The Replica Prop Forum

The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of

Day by Day Cartoon

Sunday, December 4, 2022

Black Friday - $550 Budget AR15 - InRange TV

Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle - I Love Mine But Is It Really Worth $1200? - mixup98

The SURPRISING Role of the Space Shuttle B747! - Mentour Pilot

30-30 Ammo Selection: 150 Grain vs 170 Grain - Holster/Firearm/Magazine Fashion Show - Paul Harrell

If you haven't figured it out, Paul's second video is because of Oregon's new magazine ban.

Solo Overnight Building a Deer Camp in The Woods and Smoked Meat and Potatoes - Corporals Corner

The Incredible Calypso: Jacques Cousteau's Crazy Exploration Vessel - Calum

Elon Musk Is Weaponizing Twitter To Reverse Cancel Culture Against The Woke Left - Timcast IRL

Bonus Material: Flux Raider at Desert Brutality 2022 - Forgotten Weapons

Saturday, December 3, 2022

Evaluating the Modern Stocked Pistol: USW-320 at Desert Brutality 2022 - Forgotten Weapons

Russian Spy Satellite's Failure Caught on Camera - Dark Footage

Twitter Leaks EXPOSE Twitter Making Up Fake Rules To Justify Censoring Hunter Biden Laptop - Timcast IRL

Medieval Costume Comparison | Ranger vs Witcher - Living Anachronism



A federal judge in San Diego has rejected an attempt by the State of California to moot a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit seeking to overturn a Golden State statute designed to penalize any plaintiffs, and their attorneys, in cases challenging California gun control laws. The case is known as Miller v. Bonta.

The eight-page order was signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez. 

SAF's initial lawsuit challenges what it calls a "one-way fee shifting penalty" in California's new gun control law that was adopted as a response to, and was modeled upon a Texas statute on abortion, which the defendants argued was unconstitutional, according to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. SAF and its partners have asked for a preliminary injunction in their federal challenge of the law.

SAF is joined by James Miller, for whom the lawsuit is named, plus Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, PWGG, L.P., the California Gun Rights Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. plus John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group, P.C.; and George M. Lee.

"California wants it both ways," Gottlieb observed. "The state believes the Texas abortion statute is unconstitutional, yet it adopted a gun control law that mirrors the language in the Texas law and contends it is legal. Obviously, Judge Benitez saw right through that flimsy sham and refused to moot our challenge of the California statute."

In his ruling, Judge Benitez observed, "The enactment of (the California statute) is presently tending to insulate California firearm regulations from constitutional review. Individuals, associations, and attorneys who ordinarily represent such clients are refraining from seeking judicial relief from California regulations that they believe conflict with federal constitutional rights. The injuries are concrete and particularized, actual and imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical."

"Long story short," Gottlieb said, "we're going to move forward in our lawsuit because California cannot be permitted to use the law to suppress constitutional challenges to its increasingly radical gun control schemes."

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
Here are the companies that help sponsor the Foundation.
Copyright © 2022 Second Amendment Foundation, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email as a supporter of the Second Amendment Foundation. We thank you for all of your support as we continue to fight for your rights.

Our mailing address is:
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 ne 10th pl
bellevue, wa 98005

Not Good! Anti-2A Group Targeting Constitutional Carry - Guns & Gadgets

Sunday, November 27, 2022

BREAKING: Senate DEMS announce DEFUNDING police who don’t use Red Flag Laws ON CNN… - Langley Outdoors Academy

Please give this song a listen

This is a music reactor from the UK that I watch who also is a musician and he wwrites his own music as well as reacts to it. And I really like this new song he just uploaded to You Tube. So please give it a listen. I'd really appreciate it you also commented on his video to let him know if you enjoyed his song or not. Please if you didn't like it, use constructive criticism. A couple of songs he has done weren't "There" for me, but he listens to his commenters and his a very nice and respectful guy.

You might be OLD…If You Remember These! PART 2 - Recollection Road

How Deadly is a Flintlock Rifle? The British hated this thing - Garand Thumb

Solo Overnight Building a Log Cabin in the Woods and Deep-Fried Cajun Turkey Legs - Corporals Corner

Garmin inReach Mini 2 It Works Where Cell Phones Don't! - CheapRVliving

Toy guns outlawed just in time for Christmas - Legally Armed America

𝙎𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙧 𝘾𝙧𝙪𝙚𝙡𝙩𝙮... - Scammer Payback

Saturday, November 26, 2022

2-Gun: Suspiciously Silent vs Ludicrously Loud - Forgotten Weapons

ATF Agents Handcuff US Navy Sailor & Rob Him At Gunpoint - MrGunsnGear Channel

Law Banning Gun Possession Due to Restraining Order is Unconstitutional -

 U.S.A. -(– Federal District Judge David  Counts in the Western District of Texas has ruled the controversial federal law banning gun possession by a person who has been served with a restraining order for domestic violence is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). This statute makes it a crime to possess a firearm if the person is subject to a court issued restraining order about domestic violence.  The maximum term of imprisonment for violation of the statue is up to 10 years in prison. The actual wording of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) is this:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-

(8) who is subject to a court order that-

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; 

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and 

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

The person subject to a restraining order alone has not been convicted of any crime.

Restraining orders do not have the protections afforded suspects in an actual trial.  Restraining orders have historically been obtained from judges with little effort.

A restraining order does not show the person restrained is guilty of domestic violence. 

A restraining order shows a judge was willing to accommodate a person who claimed they feared domestic violence by restraining the accused person from harassing, threatening, or stalking the person or persons.

Click the link to read the whole article:  Restraining Order Gun Ban Unconstitutional

How Safe Is a SEVERELY Rusted Frame? - REAL Crash Tests - Cornfield Science - Junkyard Digs

NY: Ban on Carrying Firearms in Private Property Declared Unconstitutional -

 U.S.A. -( On September 13, 2022, Brett Christian, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others filed suit against the “emergency” measure pushed through the New York State legislature by Governor Hochul, in defiance of the long-awaited decision in NYSR&PA v Bruen.

The Bruen decision clarified the Heller and McDonald decisions, partially restoring the right to bear arms. The right has been incrementally infringed on for more than a hundred years, primarily under the “Progressive” political philosophy, along with its ideological brethren, the “Jim Crow” laws and Black Codes.

The Christian v. Nigrelli case, as it came to be known, pointed out the Hochel “emergency” statute violated the protections of the Second Amendment when it made all private property into “sensitive places” except where the property owners made an effort to extract themselves. From the complaint:

The [Supreme] Court also explained what courts and States could not do. In Bruen, New York attempted to characterize its pre-Bruen ban of public carry as merely a “sensitive place” restriction. Id. at 2133–34. There, the State attempted to define “sensitive places” as “all places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court rejected New York’s capacious designation of sensitive places. “[E]xpanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.” Id. (emphasis added). Under Bruen, the designation of “sensitive places” cannot be used to “in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment” or “eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” Id. at 2134. Instead, the only permissible “sensitive places” are those with a “historical basis.” Id.

On November 22, 2022, eleven weeks after the case was filed, Judge John L. Sinata, Jr. posted a decision and order on the request for a preliminary injunction.

The decision struck down the private property ban on carry.

Preliminary injunctions are granted when the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, irreparable harm would result without the injunction, and the public interest would be served.

Click the link to read teh whole article:  Private Property Band Declared Unconstitutional

ATF Stripped of Power To Regulate & Restrict Suppressors Under The NFA!!! - Armed Scholar

Friday, November 25, 2022

Biden Said The Quiet Part Out Loud! Wants To Ban WHAT?! - Guns & Gadgets

The Truth About Live Nation/Ticketmaster's Power - TankTheTech

Last one..... For NOW..... - BAND-MAID / Unleash!!!!! (Official Music Video)

The last one for now. Maybe....

Is your blood pumping yet? Here is another song to make sure you are jump started - BAND-MAID / influencer (Official Music Video)

The Bass Solo is EPIC in this one.

Oh YES, another song for your edification today - BAND-MAID / サヨナキドリ "Sayonakidori" Acoustic Ver. (Official Live Video)

Another song for you this morning - BAND-MAID / カタルシス "Catharsis" Acoustic Ver. (Official Live Video)

A song to get your blood pumping this morning - Band-Maid - from now on

Congress Creates Federal "Assault Weapon" & Magazine Capacity Ban!!! - Armed Scholar

Thursday, November 24, 2022

Established Titles Scam -YouTube's BIGGEST Con! Graham Stephan & Andrei Jikh - Scott Shafer

Elon Musk Reveals The MOTHERLOAD Of Censorship At Twitter! Will Release Hunter Biden Laptop Messages - The Quartering

Dollar Store Cheese-In-A-Can Costs $48 🇯🇲 Spice Bun & Tastee Cheese, Bulla Cake - emmymade

Politician Says Second Amendment Wasn't For Poor & Common People While Passing Strict Gun Control - Colion Noir

2022 Thanksgiving Special - Paul Harrell

The Elite Unit of Alaskan Tradesmen & Natives who TERRORISED the Japanese from the Shadows in WW2 - The Front

12 Things NOT Found in Schools Anymore…That We Want Back! - Recollection Road

The Coda was Far More Broken Than I Thought - Aging Wheels

New York Attorney General Threatens Ammo Sellers -

 U.S.A. -( In a move that surprised absolutely nobody, anti-gun New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) announced last week that she would expand her assault on the Second Amendment by targeting ammunition sellers. AG James claimed, “39 ammunition sellers have been shipping ammunition directly to New York residents in violation of New York’s SAFE Act.”

According to a press release from her office, “Attorney General James sent cease and desist orders to these ammunition sellers demanding that they stop shipping ammunition directly to New York and warned them of serious legal consequences if they continue to violate New York’s law.”

The only problem is that how the SAFE Act actually impacts the sale of ammunition in New York remains unclear; even though it was originally signed into law in 2013.

As you may recall, New York’s SAFE Act was introduced, passed, and enacted literally overnight in January of 2013. It received zero legislative scrutiny, and zero opportunity for the public to review the proposal before it was voted on. In fact, few legislators, if any, were even able to carefully read the legislation before a late-night vote was forced upon them.

Of course, given the unprecedented break-neck speed of the legislative process with the SAFE Act—necessary because anti-gun extremists in New York were determined to exploit a recent firearm-related tragedy—the law had serious flaws; besides the obvious attack on law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment. Even then-Governor Andrew Cuomo (D)—who helped champion, then signed into law, the SAFE Act—openly admitted mistakes were made with what was arguably the most anti-gun legislative package ever passed; anywhere.

Click the link to read the whole article:  NY AG Threatens Ammo Sellers

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

FTX Disaster - 7 Unbelievable Bankruptcy Discoveries - ColdFusion

Greek Fire - When you get that burning feeling all over... - Drachinifel

PX9 - Budget RDS Pistol - InRange TV

Frommer Pistolen-MG Model 1917: A Crazy Villar Perosa Copy - Forgotten Weapons

‘Roadmap’ Latest ‘Commonsense’ Ploy to Advance Citizen Disarmament -

 U.S.A. – -( “Newly released research suggests four gun safety policies supported by gun owners and non-gun owners that could reduce overall gun-related homicides by 28% and gun-related suicides by 6.7%,” ABC News dutifully parrots. “One of the proposals alone, called closing the misdemeanor loophole, has the potential to reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19% according to research.”

“What’s not to like?” those impressed by such promises might ask. “Let’s do it!”

“Not so fast,” some of us who have been down this road before might respond.  “Could” also means “could not” and “has the potential” means someone is talking out of their… ear. Just who are these “gun control”-loving “gun owners”?

And what the hell kind of invented new scare term is “misdemeanor loophole”?

The “Gun Violence/Epidemic” video accompanying this unabashed advocacy piece masked as news gives us our first clue that Disney-owned ABC is continuing with its decades-long hostility to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We then need to look at who’s behind this latest push, and unsurprisingly, the name “97percent” features prominently. This is the Astroturf group I warned about in my Firearms News exposé  from a year-and-a-half ago, “’Gun Safety Symposium’ Promises Kinder, Gentler Citizen Disarmament.”

Click the link to read the whole article:  ‘Commonsense’ Ploy to Advance Disarmament

Woman Calls 911 for Help, has Firearms Confiscated by Police -

 NASSAU COUNTY, New York -( The area around New York City is known for being anti-gun, but Nassau County’s latest move takes gun control to a whole new level. Nassau County had suspended a pistol permit and confiscated a citizen’s firearms for calling 911 when her life was threatened and not reporting the call to the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) Pistol License Section.

A woman living in the county, who doesn’t wish to be named, purchased a handgun right before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her long-time boyfriend had passed away, and she felt she needed to protect herself. That is when the problem with her next-door neighbor started. The neighbor living near her allegedly threatened to kill her and burn down her house.

Fearing for her life, she called 911. The Nassau County Police Department responded to the call and took care of the incident. She still feared for her life, knowing she would have to leave her home without her firearm. Then the Supreme Court issued the landmark Bruen decision that knocked down New York State’s “proper clause” statute that prevented most New Yorkers from getting concealed carry permits.

Soon after, New York State passed the concealed carry improvement act (CCIA), which added roadblocks to getting a carry permit. Gone was the “proper cause” clause, but the state added a “good moral character” clause. The state also started requiring applicants to turn over three years of social media, take 18 hours of training, and give character references. Places like Nassau County also needed a drug test.

Several lawsuits are challenging the Constitutionality of the CCIA, including one by Gun Owners of America (GOA) that received a preliminary injunction from the District Court in Antonyuk v. Hochul. However, that decision was stayed by the Circuit Court. The Nassau woman decided she couldn’t wait for the case to be resolved, so she submitted her social media, took the drug test, and paid hundreds of dollars to complete the training.

To read the whole article please click the link:  Woman Calls 911 for Help, has Firearms Confiscated

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

US Government Was Investigating FTX Months Ago & Did Nothing Until After Midterms, Democrats Benefit - Timcast IRL

New Jersey Defies Supreme Court, Assembly Passes Carry Bill - Copper Jacket TV

F 8 Crusader | The Last American Gunfighter | Supersonic, Air Superiority Jet Aircraft - Dronescapes

Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in N.Y. Private Property Case - Second Amendment Foundation


A federal judge in western New York has granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the "private property exclusion" tenet of the state's new gun control law, calling it unconstitutional.
The case, known as Christian et. al. v. Nigrelli, et. al., was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of Brett Christian, a private citizen. U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. with the U.S. District Court in Buffalo handed down the 27-page ruling.
Noting that the private property exclusion "makes it a felony for a license holder to possess a firearm on all private property, unless the relevant property holders actually permit such possession with a sign or by express consent," Judge Sinatra noted, "Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations…New York fails that test."
Judge Sinatra added, "Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes."
SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was delighted with the ruling, which was issued late Tuesday afternoon.
"New York's efforts to dance around the Supreme Court's Bruen decision have become a painful exercise in legal acrobatics, which it seems obvious the courts can see through," Gottlieb observed. "This case illustrates the ridiculous lengths to which lawmakers in Albany have tried to go in their efforts to get around the letter and spirit of the high court ruling."
"Having New York's unconstitutionally sound law enjoined is a win for the public," said SAF's Executive Director Adam Kraut. "New York's effort to restrict the public's right to carry arms, through its imposition of outlandish requirements that have no roots in our country's history and tradition, is a sign of how far its legislature is willing to go when it comes to depriving individuals of their constitutional rights. SAF looks forward to continuing to vindicate the rights of its members and the public."
Judge Sinatra noted in his decision that Christian "is likely to succeed on the merits of his Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims…New York's new private property exclusion violates the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside their homes."

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.
Here are the companies that help sponsor the Foundation.
Copyright © 2022 Second Amendment Foundation, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email as a supporter of the Second Amendment Foundation. We thank you for all of your support as we continue to fight for your rights.

Our mailing address is:
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 ne 10th pl
bellevue, wa 98005

Press Release: the Club Q Shooting in Colorado Springs - Operation Blazing Sword



Daytona Beach, FL, 21 November 2022

On 19 November 2022, at approximately 11:55 PM, a predator entered Club Q in Colorado Springs. He began firing almost immediately, killing 5 and wounding 17 before being subdued by two unarmed patrons of the club. More people were injured in the crush trying to escape. Despite there not yet being a disclosed motive for the shooting, the effect of the shooting in one of only two gay clubs in Colorado Springs is chilling. Operation Blazing Sword – Pink Pistols (OBS–PP) condemns this shooting in the strongest possible terms.

Whatever his motive, he brought death and chaos into what had been a safe space. Among the victims were Daniel Davis Aston and Kelly Loving, a transgender man and transgender woman who were killed just hours before a brunch that would commemorate the Transgender Day of Remembrance on Sunday. The fact that the attacker was subdued by patrons of the club reminds us that we are our own best defenders and first responders, which is why the motto of the Pink Pistols is Armed Queers Don't Get Bashed.

"I'm heartbroken and absolutely mortified," said Dani Birzer, a friend of Daniel Aston. "You always know this is a possibility when you go into a gay club because you know you're not protected." This lack of protection at the Pulse Nightclub massacre led to the formation of Operation Blazing Sword, and its mission is to promote lawful self-defense with legally-owned and legally-carried firearms. Our position is that gun rights are queer rights, because guns in the hands of queer people protect queer lives. Therefore, any law which seeks to prevent us from carrying a gun for self-defense is anti-queer and a threat to our lives.

Operation Blazing Sword – Pink Pistols strongly encourages anyone who wishes to exercise their right to keep and bear arms to seek out as much firearm education and training as they can manage. The right to defend yourself comes with the responsibility to use those tools correctly and within the law, and self defense has strict requirements to meet. To that end, Operation Blazing Sword maintains a database of 1500 queer-friendly firearm volunteer educators in every state of the USA. OPS–PP also submits legal briefs (amicus curiae) to protect the rights of not just queer people, but all peaceable citizens, to have access to the most effective tools for self-defense.

Operation Blazing Sword, Inc. is a grass-roots 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to helping queer people become responsible firearm owners through volunteer education.

Pink Pistols, a division of Operation Blazing Sword, is dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the gender and sexual minority community.

Media Contact: Erin Palette, 386-401-0386,

Copyright (C) 2022 Operation Blazing Sword. All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Operation Blazing Sword
800 Belle Terre Pkwy Ste 200-302
Palm Coast, FL 32164-2314