Budd Light - Saturday Night Live

A simpler time.

23 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Getting spicy in Mexico

Breitbart

Mexico Erupts in Flames After Death of Largest Terrorist...

Cartel gunmen have begun carrying out terrorist attacks in various states in Mexico in response to the death of the country’s most powerful terrorist | Border / Cartel Chronicles

GB News

El Mencho killing causes chaos as gunmen storm major inte...

El Mencho was killed by military forces on Sunday

I hope Claudia Sheinbaum authorizes us (not that the current administration would really care about asking if it came down to it) to use everything in our arsenal including Hellfire's to assist. Not surprisingly the Cartels are as heavily armed as any insurgency with armored vehicles and RPGs

16 hours ago, Prosuper said:

The blame all goes to Americans who buy the cartels product.

I see your point. Unfortunately, deaths occur more often than they should because something was unknowingly laced with Fentanyl. Definitely a risk with anything not manufactured commercially.

EPIC SAVE!!!! by Connor Hellebuyck😁

ride of the valkyries apocalypse now - Google Search

"Run Charlie"!!!!

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I read that to mean the evidence he did see on things like the tic tac video indicated they were something else...as in of this earth.

I guess it depends on his definition of contact. Does flying through a fleet exercise count as contact or does it require landing on the White House lawn?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/14/havana-syndrome-cia-norway-experiment/

BLUF: some guy in Norway did an experiment on himself to disprove Havana Syndrome and likely fried his brain in the process.

15 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Surprised this isn't getting more attention. Maybe it's BS.

Drone was actually a party baloon

Seems like I've seen this movie before

13 hours ago, Smokin said:

Would be interesting if the dude filed a lawsuit against the ATF and the individual that denied it. Might give other bureaucrats pause when they're about to deny someone their rights if they know that they might lose their house.

Imagine any other right being treated like the 2nd... "no, sir, I don't consent to you searching my house because it is my right to not consent." "Sorry, but simply exercising your right doesn't justify exercising your right, so we're going to search your house."

It's funny but suing anyone in the federal government as an individual is usually futile. It seems the only time a federal employee is considered at fault as an individual is if it's a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. I'm sure most on here remember a briefing on that at some point in their careers.

32 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The ATF still being the ATF.

I'm really concerned that the whole NFA fiasco is going to remain a CF long enough to allow a new Congress to make the tax 5k. On another note judges are experts at creative writing when they want a certain outcome. We the people be damned.

29 minutes ago, arg said:

Mine’s not gas, it’s diesel.

The downside to a diesel is warming up the glow plug before firing

In other news.

“Shall not be infringed” right Jeanine?

I have a hard time trusting the government no matter who's in charge because of statements like this.

58 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Electronic Form 4 with a TS/SCI took 17 days...Guy with no clearance submitted same day, same shop, 9 days.

Anyway, my new Spartac 5.7X28. Integrated suppressor, WICKED light even with a 32 round mag. Optics and foregrip on order.

I like the brace. 👍Have one myself. How hard is it to find ammo? I've always tried to keep all my firearms in the more commonly available calibers. I've liked 300 BO for a long time, but I had to convince myself before I bought the platform it was finally mainstream enough that it would stay in production.

Rahimi United States v. Rahimi - Wikipedia is the case I think you're referring too. Merrick Garland, I believe really pushed it I'm sure in part to give the libs on the court another bite at the gun control apple. Rahimi was hardly a sympathetic defendant and I'm sure that was the point. The whole "bad facts make for bad law". This touches on another issue. When any current DOJ/AG goes to SCOTUS they seem to jump to the front of the line when it comes to getting SCOTUS to grant cert.

This could probably be discussed in more than one thread given current events.

New Assault Weapons Ban & Magazine Ban Is Coming!

Rhode Island made it a Felony in 2022 to even possess a magazine over 10 rounds no matter when it was acquired and SCOTUS has denied cert so far on the subject in the relevant cases.

Fortunately, Rhode Island is way outside of my normal area of travel, but we could all find ourselves one day with our trusty Glock 19 and its 15-rd. supplied magazine as newly minted felons. Would we meekly submit to handcuffs and fight it out in court since that what the "Law and Order" crowd would espouse? From what I've seen it doesn't appear the courts are going to be any help at all on this particular subject at least for the foreseeable future. Honestly it appears what constitutes law and order depends greatly on a person's world view.

Truly interested in the BO community take on this.

21 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

In short - judges must now use the test of "totality of the situation" rather than what happened in a split-second decision.

Judges will probably worry about the nuanced difference. As for the average juror, they'll still have their own biases as to what they consider more relevant and will probably vote accordingly.

2 hours ago, uhhello said:

90% of these issues would be prevented if these state/local govts would just cooperate with DHS and hand over the convicted criminals with detainers already. It's all planned.

I think most in the country agree with this. They should be removed ASAP. I suspect somebody in the administration is briefing a daily PowerPoint slide with a removal number and the bigger the number the happier the administration. We've all been tasked in the military to brief a metric that frankly means nothing in the infinite scheme of things, but we do it because that's what the boss wants. I will say catching the bad guys is hard. ICE can probably roll up 10 illegals with just an immigration violation just trying to scratch out a living in the time it takes to track down a one really bad guy. Truthfully the bad guys know ICE has come to town and beat feet right away to Vegas while waiting for ICE to move on to another city. The locals are usually in a position to give good intelligence on the bad guys but if you make them afraid to come forward things tend to dry up. This sounds so much like a movie I lived before in faraway places. If they are criminals convicted of anything serious, they're probably already serving their sentence in prison.

6 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I think both incidents change in my mind depending on where I put the "start of the incident."

In the second case (keep this shortish). If I just focus on this: a dude gets in a physical altercation with cops. One sees he's has a gun, then a gun shot is heard. Pretty hard. I think by most precedent, that's a lawful shoot. BUT. I think in this case, you could argue that the cop started the physical altercation by shoving the woman into the ground. If you buy that, then the premise of self defense falls apart. Basically, what is a proportionate response by law enforcement to people standing in the street and getting in the way?

All that said, the protestors are clearly engaging in civil disobedience, not just protest. Given the the history of successful civil disobedience hinges on getting the state to respond with disproportionate force, this should have been entirely predictable. ICE has handled all of this very poorly. If the goal was lots of deportations, this will end up being a failure. If the goal was a political show of force, it has backfired.

In any event, physically getting in the way of law enforcement and not expecting force is just dumb.

I think your absolutely right that "start of the incident." is where a lot of opinions diverge. Was filming "interference"? The statute on interference seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation. Kind of like "disorderly conduct". Pretty easy to charge but in the end will it stick? From a cop's perspective it just made somebody's life miserable justified or not and nothing will happen to the cop. You can beat the rap but not the ride. I don't see any justification for shoving the woman to the ground and Mr. Pretti came to her defense and right or wrong it cost him his life. Either way I don't see shooting Mr. Pretti in the back while he was on the ground as justified and certainly not the next multiple rounds. Of course, the agent(s) has probably already sat with an attorney to come up with his statement on what he needs to say and not say and what he "perceived" at the moment. No way to prove otherwise and it really can justify just about any use of deadly force. I'll tell you this I trust federal law enforcement no matter who they are a lot less now. Very hard to hold them accountable. Not absolute immunity but from a practical standpoint pretty close. State and local law enforcement have their leadership in reasonable proximity to who they serve and can answer to the actions of their employees. Federal not so much. I don't see any federal charges against these agents if for no other reason than I'm sure they'll get a pre-emptive pardon. In my mind DHS is coming very close to a national police force that can be used against anyone depending on the political winds.

Daniel Defense 300 BO. 10.3. Handy "pistol". Also 5.56 upper 14.5 inch upper like my trusty M-4 from the military. My helpful household hint is keep all 300 BO in black mags and the 5.56 in the FDE mags so I don't mix them up.

10 hours ago, Smokin said:

That entire case is complete BS and an abuse of power. I'm guessing they thought he was some anarchist dude that was a legit threat, but once they started an investigation they found out he was just into guns. Then they realized they couldn't look bad for being wrong in front of their bosses so had to press charges with what they found.

There are so many random laws on the books that if you put enough of a focus on ANYONE in the United States, you'd eventually find them doing something illegal that 'justified' the investigation and could put them in jail. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

However, at the end of the day, if I have to choose between having a silencer and an SBR, I'm going with the silencer 100%. Also, silencer rules super easy compared to the SBR legal spiderweb

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”

Attributed to this piece of work.

Lavrentiy Beria - Wikipedia

I seem to recall a statement online (at least a couple years ago) related to his sentence of 21 months. Most of the SBR prosecutions are add on to things like drug trafficking. This guy seemed to be an otherwise law-abiding citizen which is why it was unusual. I'm sure there was something underlying the government hard on for this individual. Something about Florida and Project Safer Neighborhoods. To me this is the perfect thing to appeal to SCOTUS given the facts but as I understand it plea agreements often require waiving the right to appeal. Trial penalty is real and when you could get 10 years most will take 21 months. Prosecutors love draconian penalties because it's a great way to strong arm a plea agreement. Ironically the CI was in the country illegally. Our tax dollars at work.

Middle District of Florida | St. Cloud Man Sentenced To 21 Months In Prison For Possessing A Short-Barreled Rifle | United States Department of Justice

and a whole Reddit thread.

FBI Arrest of Florida Man for Short-Barreled Rifle Showcases Absurdity of NFA : r/NFA

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Why not!? You’re missing out, big time

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

This 1000%. The biggest downside is that I'm now annoyed when I shoot guns that aren't threaded. Especially now being $200 cheaper, you can get an ok silencer for $500 and a good one for $1K. Your only regret is going to be that you didn't buy one earlier.

I may be a little paranoid, but I understand some have had the fact that they already have a registered NFA item used against them in a subsequent court case involving an unregistered NFA item. Basically, "you should've known better" Mr. Mejia from what I found got the extra smack down for his SBR because he already owned a registered suppressor.

The other lesson is to be careful who you invite to the range to shoot with you.

https://saf.org/fbi-atf-arrest-of-florida-man-for-unregistered-short-barrel-rifle-showcases-absurdity-of-nfa/

Let's face it with the pistol brace vs stock and the frankly vague definition of "designed to be fired from the shoulder" the ATF has a lot of latitude to make ones like miserable depending on the administration in power.

How DOJ Just Ended a 99-Year-Old Gun Law

Great news if it sticks. It's almost impossible to ship a firearm if you're not an FFL anymore.

I've wanted a suppressor for a while but just can't

40 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Dems launching another attack on the 2nd amendment. Senator Chris Murphy (D) NY), is pushing an amendment that will raise the NFA Tax Stamp to $4709 per item.

And for reasons that defy my meager intellectual abilities the DOJ keeps defending the NFA in court.

2 hours ago, uhhello said:

Airspace of Iran closed. Trump seems to have softened his remarks but who knows with him.

Trump claims they called off executions because of the threat of force. I'm skeptical but that is the advantage to keep the other side thinking you're just crazy enough to really bring the pain.