Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 05-24-2020, 1:52 PM
LINY's Avatar
LINY LINY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k5usf View Post
Maybe they are waiting till the last minute with a pro 2A opinion/order? Nah! No way!

Will find out soon if China has control over them too.
And maybe they’re setting precedent on his defending the Bill of Rights by having his press secretary declare that houses of worship must open under the 1st amendment and “supports the exercising of that right in the fullest and most robust way”
__________________
When seconds count 1911 > 911 is correct numerically as well

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 05-24-2020, 3:25 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
I thought it was common idea that they were holding them all pending completion of NYSRPA, which they had not planned on mooting when they granted cert. Immediately after NYSRPA was mooted, they put the held cases back on. Does it seem obvious they are shopping for a replacement for NYSRPA? As I already said above, multiple re-listings is common.

If past is prologue, they will pick one for cert, and some or all of the 9 they don't take will remain held, pending the outcome of whichever case they do.
IMO yes. I interpret the cases being NOT distributed for conference as being put aside and not discussed further. So at the moment all are being discussed in some form or another.
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 05-24-2020, 3:28 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The fact the cases were already relisted without even waiting for Tuesday is not a good sign, not at all
Other non 2A cases were also relisted and announced Friday. I'm not seeing why this is a bad sign?
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 05-24-2020, 8:32 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 793
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Well we're all amateurs at reading tea leaves, but some of us are more amateur than others.



Hey! I resemble that statement.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 05-25-2020, 8:01 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The fact the cases were already relisted without even waiting for Tuesday is not a good sign, not at all
I don't think I'd read too much into it. Tues is next Orders for other courts or parties. This relisting is just SCOTUS updating their own calendar.

Last edited by Paladin; 05-26-2020 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 05-25-2020, 1:32 PM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 691
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k5usf View Post
All moved to the 28 May conference.
WTF.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 05-25-2020, 5:15 PM
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 11,782
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I don't think so .. These cases were all held for a long time.

Take the Mance case,
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-663.html

If you look at the log it was distributed for conference 04/08/2019 , then a whole year passed before it was distributed again. It was in the held state that whole time with the other cases.

If they didn't want to take these case right away, they would just put them on hold again.
People said they were hanging on to NYC so long for a reason. Look how that turned out.

All it means is SCOTUS doesn’t consider the 2A a priority. They don’t care that lower courts are ignoring Heller and McDonald. The 2A isn’t even a secondary right. It’s tertiary at best.

Last edited by Bhobbs; 05-25-2020 at 5:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 05-25-2020, 9:50 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 793
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I don't think so .. These cases were all held for a long time.



Take the Mance case,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/18-663.html



If you look at the log it was distributed for conference 04/08/2019 , then a whole year passed before it was distributed again. It was in the held state that whole time with the other cases.



If they didn't want to take these case right away, they would just put them on hold again.
When I spoke to Culp (as in Culp v Raoul) back on 4/30 he said he thinks SCOTUS will take Mance to avoid too much controversy.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 05-25-2020, 10:31 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What use would it be to us? It would not invalidate the roster.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 05-25-2020, 10:53 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
All it means is SCOTUS doesn’t consider the 2A a priority. They don’t care that lower courts are ignoring Heller and McDonald. The 2A isn’t even a secondary right. It’s tertiary at best.
Especially with all the covid stuff working its way up now, this red-headed step-child is going to get shoved further in the closet. See y'all in 2025?
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 05-26-2020, 10:40 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, nice to them not to make us read orders.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 05-26-2020, 10:43 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The fact the cases were already relisted without even waiting for Tuesday is not a good sign, not at all
What will be interesting is if they do NOT relist any of the 2nd A cases this Friday. Does that mean they're through discussing them, they're done with them and ready to deny and/or release opinions?

Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 05-26-2020, 12:19 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What will be interesting is if they do NOT relist any of the 2nd A cases this Friday. Does that mean they're through discussing them, they're done with them and ready to deny and/or release opinions?

they relisted Guedes v ATF right up until cert was denied
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 05-26-2020, 12:40 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good overview article by CNN getting the uninformed masses up to speed.

Quote:
10 cases that could change how the Supreme Court looks at the Second Amendment

Posted May 26, 2020 7:20 a.m. EDT

By Jamie Ehrlich, CNN

CNN — The Supreme Court's solid conservative majority could soon choose to take up its first major Second Amendment case in nearly a decade, positioning the court to override state laws established to limit the availability and accessibility of some firearms and when they can be carried in public.

There are 10 cases waiting before the justices, and it only takes the agreement of four of the nine justices to vote to hear a case -- a low hurdle for the right-leaning Supreme Court seemingly eager to make a broad Second Amendment ruling.

<snip>

While all sides are watching closely, there's no guarantees with anything involving the Supreme Court, however.

"When the court will take another gun case, what it will be, and what the court will decide is all guesswork," said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president of pro-gun safety organization Brady: United Against Gun Violence. "They could grant cert in these cases as soon this week, or soon after, and we will be ready to ensure that Americans' right to life is not infringed upon by the gun industry."
More at: https://www.wral.com/10-cases-that-c...ment/19114233/

Last edited by Paladin; 05-26-2020 at 2:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 05-26-2020, 12:42 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
they relisted Guedes v ATF right up until cert was denied
Right. So, like I said, if some/all of them do NOT get relisted on Friday for next Thursday's conference, it could mean something will happen to them on Monday.

Last edited by Paladin; 05-26-2020 at 2:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 05-26-2020, 12:58 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Too much pessimism.

If the conservatives on the SCOTUS didn't want to take one of the cases and issue a decision? It'd be simplicity itself - just deny cert to everything and they're done.

Since they haven't denied cert it is most logical to suggest they are seriously considering granting cert to one or more of the held 2A cases.

I frankly would not expect a grant of cert until about their last opportunity in this session. They have multiple cases and are probably effectively writing potential decisions for the various cases and for combinations of cases.

And since they aren't going to hear arguments in the case(s) until the next session (and I'm betting not until the next calendar year in order to avoid political implications) there is simply no need to grant cert at this time.

The 5 can work out which is the best case (or cases), determine whether they need to combine two into one, write possible decisions and bargain amongst themselves over what will work best for the balance they are aiming for.

I'd not expect a grant of cert for several weeks. Maybe it'll happen sooner but I'd not bet on it.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 05-26-2020, 1:08 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
The 5 can work out which is the best case (or cases), determine whether they need to combine two into one, write possible decisions and bargain amongst themselves over what will work best for the balance they are aiming for.
The 4 are trying to figure out which one they can get Roberts onboard and at what cost of decision dilution.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 05-26-2020, 1:35 PM
meanspartan's Avatar
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 374
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CNN is wrong that it is a slam dunk because you only need 4 for cert.

Sure, if the 4 voting for cert do not care about the outcome, then it WOULD be easy to grant cert and let the chips fall where they may. But if they are worried Roberts is going to screw them, then they effectively need him on board too in order to not risk an antigun precedent.

If all the 2A cases are dismissed, it is effectively proof that Roberts has flipped, or that he does not want to expand gun rights at all past the watered down protections Heller gave us.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 05-26-2020, 2:25 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
The 4 are trying to figure out which one they can get Roberts onboard and at what cost of decision dilution.
I think that is very possible. Oddly, Thomas could also be the hang-up.

Remember that Thomas doesn't always think about things the same way other conservatives do. In McDonald he did not join the majority opinion but wrote a concurrence.

We really do not know if there is a particular Justice who is being particularly difficult for the other 4 to bring on board or if it is a general consensus-building exercise (or something else).

If I were to make an guess (and understand that it is a guess), Roberts will want a decision mandating a certain level of scrutiny and then let the lower courts fight it out and then come back to SCOTUS if needed. The other four will want a more "broad" ruling. Note that mandating strict scrutiny is sort of a narrow ruling but it does have broad implications. I think the others may want to move things a bit beyond scrutiny and give the lower courts even less leeway than "strict scrutiny" might allow them.

But the truth is that we don't know just what they are discussing or why. It's even possible that one or more justices knows the level of perfidy which would cause Roberts and Kavanaugh to vote for a decision not only on 2A matters but on mootness as well. So they might try for a case they think may be subject to an attempt to moot and pounce on that.

For that matter, there is some pretty egregious governmental stomping on freedom in the name of Covid-19. They'll try to moot the cases which have arisen from that - and that could even increase the interest in a case which might require re-addressing mootness.

It's fun to speculate, but it's speculation.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 05-26-2020, 7:43 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 793
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
The 4 are trying to figure out which one they can get Roberts onboard and at what cost of decision dilution.
What if they could convince Ginsburg one of them is a 14A case?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 05-26-2020, 10:33 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
What if they could convince Ginsburg one of them is a 14A case?
Ginsburg is not a moron. But I don’t think she gives a rats *** about 2A rights. For her it is ancient history that should be forgotten for the good of the collective.

Though she might be insulted by the mental gymnastics of some of the lower court decisions.

Last edited by Offwidth; 05-26-2020 at 10:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 05-27-2020, 2:50 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,967
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Ginsburg is not a moron. But I don’t think she gives a rats *** about 2A rights. For her it is ancient history that should be forgotten for the good of the collective.

Though she might be insulted by the mental gymnastics of some of the lower court decisions.
You don't have to be a Supreme Court justice to be insulted by some of the decisions we've seen...

"oh, it might make people 'feel safer' if we ban semi auto rifles? Well, righty-o, consider it done."
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 05-27-2020, 9:02 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That is a "compelling government interest". I was thinking more along the lines of her recent smackdown of sheninagans in an immigration case in from of 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 05-27-2020, 10:24 AM
cre8nhavoc's Avatar
cre8nhavoc cre8nhavoc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On the SCOTUS site it says that the handgun roster case for California is "distributed for conference on 5/28/20 (tomorrow)". What exactly is the conference for?
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 05-27-2020, 11:04 AM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 2,455
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cre8nhavoc View Post
On the SCOTUS site it says that the handgun roster case for California is "distributed for conference on 5/28/20 (tomorrow)". What exactly is the conference for?
Discussing whether a case should be granted cert, denied cert, or remanded to a lower court to be reheard with additional guidance.

There's also the possibility that the justices either don't get to discussing a particular case or they decide that a case requires further discussion and it gets pushed to a future conference.
__________________
"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 05-28-2020, 5:39 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What will be interesting is if they do NOT relist any of the 2nd A cases this Friday. Does that mean they're through discussing them, they're done with them and ready to deny and/or release opinions?

From SCOTUSblog yesterday:

Quote:
A funny thing happened on Friday: The Supreme Court relisted cases for the next week’s conference, only one day following its previous conference. That may not seem like a big deal, but it’s the biggest change in the court’s relisting procedures in years. Usually, the court relists cases after it releases orders from the previous conference — usually following a Monday order list (or Tuesday, for holiday weekends). Because the Supreme Court usually relists every case it is going to grant, the absence of a Friday relist for the other cases from last week’s conference suggested that, come Monday, the non-relisted cases would be dead on arrival. This week, that proved to be correct, including for some closely watched cases with significant amicus support. The Friday relists also made for much more informed reading of the order list this week, knowing that you didn’t have to look for the still-living relists among the dead cases for which cert had just been denied.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/r...mong-the-dead/
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 05-28-2020, 6:17 AM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 793
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
It's implying SCOTUS is going to grant cert to all 10 2A cases? That is both frightening and exciting.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 05-28-2020, 6:29 AM
SDCarpenter's Avatar
SDCarpenter SDCarpenter is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Carlsbad
Posts: 569
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

We can only hope
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 05-28-2020, 7:28 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
It's implying SCOTUS is going to grant cert to all 10 2A cases? That is both frightening and exciting.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
As Dean Martin would say, "That would be a kick in the pants!"
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 05-28-2020, 7:42 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
It's implying SCOTUS is going to grant cert to all 10 2A cases? That is both frightening and exciting.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
That is not what SCOTUSblog is implying. They are implying that being relisted is a requirement for a case to be granted cert.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 05-28-2020, 9:24 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd be stunned if they granted cert to 10 of our 2A cases. It'd be intriguing, though. If nothing else, would they be doing orals on 10 separate cases? If they consolidate would you have 10 teams of lawyers doing orals in what would effectively be a very short time period?

I think one or two cases get cert. If they combine cases I could see 3-4 being involved. I think Roberts in particular would prefer to be able to rule somewhat narrowly and then let the lower courts sort things out and then another case be brought if they are getting it wrong or seem confused.

I'd still not bet much on getting cert at the next conference. It could happen, but I'm still guessing they are still working out which to take and how to shape the decision.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 05-28-2020, 9:36 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I'd be stunned if they granted cert to 10 of our 2A cases.
That would be odd. At least all carry cases can be consolidated.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 05-28-2020, 10:51 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,332
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I believe we'll have a colony on Mars before SCOTUS upholds the Second Amendment...
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 05-28-2020, 11:26 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
That would be odd. At least all carry cases can be consolidated.
I think that's possible, but it depends on what decision they want to make.

Frankly, I hope they don't do that. I'd much prefer that they take the minimum number of cases in order issue the ruling they want to give.

I want as many GVRs are possible because that should force the appellate courts to establish a favorable precedent in their various circuits. Well, that's how I think it should go. . .
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that).
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 05-28-2020, 12:37 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 793
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
That would be odd. At least all carry cases can be consolidated.
I disagree. Iirc, the carry cases out of NJ pertain to resident permits. The carry case out of Illinois pertains to nonresidents. I know the Illinois case very well. If SCOTUS doesn't take Culp I'd love to see them say, "Under the 14th Amendment, CCW shall apply equally to residents and nonresidents. Apply Moore v Madigan equally to nonresidents, too." Problem solved right there.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Last edited by Transient; 05-28-2020 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 05-28-2020, 2:23 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orange County CA / Dallas TX
Posts: 970
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
That is not what SCOTUSblog is implying. They are implying that being relisted is a requirement for a case to be granted cert.
If they update dockets tomorrow like they did last week, then at a minimum if the 2nd amendment cases aren’t relisted, then we can deduce they are either going to be granted or denied cert on Mondays order list.

If you look at the one case they granted cert (Summary disposition) on may 26 orders, it was NOT relisted on may 22... because they had come to a decision during may 21 conference. That decision just wasn’t released until we saw may 26 order list.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 05-28-2020, 5:51 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,192
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
I believe we'll have a colony on Mars before SCOTUS upholds the Second Amendment...
I wonder how gun rights will be in the MCR .
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 05-28-2020, 7:41 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,831
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
I wonder how gun rights will be in the MCR .
Severely limited to nonexistent. There would no hunting, nor wild animals, but probably a bunch of pressurized air spaces that don't tolerate holes very well. Kind of like living aboard an aircraft, except that replacing oxygen is much more expensive. Plus, unless manufactured on planet, the cost of shipping one from Earth would be massively prohibitive. It costs mucho dinero in rocket fuel to get heavy objects out of Earth's gravity well.
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 05-28-2020, 7:51 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 793
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Severely limited to nonexistent. There would no hunting, nor wild animals, but probably a bunch of pressurized air spaces that don't tolerate holes very well. Kind of like living aboard an aircraft, except that replacing oxygen is much more expensive. Plus, unless manufactured on planet, the cost of shipping one from Earth would be massively prohibitive. It costs mucho dinero in rocket fuel to get heavy objects out of Earth's gravity well.
Frangible ammo

Do you think if they launched more rockets the cost would decrease because of volume? They've been launching unmanned cargo rockets from the eastern shore of Virginia for several years now.

Also, given Mars surface is mostly rust, I think it would be better if polymer frame firearms were shipped there. They would last longer. Plus, polymer frames are lighter, thus requiring less fuel for launch, or more firearms to be launched.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 05-28-2020, 9:19 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
I wonder how gun rights will be in the MCR .


Who cares, all you’re issued are ugly space-Glocks.

Now a gun-ship...

.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:14 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy