kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
#me too!New AR in "Add to Cart" standby..
#me too!New AR in "Add to Cart" standby..
Now do it for the safe act!
Thats not what the ruling said. The ruling is saying that the person can’t be denied for not having a good reason as determined by the government. The court has not ruled if a person can still be denied for cause but the burden is on the state. If someone committed numerous robberies as a juvenile and was released at 21 years old— the state might attempt to deny them a carry permit . He is not a prohibited person because his juvenile record doesn’t make him a prohibited person at 21. That’s just an example. A person who is on heavy psych meds but never committed to an institution might be denied a permit and is not a prohibited person.Yes, I have been thinking that also. The SCOTUS ruling makes it clear that states cannot deny ANYONE a permit if they are not a prohibited person.
who was that kid that used a rock ohhh Eric M. Smith
He's living free now, back in the samw town as the parents/family of the boy he violated and murdered
yeah i know .. GRRR
All mags for my PS90 are 50 rounders.forgot what vide i watched on mag bans .. no one had defined the size .. what is hi capacity LOL .. guns come with standard 30 rounds mags from factory .. so what is high LOL ..
Saw a statistic that 50% of murders go unsolved these days.It's garbage, because the parole intevew before the last one (so 2 ago) he told them if he could go back in time he'd do it again.. they denied him... this time yea sure he's good
I think it's more like the state must have reasonable objective criteria.Thats not what the ruling said. The ruling is saying that the person can’t be denied for not having a good reason as determined by the government. The court has not ruled if a person can still be denied for cause but the burden is on the state. If someone committed numerous robberies as a juvenile and was released at 21 years old— the state might attempt to deny them a carry permit . He is not a prohibited person because his juvenile record doesn’t make him a prohibited person at 21. That’s just an example. A person who is on heavy psych meds but never committed to an institution might be denied a permit and is not a prohibited person.
But the burden would be on the state to prove this by the preponderance of the evidence rather than someone having to prove they are a good character. It would have to go to the courts but it might meet the Thomas test of tradition and historical precedent.
Saw a statistic that 50% of murders go unsolved these days.
No idea what the statistic for missing persons cases where the missing person is a POSs are.
Just saying.
Agreed that it should be but they used to deny people for diabetes. The person would have to prove the diabetes was stable before they would be issued a permit . I’m wondering how a court would react to that now. The court allowed them to do that despite the Americans with disabilities act. I wonder what they would do with the new SCOTUS rulingI think it's more like the state must have reasonable objective criteria.
They might be able to get away with the heavy psych meds thing, maybe not, but they would have to have a clear definition of what constitutes "heavy psych meds", and it better not be something that 10% of the population is on.
Well, the NY courts would give them a pass if they just said "no guns for white people or Republicans" and forced you to prove Democrat party membership.Agreed that it should be but they used to deny people for diabetes. The person would have to prove the diabetes was stable before they would be issued a permit . I’m wondering how a court would react to that now. The court allowed them to do that despite the Americans with disabilities act. I wonder what they would do with the new SCOTUS ruling
I'm just talking about on which basis can NY now refuse to issue out of state permits if the applicant is legally eligible? This is gonna require another court battle I think.Thats not what the ruling said. The ruling is saying that the person can’t be denied for not having a good reason as determined by the government. The court has not ruled if a person can still be denied for cause but the burden is on the state. If someone committed numerous robberies as a juvenile and was released at 21 years old— the state might attempt to deny them a carry permit . He is not a prohibited person because his juvenile record doesn’t make him a prohibited person at 21. That’s just an example. A person who is on heavy psych meds but never committed to an institution might be denied a permit and is not a prohibited person.
But the burden would be on the state to prove this by the preponderance of the evidence rather than someone having to prove they are a good character. It would have to go to the courts but it might meet the Thomas test of tradition and historical precedent.
Better add micro stamping to that list.
So we should lock up anyone who has a dishonorable military discharge? Anyone who committed ANY felony?prohibited person should be locked up and not out in public
So we should lock up anyone who has a dishonorable military discharge? Anyone who committed ANY felony?
If you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be in free society.So we should lock up anyone who has a dishonorable military discharge? Anyone who committed ANY felony?
Sounds like you want a massive expansion of our state prison system. Yay more taxes!!!!!If you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be in free society.
Please, tell me more about the prison system.Sounds like you want a massive expansion of our state prison system. Yay more taxes!!!!!
So we should lock up anyone who has a dishonorable military discharge? Anyone who committed ANY felony?
If you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be in free society.
Sounds like you want a massive expansion of our state prison system. Yay more taxes!!!!!
No, those people shouldn't be prohibited.So we should lock up anyone who has a dishonorable military discharge? Anyone who committed ANY felony?