Winning
In NH, Mayors Against Guns fails to get a universal background check bill by a huge margin. But 90%, they lied.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 13th, 2014 at 1:12 pm
YAY. Now I can rest assured that my “significant other” (NH doesn’t recognize “common” law marriage between a man and a woman)of 15 years can own, upon my demise as per my will, all firearms, ammo, cleaning kits, knives (including one-hand operation),concealed carry holsters, etc., without their initial confiscation, questionable “storage”, and “period of determination” (Probate court can take over a year)while her CCL/”criminal history”/IRS “status”, BATF/NSA/DHS/DNP ownership transfer report, are ALL sequentially “double checked”.
February 13th, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Peruta v. San Diego has ended with the 9th Circuit joining the 7th in declaring a right to carry. Now the Circuit split is very real population-wise.
First Illinois gets shall-issue, now California (county by county Constitutionality) and Hawaii (may-issue in name only like NJ) will be forced to join the modern era.
Bodes well for the Supremes taking the pending appeal.
February 13th, 2014 at 3:10 pm
Per Volokh, Peruta v. San Diego has ended with the 9th Circuit joining the 7th in declaring a right to carry. Now the Circuit split is very real population-wise.
First Illinois gets shall-issue, now California (county by county Constitutionality) and Hawaii (may-issue in name only like NJ) will be forced to join the modern era.
Bodes well for the Supremes taking the pending appeal.
February 13th, 2014 at 4:54 pm
So, would the 9th have ruled this way if CA still had unloaded open carry?