The Replica Prop Forum

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

Friday, October 28, 2022

The Bump Stock Case that the ATF Should be Worried About - Washington Gun Law

Roller Bearing Sabot Shotgun Slugs - British Brilliance! - Taofledermaus

It Is illegal To Ship, Transport, Receive, Or Possess Older Rifle Kits - CRS Firearms

Say Goodbye To The 2nd Amendment In Oregon - Copper Jacket TV

Answering Spicy Questions While Eating Super Hot Peppers - Epic Homesteading

NYPost Hacked, Calls for Death of AOC - Liberty Doll

CDC Adds Covid To Childhood Vaccine Schedule, Pfizer Immediately Raises Price - Ben Swann

CDC Adds Covid To Childhood Vaccine Schedule, Pfizer Immediately Raises Price - powered by

Democrats BLOWS WHISTLE On Major Vote Fraud Operation, DeSantis Initiates CRIMINAL Investigation - Tim Pool

Thursday, October 27, 2022

Top 10 Creepiest Stories from the St. Louis Region Told by Author Troy Taylor | Living St. Louis - Nine St. Louis

As some of you may know I used to live in St. Louis. I was born there, grew up there, except for all of the summers I spent on a farm in North Central Arkansas up until my teens. But I got married and raised my kids in St. Louis until my father died in 2004 when I moved to Texas with my kids. I have gone on "Ghost Hunts", and despite what you may or may not believe, I experienced some things which I cannot explain. Were they paranormal? I don't know, I just know I can't explain them.

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

Update on New York's "Social Media" Provision - Operation Blazing Sword/Pink Pistols


Dear Pink Pistol members and Operation Blazing Sword volunteers,

We have received a number of questions, comments and emails that essentially ask the same thing: Wasn't the social media provision of New York's concealed carry laws struck down by a Federal judge last week?

The answer, unfortunately, is "no". Per Document #27 in the case of Antonyuk v. Hochul, aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act, including the social media provision, have merely been temporarily restrained from enforcement for two weeks until the judge can hear more detailed arguments from both sides, not struck down. Put in layman's terms, the judge has said "Until this case has been decided in court, these laws are on hold."

Your confusion is entirely understandable as many reputable outlets have been publishing the Associated Press article by Michael Hill wherein the author states that a "Federal judge halts key parts of New York's new gun law" and that "multiple provisions in a state law passed this year are unconstitutional." While these statements are technically correct, they paint a false image by not mentioning that this halt is temporary and the result of a restraining order, leading readers to incorrectly assume that this is a permanent result of a court decision. As always, when it comes to the media reporting on guns, verify from original sources whenever possible.

The state of New York has predictably appealed this ruling, and the appeals court will likely rule on this Temporary Restraining Order in the coming days. Because it is critical that that the courts recognize the grave impact this law has on First Amendment rights, we must act quickly to put this issue before the court.

If you are a New York resident and this law has forced you to self-censor on social media or stop using it altogether, or it has made you change your mind about applying for a concealed carry permit, you have standing to bring suit against New York. Please contact Anna Diakun, Staff Attorney for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, to become a plaintiff in this case.

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

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

Saturday, October 8, 2022

SAF Files Memorandum for Preliminary Injunction - Second Amendment Foundation


Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation's challenge of California's new law that includes a one-way fee-shifting penalty to discourage lawsuits against restrictive gun laws have filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group, PC, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Joseph O. Masterman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC filed the memorandum, which asserts plaintiffs have already suffered harm due to the constitutional violations contained in the new law.

The lawsuit, and this new memorandum, allege the law (Section 1021.11 of the California Penal Code) is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, and that it also violates the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The statute also discriminates against gun rights plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, according to the lawsuit.

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

The new motion also says Section 1021.11 has "caused several Plaintiffs to dismiss or refrain from bringing additional lawsuits challenging other California firearms regulations that they believe are unconstitutional."

"We are pulling out all the stops in fighting this new statute because of its egregious nature," said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb, one of the plaintiffs in the case known as Miller v. Bonta. "Section 1021.11 is part of Senate Bill 1327, adopted earlier this year in reaction to a Texas law passed last year, which is about abortion. The California law was crafted as a political response to the Texas statute, which California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the chief defendant in our case, described as 'blatantly unconstitutional.'

"Bonta is trying to have it both ways," Gottlieb continued. "He simply cannot protest a law he considers unconstitutional by enforcing another law which is equally unconstitutional in what amounts to a childish political snit that began with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California legislature."

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

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Primitive Technology: Smelting Iron In Brick Furnaces - Primitive Technology

The Shotgun Violin Reload - Lucky Gunner Ammo

Misdemeanor Gun Forfeiture Ordinance Reveals Hole in Ohio Preemption Law -

 U.S.A. – -( “Richmond Heights City Council has passed an ordinance that adds further stipulations to misdemeanors surrounding firearms, including the forfeiture of weapons if convicted,” The News Herald reports. “The law was passed this past week in order to help combat the growing number of firearm violations.”

If they were firearm violations and the city knows about them, then there are already laws on the books making them illegal, for which known violators can be charged and prosecuted. Indeed, that’s the case here, with current misdemeanor charges applicable for illegal discharges, possession while intoxicated, and carrying a gun into an establishment posted as banning them, with the added proviso that doing so without a permit “is a felony.”

What the Richmond Heights ordinance does is require a violator’s gun to be forfeited.

What the city is doing is transparent: It is adding more punishments not included under Ohio law. This is unabashedly an in-your-face gun-grabber retaliation against Ohio’s recently-enacted “permitless carry” law. Think of it as “lawfare.” More appropriately, think of it as an act of “We’ll show you” revenge by spiteful bureaucratic gun-grabbers.

And they dictate the terms of gun owner surrender in no uncertain terms:

“Under this new legislation passed in Richmond Heights, the misdemeanor and fine will remain with the added stipulation that the weapon is forfeited. The forfeiture of these weapons under the new law cannot be contested, and the courts will not have discretion on the matter of the seizure.”

The thing is, Ohio is a preemption state.  But Richmond Heights is counting on a legal workaround, or what could be called the “gun confiscation loophole.”

“The forfeiture laws were revised about 10 years ago and a municipality’s ability to create a forfeiture penalty was expressly reserved by the state to the municipalities,” City Prosecutor Michael E. Cicero claimed. “You could have a forfeiture for the misdemeanor and the state has reserved that for cities and villages.”

Click the link to read the whole article:  Hole in Ohio Preemption Law