DarthOne
☦️
Maybe, but a century is a long time to wreck a civilization and prevent attempts to repair it.
United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
Maybe, but a century is a long time to wreck a civilization and prevent attempts to repair it.
Oh yeah we both agree its going to be one hell of a shitty time and its a matter of how much damage they do before their gone.
But humanity has survived worse, its too bad that we as a species have to learn everything the fucking hard way though.
DarthOne
☦️
Not so sure about the worse part
Which only works if people are willing to do so.
I don't want to pull the age card on you if you are young, but I'm almost sixty. I have seen America, the western world, become a dystopian police state. I can be hated on, college professors can call for my death, surveillance state, the economy is in the sewer, certain animals are most certainly more equal than others, etc.
Germany is a freak case. The white population there has literally been guilt-tripped so much I would not be the least bit surprised if they started committing literal suicide.
Gun ownership has nothing to do with it- cowardice and brainwashing are the problems. I've been banned from "anti-leftist" websites just for pointing at the elephants in the room. It was cowardice that allowed us to get to sixth-wave feminism. Do you think those grooming cases would happen if the men there beat the hell out of any migrant trying it? There are weapons other than guns.
If guns really got in the way of the people who hate whites and want them ruined and destroyed they would have been completely banned long ago, and trust me except for a very few most would just along with it.
And here's a question: where the hell are those loud-mouthed feminists?
If I work in an office and have a wallpaper of 1980s Kathy Ireland in a bikini or even an anthro-character by the beach some loudmouthed feminist will have me hauled off to some ugly Baby Boomer feminist in HR, then sensitivity training and struggle sessions because I created a "hostile environment" or was "rapey."
Then she will shrug off reports of grooming gangs (it's racist!), read "Fifty Shades of Grey" (because violent relationships are just soooooooooooo sexy), and listen to the most vile misogynistic gangsta rap, grinding away in clubs to it.
There is a war on white people, but nobody is allowed to say it. This is why even now you don't hear about the Holodomor.
>If an unattractive but otherwise well-mannered man looks at a woman the wrong way
"EWWW THE MALE GAZE! ICK! ARREST HIM!"
>If an 85 IQ Somalian with peanuts for teeth calls a woman a 'phat ass dumb bitch hoe' and rapes her
"I can fix him...Somehow this is White men's fault..."
DarthOne
☦️
Again, giving women the vote or political power was a massive mistake. Because 90% of them simply can’t handle it. And just getting rid of the modern education system isn’t going to help, because the damage is already don. Nor will getting rid of both and waiting a few generations to give them the vote again; because in 100 years or so we’ll be right back to where we are now, more or less.
Well, we might see 2A action at some point soon:
Article: Attended my second meeting of the Second Amendment Task Force at @TheJusticeDept. It's a working group of highly motivated attorneys from different federal law enforcement agencies including several within DOJ.
Gun rights are civil rights. Stay tuned!
Well, here's something showing the 2A Task Force isn't full of shit:
Article: Among the first initiatives at @TheJusticeDept @CivilRights on 2d Amendment issues is our investigation into lengthy waits imposed by LA Sheriff’s Department for concealed carry.
If you have anything to share re the LA delays, please email the DOJ hotline above!
Article: BREAKING
@theJusticeDept drops short-barreled RIFLE charge for possession of a CZ Scorpion equipped with a PISTOL brace in U.S. v. Taranto.
... I actually wanted this one to set a precedent. Now when the next Dem controlled Justice department comes around this will need to be re-litigated and maybe the Supreme Court won't take it.
Edit: Oh wait, only in a district court. Never mind then. Great news
Edit: Oh wait, only in a district court. Never mind then. Great news
They understand just fine, it's that they just don't care. It's not like it's their money that gets spent defending these stupid laws, this is just attrition lawfare using taxpayer money.
President Trump Proposes 28% ATF Budget Cut
New
Looks like the ATF is getting its shit pushed in:
Article: President Trump just told Congress to cut ATF's budget by at least 28%.
His proposed budget targets numerous Biden-era infringements & "ATF offices that have criminalized law-abiding gun ownership through regulatory fiat."
Rare Breed Triggers settles Forced Reset Trigger case with government
New
Here's an analysis of the FRT settlement by Fudd Busters:
Overview & Context
Settlement Terms and Government Powers
Settlement Conditions (Return of FRTs)
Rare Breed’s Obligations
Patent Enforcement Clause (Paragraph 9)
Legal Analysis & Criticism
No Binding Precedent
Final Judgment
Overview & Context
- The settlement between Rare Breed Firearms, NAGR (National Association for Gun Rights), and the DOJ has been mischaracterized publicly. The host clarifies it is not a categorical win for gun owners as claimed by some groups (e.g., NAGR) or a legalization of machine guns as claimed by anti-gun advocates (00:00:00–00:01:14).
Settlement Terms and Government Powers
Settlement Conditions (Return of FRTs)
- The DOJ agreed, "to the extent practicable," to return Force Reset Triggers (FRTs) seized as a result of voluntary surrenders—only if requested by individual owners by Sept. 30, 2025 (00:02:17–00:02:49).
- The term "practicable" gives the government leeway to not comply fully—raising concerns about its enforceability (00:03:20).
- The government will not return FRTs being used as evidence in criminal, civil forfeiture, or prosecution cases, undercutting the claim that the DOJ now considers them legal (00:04:25).
- Paragraph 7: Rare Breed agrees not to develop, design, or market FRTs for handguns (00:05:00–00:06:55). A handgun is defined here as any firearm where the magazine loads into the grip.
- This gives the DOJ implicit authority to enforce a policy distinction (though not grounded in the National Firearms Act) based on firearm configuration (00:06:14).
Rare Breed’s Obligations
Patent Enforcement Clause (Paragraph 9)
- Rare Breed is required to actively seek injunctions (not just damages) against anyone manufacturing or distributing any FRT covered by their 223 patent(00:07:30–00:08:32).
- Rare Breed must do so at its own expense, and failure to enforce could be interpreted as breach of settlement (00:09:05).
- Patent enforcement extends to private, non-commercial use, meaning individuals building FRTs at home could be targeted (00:09:05–00:09:34).
- DOJ "agrees to consider" filing statements supporting Rare Breed's injunctions on public interest grounds. However, this is legally toothless, as it uses non-binding language (00:13:04).
- DOJ promises not to enforce NFA provisions against certain FRTs meeting five criteria (including not used in handguns and inducing malfunction if overridden), but:
- This promise is non-binding for other manufacturers and has no effect beyond Rare Breed (00:10:16–00:11:38).
Legal Analysis & Criticism
No Binding Precedent
- By settling, the DOJ avoided a court ruling that could set binding precedent affirming FRT legality (14:15–14:42). This preserves the DOJ’s ability to regulate FRTs as it pleases later.
- The agreement doesn’t create enforceable rights for anyone but the named parties (00:13:39).
- The DOJ cannot legally bind itself to an interpretation of law via settlement (00:16:40–00:17:13). Any future enforcement could simply proceed, leaving Rare Breed with minimal recourse.
- The lack of remedies or penalties for breach makes the contract essentially unenforceable in practice (00:17:44–00:18:48).
- The settlement helps Rare Breed enforce a quasi-monopoly via patent litigation, potentially limiting innovation and competition—despite questionable patent validity (00:16:09).
- The host introduces a 1934 patent (975) that may invalidate Rare Breed’s 223 patent under principles of anticipation or obviousness (00:20:29–00:25:00). This could undermine the entire enforcement framework Rare Breed was given in the settlement.
Final Judgment
- The settlement is seen as a strategic win for DOJ, preserving its regulatory tools and avoiding a damaging court loss (14:15–14:42).
- For Rare Breed, it may represent a personal business win for its owners, but a strategic loss for broader 2A legal precedent and clarity (15:39–16:09).
- The host concludes this is not a win, despite NAGR’s celebratory framing. Instead, it reflects regulatory capture and a missed opportunity to set a protective legal precedent for gun owners (00:25:30–26:35).
Doomsought
Well-known member
If you want to kill the NFA, the quickest way to do it is elect a governor who will issue machine-guns and destructive weapons to the state militia. This forces the feds to confront the militia clause of the second Amendment with its actual meaning rather some manner of sophistry.
That is the Texas state guard