Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
It appears to be a federal district court, as the case has been assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am Okay, I'll ask a completely simple question because the name of the court confuses me. Is the lawsuit filed in a NEVADA STATE COURT or A FEDERAL COURT?
Thank you for the information.yakadoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 amIt appears to be a federal district court, as the case has been assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am Okay, I'll ask a completely simple question because the name of the court confuses me. Is the lawsuit filed in a NEVADA STATE COURT or A FEDERAL COURT?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am
New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
Again, thank you for the information. I notice that the court filing specifically uses the phrase "assault rifle" versus the more commonly used "assault weapon". So, what will happen when expert industry witnesses are called to testify as to the term "assault rifle", since most people on this forum understand that "assault rifle" is a term that counts the ability to select fire (full-auto or burst in addition to semi-automatic operation) among its defining features? The whole point of the term "assault weapon" was to create a "weasel words" term to mimic the specific definition of assault rifle but without the pesky FACT of those rifles NOT being capable of automatic or burst fire getting in the way. Thus none of the rifles reportedly used in the Vegas crime were actually "assault rifles". I'm sure the lawyers for the plaintiff have something up their proverbial sleeves, but it may not be the ace card they think they have.yakadoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pmAccording to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am
New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
Nothing. If words mattered, the right of ordinary people to own and carry weapons would not be infringed by NFA in the first place.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:12 amAgain, thank you for the information. I notice that the court filing specifically uses the phrase "assault rifle" versus the more commonly used "assault weapon". So, what will happen when expert industry witnesses are called to testify as to the term "assault rifle"yakadoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pmAccording to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am
New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
Tell it to DJT and WLP. They're the ones who shoved gun owners down that slippery slope.Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:20 pm Bump firing is a shooting technique. If bump firing is bad, because we want to limit the rate of fire, then it's a very, very, slippery slope that does not end well.
My mom was a writer who objected to a song called "Words" because she said words matter.If words mattered, the right of ordinary people to own and carry weapons would not be infringed by NFA in the first place.