The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of
Monday, June 30, 2025
UPDATE: Senate Parliamentarian Rules On NFA TAX Language...BUT - Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News
Republicans Change Text of HPA and SHORT Act to Satisfy an Unelected Bureaucrat - Ammoland.com
Late Friday night, Republicans introduced new text to the reconciliation bill, trying to satisfy the Senate Parliamentarian’s view on the Byrd Rule. The new text will keep short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), any other weapons (AOW), and suppressors under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), but would reduce the tax stamp fee to $0. Machineguns and destructive devices tax stamp fee will remain $200.
The Byrd rule is named after former U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a member of the Democratic Party. The Byrd Rule states that only budgetary and tax items can be passed through the reconciliation process. A reconciliation bill differs from a standard bill as only 50 votes are needed to pass it through the Senate. In contrast, any other bill requires a supermajority of 60 votes to pass due to the filibuster. Republicans argued that since the NFA is a tax law, as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1937, it could be changed through reconciliation. Democrats argued that it was a policy issue, not a tax issue, and therefore off-limits to reconciliation.
Click the link to read the whole article: Republicans Change Text to Satisfy Bureaucrat
Sunday, June 29, 2025
Saturday, June 28, 2025
【公式】期間限定配信 ドン・ドラキュラ 1～8話 全話配信 - 手塚プロダクション公式チャンネル - [Official] Limited time streaming Don Dracula Episodes 1-8 All episodes - Tezuka Productions Official Channel
Turn on the captions for English Sub-titles
Friday, June 27, 2025
Thursday, June 26, 2025
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
DOJ Files Amicus Brief Opposing Illinois’ “Assault Weapons” Ban - Ammoland.com
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, has filed an Amicus brief in support of Second Amendment rights in Barnett v. Raoul.
An Amicus brief is also known as a “friend of the court” filing. Interested individuals or organizations that are not named in a case can file these briefs to try to influence that court’s decision by supplying relevant information and case law. These briefs are standard from both sides of the issue, but the DOJ filing one on behalf of gun rights is something that we haven’t seen in the past.
The case was filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Caleb Barnett, Brian Norman, and two gun shops. The plaintiffs are suing over Illinois’s “Protect Illinois Community Act” (PICA) law. The law banned some of the most common semi-automatic firearms in the country, including the AR-15. Illinois refers to these guns as “assault weapons” and claims that they can be banned because they are “weapons of war.”
The DOJ, in its amicus brief, maintains the stance that the AR-15 and similar rifles can not be banned.
Click the link to read the whole article: DOJ Files Amicus Brief
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Anti-Hunting Activists Push Big Banks to Discriminate Against Hunting & Farmers - Ammoland.com
Anti-hunting, anti-animal agriculture activists are deploying a new tactic in their crusade in the United States. They are failing to get their way through democratic, voter-approved legislative channels and are often on the losing end of judicial, court-based lawfare attempts so they are turning to a new option – Big Banks.
Just at the time when President Donald Trump successfully urged major banking institutions to abandon their previously held politics-based lending protocols to discriminate against politically-disfavored industries, including the lawful and highly-regulated firearm industry, anti-hunting animal rights groups are pushing them in the opposite direction and back towards a policy of denying banking services and financial products to disfavored businesses.
Gun control groups had recently made some temporary inroads by getting the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to create a gun-related Merchant Category Code (MCC) for credit and debit card companies to use to track cardholders’ purchases of firearms and ammunition. Banks largely announced they would not be moving forward with implementing the code. Now, animal rights activists at organizations like the Humane World for Animals are pushing similar discrimination efforts on the global financial system to penalize animal agriculture businesses.
Click the link to read the whole article: Activists Push Banks to Discriminate Against Hunting & Farmers
Old Editorial Useful in Showing True Goal Behind ‘Commonsense Gun Safety’ Lie - Ammoland.com
“[O]n a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building,” an Op-Ed column by retired diplomat and editorial board member Dan Simpson in the Toledo Blade titled “The disarming of America” demanded. “All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.”
OK, but that’s from 2007. Why bring it up now?
I was actually searching the old version of my blog for key words to bolster arguments for a new post (something many of us with history in the fight do all the time) and came across a blistering criticism by ostensible Second Amendment/NRA “loyalist” bloggers that friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh and I called “prags” (self-styled “pragmatists”). They were going ballistic on Mike for being a “principles freak” and “making us all look bad” because of his frank talk about unintended consequences from pushing die-hard gun owners too far (as opposed to employing their preferred tactic of writing polite letters to rabid gun-grabbers as a the most “effective” way to win support from fence-sitters).
Click the link for the whole article: Old Editorial Showing Goal Behind ‘Commonsense Gun Safety’ Lie
North Carolina Governor Stein Vetoes Constitutional Carry Bill - Ammoland.com
On June 20, 2025, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein vetoed a Constitutional Carry bill that would have allowed law-abiding adults over the age of 18 to carry concealed handguns without a permit.
In his veto statement, Governor Stein expressed his justification for this move. “This bill makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership. Therefore, I am vetoing it,” Stein stated. “The bill eliminates training requirements associated with concealed carry permits and reduces the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old. Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous. The bill would also make the job of a law enforcement officer more difficult and less safe. We can and should protect the right to bear arms without recklessly endangering law enforcement officers and our people.”
Gun rights advocates and Republican leaders were quick to condemn the governor’s action. Senate Leader Phil Berger criticized the veto, stating, “Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights. It’s past time for us to join the majority of states that recognize Constitutional Carry. I look forward to the Senate overriding Gov. Stein’s veto.”
Click the link to read the whole article: North Carolina Governor Vetoes Constitutional Carry
Ninth Circuit Panel: California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law Unconstitutional - Ammoland.com
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that California’s one-gun-per-month restriction violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The ruling was authored by Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee. A concurring opinion was authored by Judge John B. Owens, a Barack Obama appointee. The third member of the panel was Judge Bridget S. Bade, another Trump appointee.
The case is known as Nguyen v. Bonta, and was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition, North County Shooting Center and five private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.
In her 24-page ruling, Judge Forrest notes, “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Judge Forrest further observes, “California nonetheless argues that its law is constitutional because (1) the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess multiple firearms and (2) even if it did, restricting the frequency of purchase does not prevent someone from acquiring multiple firearms. Both arguments fail.”
Later in the ruling, Judge Forrest states, “By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30 day period, California is infringing on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”
Click the link to read the whole article: Ninth Circuit One-Gun-a-Month Law Unconstitutional