg and maybe even Breyer. They've been refusing to hear 2A cases for some time now.
How is it determined that a case will be heard by SCOTUS? Does it take a unanimous agreement? Never really studied this question.Scott Farkus wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:42 pmNot until we get a replacement for Ginsburg and maybe even Breyer. They've been refusing to hear 2A cases for some time now.
Although this is a lot more than a 2A case at this point.