Firearm enthusiast thread

[Lagduf]

Is that yours and If so, will you adopt me?

 

[mainman]

Is that yours and If so, will you adopt me?

Is the Predator stalking you or something

 

[Lagduf]

I just want a belt fed lmg. Is that so wrong?

A 1919 is more my style but I’ll take what I can get.

 

[mainman]

I just want a belt fed lmg. Is that so wrong?

A 1919 is more my style but I’ll take what I can get.

You can't do that

 

[Lagduf]

You can absolutely get a 1919/Browning style belt fed in CA. Getting 10+ round belts is the issue, however, magazine freedom week years back makes it impossible to prove you didn’t own it or assemble it then.

There are some other wacky rules federally around 1919 style guns too - they aren’t even considered rifles. They’re “firearms.” If I’m not mistaken you can have a barre shorter than 16” on them as long as you’re over 26” OAL (been awhile so I could be wrong on that.)

The spade grips don’t meet the definition of a pistol grip in CA either especially given the trigger is not beneath the action, or whatever the asinine law is.

Plus I love that just one of the side plates (right side?) is the firearm itself.

Anyway, fuck the ATF. Fuck the CA DOJ BOF.

I’m not one for political shirts but I kind of want the ones that say “All my homeys hate the ATF.”

 

[Craig]

Repeal the NFA

 

[mainman]

You can absolutely get a 1919/Browning style belt fed in CA. Getting 10+ round belts is the issue, however, magazine freedom week years back makes it impossible to prove you didn’t own it or assemble it then.

There are some other wacky rules federally around 1919 style guns too - they aren’t even considered rifles. They’re “firearms.” If I’m not mistaken you can have a barre shorter than 16” on them as long as you’re over 26” OAL (been awhile so I could be wrong on that.)

The spade grips don’t meet the definition of a pistol grip in CA either especially given the trigger is not beneath the action, or whatever the asinine law is.

Plus I love that just one of the side plates (right side?) is the firearm itself.

Anyway, fuck the ATF. Fuck the CA DOJ BOF.

I’m not one for political shirts but I kind of want the ones that say “All my homeys hate the ATF.”

 

[neo.kobe.city]

Picked up a 3" lcrx in 357 recently and took it to the range. Was just running some .38 special PMC bronze through it to get a feel for it. Great gun.

 

[Heinz]

I gotta say there's just something about the humble 22lr that gets you dumping brass like there's no tomorrow... oh yeah the price!

 

[Craig]

Looking like we might finally get constitutional carry in Louisiana. This place still sucks, but it's one thing that's getting better.

 

[mainman]

Looking like we might finally get constitutional carry in Louisiana. This place still sucks, but it's one thing that's getting better.

Congratulations

Looks like here in California come THIS JUNE we will be paying 20% tax on ammo and the LIMITED number of firearms we can own. But wait there's more, currently a bill is being floated that would force you to pay a fee per firearm and register them ANNUALLY or be forced to pay a $1000 fine per every infraction or you can literally relinquished your firearms to authorities .

 

[Heinz]

Congratulations

Looks like here in California come THIS JUNE we will be paying 20% tax on ammo and the LIMITED number of firearms we can own. But wait there's more, currently a bill is being floated that would force you to pay a fee per firearm and register them ANNUALLY or be forced to pay a $1000 fine per every infraction or you can literally relinquished your firearms to authorities .

Haha that's even more restrictive than here! Annual registration!? Lol wut

 

[HellioN]

Congratulations

Looks like here in California come THIS JUNE we will be paying 20% tax on ammo and the LIMITED number of firearms we can own. But wait there's more, currently a bill is being floated that would force you to pay a fee per firearm and register them ANNUALLY or be forced to pay a $1000 fine per every infraction or you can literally relinquished your firearms to authorities .

Seems to me that it makes it a virtual ban on ownership simply by making firearms unaffordable for most.
At this point I can only see two options for California.

1. The unrestricted flow of illegal alien invaders becomes so great it essentially chokes the state off from the rest of the country.

2. A MASSIVE influx of right leaning folks move in and upends the whole thing.

Some may say the third choice is to move but that doesn't help restore sanity to Cali and also consider that if all you ever do is run away, you eventually run out of places to go.

But maybe there is a third choice.

BECOME UNGOVERNABLE.

 

[Lagduf]

All my firearms sank to the bottom of the ocean in international waters, tragically.

 

[Heinz]

Howa 1500 say hello to your new home

 

[Lagduf]

A Federal Judge ruled the 2nd amendment applies to illegals immigrants after a long time Chicago resident got busted for owning a handgun as an “illegal.”

Great ruling.

Watching the “cold dead hands” crows lose their shit about “illegals” owning guns pleases me.

 

[wyo]

Ok cool, now deport him.

 

[HellioN]

A Federal Judge ruled the 2nd amendment applies to illegals immigrants after a long time Chicago resident got busted for owning a handgun as an “illegal.”

Great ruling.

Watching the “cold dead hands” crows lose their shit about “illegals” owning guns pleases me.

Ok, then why doesn't the 2A apply to "legal" citizens?

 

[Lagduf]

Ok, then why doesn't the 2A apply to "legal" citizens?

Not sure what you mean.

It apples to all people in the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[HellioN]

Regular citizens have to jump through a whole circus of hoops in some places (like Chicago) but this illegal alien gets what feels like a free pass.
I'm simply pointing out the irregularities in enforcement and recognition of the whole thing.

 

[Lagduf]

We’ll yeah, I don’t disagree. Frankly, people should make their own guns or acquire them illegally if need be.

I’m also sure bruh isn’t getting a free pass. From
What I understand dude would have acquired a gun legally if he could but our immigration system essentially prevented him from doing so.

The case has broader implications on just when and why “the people” can be disarmed. IE it can’t be for bullshit reasons.

It’s a net win and a case that strengthens firearm owners rights.

 

[HellioN]

I don't really disagree and for the record I think everyone should have defensive tools.

 

[mainman]

Not sure what you mean.

It apples to all people in the jurisdiction of the United States.

No it does not Lagduf, you are in denial of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Federal judges uphold California’s ban on assault weapons


California’s assault weapons ban will remain in effect while a court considers whether the 30-year-old law is unconstitutional.

By a 2-1 majority, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Saturday granted an administrative stay while the state appeals a lower-court's order that would strike down the law. The appeals court is expected to hear oral arguments on that case in December.

"We must protect our communities from these dangerous weapons. We know that these restrictions work to prevent mass casualty events and save lives," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.

Bonta stressed the importance of tough gun laws in light of the mass shooting in Maine last week that killed 18 people.

California's law restricts the manufacture, transportation, sale and possession of some firearms the state deems "assault weapons."

On Oct. 19, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego declared that the state's refusal to allow the sales of semiautomatic weapons violates the Second Amendment.

"The State of California posits that its 'assault weapon' ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense," Benitez wrote in a 79-page opinion.

The judge has attempted to throw out the state's ban before. In 2021, Benitez compared an assault rifle to a Swiss Army knife, describing it as a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. That ruling was also appealed by the state attorney general. Later, the case was vacated by the 9th Circuit and sent back to Benitez.

In 1989, California became the first state in the country to ban military-type assault weapons. The measure was in response to a mass shooting on a schoolyard in Stockton, where five children were killed and 28 others, including a teacher, were injured.

In 2021, Bonta told NPR's Morning Edition that a big misconception of California's law is that AR-15-style rifles are banned outright in California. Bonta said California residents can lawfully own certain types of AR-15s that are less powerful or without assault-rifle features.

 

[mainman]

The Liberal tyrants in California just won't stop ignoring and denying a constitutional right. Now they decided you must pay for a Permit to own a firearm and this unconstitutional law is being fast tracked.

 

[Lagduf]

Just don’t comply.

It’s really that easy.

Oh, that gun? It’s at the bottom of Lake Tahoe/San Francisco Bay/The Russian River.

Just kidding, I’d never tell a cop that because im not dumb enough to talk to one in the first place.