Search results

Don't answer the door with a gun in your hand. It would be just as inappropriate if it were the pizza guy that was knocking. If you perceive a threat so great that you need to have a gun drawn ... don't open the door. That's step 1 in this situation. Is there more? Yes. But let's start with step 1.

Needs to come out of the police pension fund.

Just be aware Hoppes oil is nothing but mineral oil. Not really very good. I certainly wouldn’t use it. Its lubricating and corrosion properties are poor. It can also varnish over time.

The white label has replaced the black label, so yes, it has been discontinued. I'm not sure when PTFE was taken out. The formula has changed a couple times from what I know, and for a while it didn't meet Mil-Spec. It now does.

Yes, that's the current formula that meets the current Mil-Spec. The can shown that contains PTFE is the old black label can.

Yea, that's an old can. Over the years the formula has changed, because the Mil-Spec has changed. It is now MIL-SPEC 63460F (Type-A).

BreakFree is a polymerized synthetic and will not gel up. It also contains advanced boundary film additives as well as rust inhibitors. It contains no wax based substances. Ballistol is an inferior product consisting of mostly mineral oil and alcohol. I wouldn't use it on anything I own. It is...

Assuming you're referring to BreakFree CLP, it contains no teflon, unless you have a really old bottle or something.

She has called today’s decision a victory and for the most part she is absolutely right. Too bad.

I can remember knowing a few guys with pistols around age 18-19 growing up.

They already can. No age restriction applies if you have an honorable status from the service or national guard.

I can't speak to your video analysis, but I do remember the official report stating that it was .45 ACP. Maybe you have it right and the local authorities got it wrong?

It was .45 ACP not 9mm.

This is a few years old and it was learned from official sources that the gun involved was cambered in .45 ACP.

The point is it's not any of your business. If someone wants to carry while they have a couple of beers it's not any of your concern. They don't loose their fundamental rights because they had a beer. What other rights do you propose are taken away when someone has a drink or does anything else...

"For on premise consumption". Last I knew you couldn't open one up and drink it in the supermarket.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to contradict in my post. The point I was making is bar owners do not have the ability to give permission. It is an outright ban for those locations.

It’s already been answered in BRUEN. There was no historical analogue for preventing carry into bars. In fact Thomas Jefferson got drunk and left his pistol in a bar once and had to write the inn keeper to have it sent back to him. There were a few cases of bar bans in Oklahoma back before it...

This is incorrect. The only place banned was schools on a state level. Federal had its own bans as well. None included bars or restaurants.

Not the case in NY. They simply need to have a liquor license to be a banned location.

sootch00

Not the case. You are confusing 2 laws. Private property owners may give permission to allow carry. Sensitive locations specifically named have no opt-in ability by the owner. That's why there are lawsuits for church carry where not even the pastor/priest etc (even one who lives at the church)...

At least it doesn't exempt cops like everything else does.

https://vertx.com/concealed-carry-bags-and-packs Enjoy!

I'm interested in this as well. Following..

I have to agree with the other gentlemen. I would carry. By the time your case went to court it would be legal and they'd probably have to dismiss your case anyway. I don't know how you could be convicted for something that is now legal.

Good. Just as it should be. Imagine only being able to vote if you work for certain employers. Rights and laws should have no bearing on who you work for. If they're going to violate our rights, it's only fair that they are also subject to the same violations.

Among other things.. I guess police aren't going to get a blanket exemption from this law and they'll tack the charges on when they can. Good. https://www.news10.com/news/saratoga-county/vermont-deputy-charged-over-saratoga-officer-involved-shooting/

Not so as I understand it. In or upon the property is sensitive. Maybe someone can look it up and correct me if I’m wrong but that rings a bell as the way the law was worded.

https://13wham.com/news/local/deputies-attempted-car-theft-thwarted-by-victim-witness-at-delta-sonic

It has to pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor, so as of now... it's nothing.

Assault Weapon Ban case (Lewis v. James) to be dismissed. Lol. Whose surprised? Not me! https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63579267/lewis-v-james/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-6

It's in full force, with the limited exception of being designated as working as security in a church, which without the proper security license is a crime in itself.

Doesn't NYS have legislation pending that would make NRA instructors invalid in the state for training? Pretty sure they do. Better check before you go through all of this for nothing.

Federal income tax wasn't around back then either. Ban it.

Bruen upheld that guns can be carried outside of the home. That's the "bear" part. So who cares what sates said you can't at some point in the past. It's meaningless.

I'm talking about the post Bruen cases. I also called in and listened to one of the trials live on conference call where the judge said exactly that. The state tried to make a case of a handful of regulations and it was stated that while the judge wouldn't say exactly how many would need to be...

It has to be a national tradition, not a state or area or territory here or there with said laws or prohibitions. So unless it's a historical tradition on a wide scale it can't stand. Random laws don't pass the test. They have tried that already in various courts and their attempts have been...

We take another L.

The delay we are discussing was from the 2nd Circuit (not a county permit office) and they've already been told to get it done in a reasonable time. Days after that instruction, they scheduled 4-5 cases for March 20th, so they took the "suggestion" from SCOTUS seriously and acted quickly.

They can't delay it nearly that long. They've already been told to get it done "in a reasonable time", and that was issued to them approx. 60 days prior to when the hearings were scheduled for. That's basically exactly what I said. In the last district court case I called in to hear, the judge...

I am certainly looking forward to March 20th. A part of me actually thinks that the 2nd Circuit will finally realize that the jig is up and rule in accordance with Bruen, as other Circuits have recently done. I go back and forth on this fairly regularly though, so maybe not. I just hope a...

The whole LEOSA thing is garbage anyway and needs to be challenged. They can use as guidance the recent Illinois ruling that said "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" that were allowed for people who got jobs as police officers, but not people in any other profession, was...

Yes I just read that. It's as if there isn't another Bill Of Rights for people depending on where they work. Who knew? I also see that Hochul is changing the safe storage law to exempt cops. Lol. Stolen guns are cool as long as it was stolen from a dipshit cop evidently.

More delays:

Between them, Heller and Bruen identified a total of five presumptively “sensitive places” – “schools,” “government buildings,” “legislative assemblies,” “polling places,” and “courthouses.” Each of these locations is owned or tightly controlled by the government, and used for express, limited...

Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it's wrong. Fuck you Kathy and all of the dirt bag cops that enable her!