So you don't think they want to force ammunition to get more expensive? You haven't been listening to the gun control people. I have.
You see as just one bit of "sensible" regulation. I see it as the latest in many, many efforts to further restrict gun rights. Many of those efforts have been successful, so that gun rights now are highly restricted in comparison to 100 years ago (unless you're black, then you're a bit better off relatively). If you want compromise, time for actually compromising. Give something back if you want more restrictions.
All denials, and all but a couple modifications, happened after 9/11. More logically, the executive started getting over-reaching in its requests, and started making many more requests, resulting in relatively more denials.
Most people I know are practicing less even with the rise in prices due to regular market forces. Bullets cost money, people have budgets.
Please tell me you don't think this will stop only with bullets used for hunting. You've seen people mentioning lead in firing ranges already. When it comes to this subject, the slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it's a certainty.
The military does not want their bullets to expand on impact, since that would violate the Hague Convention. Frangibility is allowed, even desired. These materials look pretty good for that purpose.
Hunters want ammunition that will expand on impact with minimal fragmentation. In fact, some jurisdictions ban fully jacketed ammo for hunting. These materials do not look good for that purpose.
The NRA should die, and be replaced with a better group that actually represents their members, and minimizes their actual bigger impact to only things that protect their members rights.
There is the Gun Owners of America, organized because the NRA was often too willing to compromise on our rights and too timid to fight when necessary.
Remember though that the GOA is purely rights-oriented. The NRA has a non-lobbying arm that does extensive training and education.
The intent is gun control. Raising the price of guns and ammo has been on the wish list of anti-gun people for years. High taxation has always been the usual tool, but they can't get it passed. But if under the guise of environmentalism they can raise the price of ammo so that few can afford it, that will work too.
The law explicitly excludes immunity for actual product defects. It also excludes dealers or people who knowingly sell a firearm illegally, or falsify paperwork.
It is reasonable that a manufacture not be held liable for a product that functions as stated without failure. It is reasonable that a seller of a legal product, who has complied with all legal requirements concerning the sale, not be held liable for what people later do with that product. If you can't see holding Dodge and the local Dodge dealer responsible for the recent Venice boardwalk murder, you can't logically want to hold Bushmaster and the local gun dealer responsible when someone gets shot with a gun they legally made and sold.
The anti-gun crowd is just mad because this stopped one of their tactics designed to do an end-run around the Constitution. If they can't make the product illegal, they'll run all the makers and sellers of that product out of business with nuisance lawsuits. They don't even have to win, just make it too expensive to defend.
Nonsense. It's every court's job to uphold the Constitution.
No, it isn't. Appellate courts determine constitutionality. Lower courts apply the law made by the legislature and the precedent made by appellate courts.
You will often hear judges in lower courts say they don't think something is right, but their "hands are tied" by the law so they have to do it. For example, a judge may think the sentencing rules as set by law are unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual" for a particular case, but he still has to abide by them (common in drug cases). Constitutionality will be determined on appeal.
If something is wrong with FISA, then Congress or the President has to fix it, or the Supreme Court has to rule the activities unconstitutional. Funny thing is, the FISA court was created in response to CIA, FBI and NSA abuses in order to give judicial oversight to these activities. As usual, the government fix to a problem creates even more problems.
The National Rifle Association and the gun industry are both lobbying hard to restrict consumer rights in product liability lawsuits.
The purpose of this effort was to protect the industry against nuisance suits where a gun killed someone when it was fired by a criminal and functioned perfectly. In the end, this resulted in a ban on nuisance suits by the likes of the VPC that are designed to bankrupt companies for producing legal products that function exactly as advertised.
Suits against gun companies over harm due to actual product defect are exceedingly rare, if not non-existent.
If the developers have half a brain, they'll check for deceleration up and acceleration down according to gravity.
I'm thinking a 20 foot vertical air cannon with a throwaway phone, the phone encased in foam in an aerodynamic shell. But then they may factor in human strength limits too.
It is not this court's job to determine constitutionality. If you don't like the way it works, Congress is the proper venue for change. Or you could get Saint Obama to tell his FBI and NSA to back off the requests, or to have them reviewed by a neutral party first.
What you should really worry about is that even when the court approves a reasonable request, there's little oversight as to whether the FBI or NSA stayed within the bounds of the court order.
And of course logically it cannot be a rubber stamp if Bush felt the need to circumvent the court for his illegal spying on the American people. One of the judges resigned in disgust over his actions. If it's a rubber stamp, why didn't Bush just get FISA warrants and evade the whole issue of his wiretaps being illegal?
This court has been manned by many different judges for decades, of either party influence, many known for ruling against executive abuses of power. It's not one consistent star chamber of executive flunkies.
If you were giving me random numbers between 1-10, and I only found 5 and 8 acceptable, you would have a 20% success rate. But if we went through an intermediary who always told you "wrong, do it again" for unacceptable numbers, you'd get a 100% success rate for numbers that made it to me.
Their whole job is to uphold the Constitution and make sure the government isn't overstepping their bounds.
Their job is to grant or deny requests according to the law, not interpret the Constitution. If a requests fits the law, it is granted.
What facts?
The fact is that all requests are vetted before they get to the judges to be approved or disapproved. There could be a 90% rejection rate for all we know, but the judges only see the ones 99% likely to be approved. It is this last figure that is reported to us.
The constitutionality issue is separate from the rubber stamp issue. What I have proven with the facts is that it is not a rubber stamp, not that it's constitutional.
No, Apple bought two CPU design companies to gain the expertise, and obtained an architectural license from ARM to design their own custom CPU based on the ARM instruction set. This is why the A6 chip is not Cortex A9 or Cortex A15, but somewhere in between.
This is as opposed to earlier chips where they just bought off-the-shelf Samsung, or told Samsung the specs and tweaks they wanted. Now Samsung is just a fab.
They approve all applications because: First, the same few FBI lawyers make the applications and have a pretty good idea of what will get approved and what won't. Second, the FISA court clerks know what their bosses will and won't approve, so reject or send back for modification almost all deficient applications before they even hit the judges where they can be counted in this approval rate.
The rate of applications modified or rejected by the clerks is the real approval rate, but that's not tracked.
Slashdot Mirror
So you don't think they want to force ammunition to get more expensive? You haven't been listening to the gun control people. I have.
You see as just one bit of "sensible" regulation. I see it as the latest in many, many efforts to further restrict gun rights. Many of those efforts have been successful, so that gun rights now are highly restricted in comparison to 100 years ago (unless you're black, then you're a bit better off relatively). If you want compromise, time for actually compromising. Give something back if you want more restrictions.
I know some range owners, and all collect their lead.
All denials, and all but a couple modifications, happened after 9/11. More logically, the executive started getting over-reaching in its requests, and started making many more requests, resulting in relatively more denials.
Most people I know are practicing less even with the rise in prices due to regular market forces. Bullets cost money, people have budgets.
Please tell me you don't think this will stop only with bullets used for hunting. You've seen people mentioning lead in firing ranges already. When it comes to this subject, the slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it's a certainty.
Because the lead is worth money to them when the collect and resell it.
OTOH, it doesn't look like you've ever listened to a range owner, which is probably the reason you've never heard about any of this.
The military does not want their bullets to expand on impact, since that would violate the Hague Convention. Frangibility is allowed, even desired. These materials look pretty good for that purpose.
Hunters want ammunition that will expand on impact with minimal fragmentation. In fact, some jurisdictions ban fully jacketed ammo for hunting. These materials do not look good for that purpose.
There is the Gun Owners of America, organized because the NRA was often too willing to compromise on our rights and too timid to fight when necessary.
Remember though that the GOA is purely rights-oriented. The NRA has a non-lobbying arm that does extensive training and education.
No, they are attacking the studies themselves.
Where missing a target may endanger nearby communities, areas are often restricted to shotgun or bow hunting. Slugs and arrows don't travel as far.
The intent is gun control. Raising the price of guns and ammo has been on the wish list of anti-gun people for years. High taxation has always been the usual tool, but they can't get it passed. But if under the guise of environmentalism they can raise the price of ammo so that few can afford it, that will work too.
The law explicitly excludes immunity for actual product defects. It also excludes dealers or people who knowingly sell a firearm illegally, or falsify paperwork.
It is reasonable that a manufacture not be held liable for a product that functions as stated without failure. It is reasonable that a seller of a legal product, who has complied with all legal requirements concerning the sale, not be held liable for what people later do with that product. If you can't see holding Dodge and the local Dodge dealer responsible for the recent Venice boardwalk murder, you can't logically want to hold Bushmaster and the local gun dealer responsible when someone gets shot with a gun they legally made and sold.
The anti-gun crowd is just mad because this stopped one of their tactics designed to do an end-run around the Constitution. If they can't make the product illegal, they'll run all the makers and sellers of that product out of business with nuisance lawsuits. They don't even have to win, just make it too expensive to defend.
No, it isn't. Appellate courts determine constitutionality. Lower courts apply the law made by the legislature and the precedent made by appellate courts.
You will often hear judges in lower courts say they don't think something is right, but their "hands are tied" by the law so they have to do it. For example, a judge may think the sentencing rules as set by law are unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual" for a particular case, but he still has to abide by them (common in drug cases). Constitutionality will be determined on appeal.
If something is wrong with FISA, then Congress or the President has to fix it, or the Supreme Court has to rule the activities unconstitutional. Funny thing is, the FISA court was created in response to CIA, FBI and NSA abuses in order to give judicial oversight to these activities. As usual, the government fix to a problem creates even more problems.
Track record of approvals.
The purpose of this effort was to protect the industry against nuisance suits where a gun killed someone when it was fired by a criminal and functioned perfectly. In the end, this resulted in a ban on nuisance suits by the likes of the VPC that are designed to bankrupt companies for producing legal products that function exactly as advertised.
Suits against gun companies over harm due to actual product defect are exceedingly rare, if not non-existent.
The VPC lies. Always.
This site works on that myth as well.
If the developers have half a brain, they'll check for deceleration up and acceleration down according to gravity.
I'm thinking a 20 foot vertical air cannon with a throwaway phone, the phone encased in foam in an aerodynamic shell. But then they may factor in human strength limits too.
This court's been going since 1979 with pretty much the same track record the whole time, about 70 judges appointed by three Chief Justices.
It is not this court's job to determine constitutionality. If you don't like the way it works, Congress is the proper venue for change. Or you could get Saint Obama to tell his FBI and NSA to back off the requests, or to have them reviewed by a neutral party first.
What you should really worry about is that even when the court approves a reasonable request, there's little oversight as to whether the FBI or NSA stayed within the bounds of the court order.
And of course logically it cannot be a rubber stamp if Bush felt the need to circumvent the court for his illegal spying on the American people. One of the judges resigned in disgust over his actions. If it's a rubber stamp, why didn't Bush just get FISA warrants and evade the whole issue of his wiretaps being illegal?
This court has been manned by many different judges for decades, of either party influence, many known for ruling against executive abuses of power. It's not one consistent star chamber of executive flunkies.
These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them
If you were giving me random numbers between 1-10, and I only found 5 and 8 acceptable, you would have a 20% success rate. But if we went through an intermediary who always told you "wrong, do it again" for unacceptable numbers, you'd get a 100% success rate for numbers that made it to me.
Their job is to grant or deny requests according to the law, not interpret the Constitution. If a requests fits the law, it is granted.
The fact is that all requests are vetted before they get to the judges to be approved or disapproved. There could be a 90% rejection rate for all we know, but the judges only see the ones 99% likely to be approved. It is this last figure that is reported to us.
The constitutionality issue is separate from the rubber stamp issue. What I have proven with the facts is that it is not a rubber stamp, not that it's constitutional.
Regular search warrants issued in your local court usually get no opposing counsel. This isn't an issue, never was.
Why not?
No, Apple bought two CPU design companies to gain the expertise, and obtained an architectural license from ARM to design their own custom CPU based on the ARM instruction set. This is why the A6 chip is not Cortex A9 or Cortex A15, but somewhere in between.
This is as opposed to earlier chips where they just bought off-the-shelf Samsung, or told Samsung the specs and tweaks they wanted. Now Samsung is just a fab.
They approve all applications because: First, the same few FBI lawyers make the applications and have a pretty good idea of what will get approved and what won't. Second, the FISA court clerks know what their bosses will and won't approve, so reject or send back for modification almost all deficient applications before they even hit the judges where they can be counted in this approval rate.
The rate of applications modified or rejected by the clerks is the real approval rate, but that's not tracked.
Gauge? .223 gauge would be something around a 70mm bore diameter.
That's aside from the fact that a .22LR and .223 Winchester have quite different masses and velocities.