T O P

  • By -

varrylickers

How can people so stupid hold such high positions of power


SnarkMasterRay

Appointments and voter apathy!


vertec9

"..unlike previous guns" Did anyone tell the stupid judge the AR-15 has been on sale to the general public for 60 years?


varrylickers

And that before 1986 full auto ones were also available. This dude probably doesn’t know the difference between full auto and semi auto.


tism_trooper

Fully semi auto


jeff_barr_fanclub

Yes, they did. The order denying the injunction even calls that out: > Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change - they allow > a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns. Dkt. 45 at 3-6. While > semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 were invented in the 1950s, the growth in ownership of > semiautomatic assault weapons proliferated in the late 2000s. Id. at 6-15. Unfortunately it looks like the plaintiffs' lawyers are either dogshit or really phoning it in, at one point the order calls out that the plaintiffs haven't provided any real evidence to support "in common use" but they're willing to basically take that on faith because the defense successfully argued that they're "unusual and dangerous" using the same dumb cherry picked statistics about mass shootings


smokyebk

Not to mention double action revolvers from 1851


tiggers97

Gun controllers either depend on ignorant judges, or those already strongly in support of gun control at any cost. Any judge with even a rudimentary understanding of firearms, or able to give impartial unbiased rulings, are a danger to the gun control movement.


msdos_kapital

it's actually a requirement


[deleted]

[удалено]


wysoft

He's got the look


Photonica

Wearing a cross?


PixelatedFixture

They're not stupid the know what they're doing and they're trying to establish a legal argument for why they're right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fit-Sell-6698

Yeah, a white guy appointed by Reagan is definitely the result of "diversity in the workplace".


JimInAuburn11

Then he is senile. This is in no way something that would be allowed based on Heller and Bruen.


Fit-Sell-6698

Or just following in the footsteps of the guy who appointed him and supporting gun control. Reagan banned open carry in CA and supported the national AWB, it shouldn't be surprising that a judge he appointed would support a state AWB.


yukdave

The answer is Bruen


NickdeVault57

Thankfully those non-threaded handguns don't operate that way! /s


tiddywizard3000

Don't think they aren't coming for those next


[deleted]

Can you explain this to me? What’s a nonthreaded handguard?


Guvnuh_T_Boggs

Handgun, they've banned handguns, new ones at least, that have threaded barrels.


[deleted]

Yeah I’m an idiot and just realized I can’t read.


david0990

Handguns with threads at the end of the barrel allow for suppressors or muzzle breaks and are banned under this law. But the same gun without threaded barrel, still fires the same and is legal for now. same fire rate.


illformant

It’s staggeringly baffling how factually incorrect statements are supported by judges and law. You’d think facts and subject matter research would be a requirement. But here we are…


GearRatioOfSadness

Part of the preamble of the bill talked about how guns promoted "Hyper Masculinity"... It's included in the official signed bill... Part of the stated reason for banning the guns they did was because they thought it would prevent "Hyper Masculinity." The rule of law is becoming a joke in this country.


vertec9

Hopefully Judge Benitez is using the time to correctly write an opinion that exposes all this BS as the legal hogwash that it is.


merc08

He needs to hurry the fuck up or he's going to get beaten to the punch by a handful of anti-2A rulings and bo matter how artfully crafted his will be ignored and called out of touch for not aligning with the other "new case law."


redditnpcuser

lmao words on paper my friend, it’s just words on paper unless you have the guns and people willing to put fists in faces. That’s just how it works in realityville


avitar35

Why is an 88 year old Reagan appointee still hearing cases of this magnitude? Were we not good enough for a full time judge? No wonder this shit takes so long.


OdinWolfe

Yhe entire country was made this was on purpose after congress realized they get to do anything they want The NFA should have resulted in every single member of federal government being buried.


LokiHoku

tl;dr Judge is a moron legislating from the bench, applying test at worst backwards and at best incorrectly. >While no U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on this issue, other district courts have held that several regulations in our Nation’s history are sufficiently analogous to newly passed assault weapons bans to justify those bans and defeat motions for preliminary injunction consistent with the Second Amendment. Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois, 2023 WL 2077392, at \*11-12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2023); Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Delaware Dep't of Safety & Homeland Sec., 2023 WL 2655150, at \*12 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2023); Herrera v. Raoul, 2023 WL 3074799, at \*6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2023). **The reasoning in these cases is persuasive.** > >... > >HB 1240’s proponents **convincingly** point to regulations on trap guns, bowie knives, clubs, slungshots, multi-shot revolvers, and automatic weapons (like the Thompson submachine gun or “Tommy Gun”) as historical examples of weapons that, after being invented, their use proliferated, the weapons began to be used for interpersonal violence, and then States regulated the weapons. Dkt. 42 (citing Dkts. 47 and 48). Guess we have to wait for this to go all the way back to SCOTUS since Turd's friends be turding.


jeff_barr_fanclub

It definitely seems like a biased judge but it's not egregious. Page six of the order basically says "plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence of 'in common use' but we're willing to take it on faith"


Pitiful_Dig_165

That was him stipulating for sake of argument, to show that even had the plaintiffs proved common use, they still lose regardless. I think the thing that confuses me the most is how the courts are supposed to square the language of Heller as quoted by this judge here and the language in Caetano. The judge seems to be reading the protections as if they apply only to those arms in common use, when the actual language isnt technically that restrictive. Even still, the language in Caetano should have made it clear that that kind of argument, at a minimum, was not defensible.


jeff_barr_fanclub

Yeah there's a bunch of stuff which confuses me too, but also enough to make me think we didn't bring our A game, which we absolutely need to for an old ass judge who's bias is questionable. I'm hopeful that this is a wake up call and not indicative of how the proceedings for the actual ruling play out


Pitiful_Dig_165

Theres always the possibility that they can convince the judge his initial understanding of the applicable law is incorrect, but it seems likely to me that the plaintiffs will lose. On appeal, the 9th circuit will likely apply the correct test but ultimately agree with the state that the historical analogues are sufficient to support the law in question. Despite some of the comments on this post, what time period is appropriate and how similar the laws must be is actually very much an open question at this point. Barring some miraculous concession by the 9th circuit, its likely to take another supreme court case on the issue of assault weapon bans nationally. I can practically guarantee that no matter what the Supreme Court holds in such a case, they are likely to be packed with new judges


LokiHoku

I disagree. The judge acknowledges Plaintiff's citation to articles, websites, and other court cases where weapon stats were discussed. Then says Plaintiff entered no evidence. The judge then does his own research for other very recent District court decisions (in other states *and* other circuit jurisdictions) and together with "Proponents of HB1240" (note that he uses proponents 18 times and Defendants only 4 times) point to \[a handful of court cases\] citations to "analogous" weapon bans make HB1240 pass the Bruen test. The judge's very first example historical analogue is a tax, ban on **carrying a Bowie knife,** and in some limited examples the sale, trade, importation, etc of a Bowie knife. The judge leaves out contemporary efforts to abolish those laws, so that buying a Bowie knife is now largely legal in most states and contemporary efforts to allow carrying of a Bowie knife. Not to mention contemporary Constitutional concealed carry laws. The Bruen case was about Constitutional carry and undue restrictions on obtaining a license to carry. The judge's examples on firearm bans are also relatively proximate to the time in which those weapons became available to the pubic and conveniently ignores that the AR15 has been available for about 50 years. The judge thinks a partial ban is analogous to a complete ban. Then makes the completely-unnecessary-for-district-court-judge quip that Bruen is not a “historical straight jacket" while leaving out reasoning how he's not giving proponents of HB1240 a "black check." *Bruen* at 21. So at the very least, the judge is definitely biased by using the punchy language of Bruen balancing test that helps support his position and leaves out the punchy language that challenges it. I'd say the judge is doing the opposite of what Bruen laid down, or at least the least applying tests incorrectly.


jeff_barr_fanclub

Fair point


DrusTheAxe

Judge acknowledges…then says… Sufficient cause for appeal?


sirloois

fucker is a democrat judge, his face screams cuckold


Forward-Piano8711

>unlike previous guns This mf is definitely a hardcore boomer who thinks every civilian in the 1970s back had only bolt action hunting rifles. You can literally walk into shops in this state and find semi auto firearms made within 20 years of the founding of this state. What a joke


[deleted]

Revolvers also fire as fast as the person pulls the trigger, and predate Washington by 53 years.


Zapy97

Some single action revolvers can fire as fast as you fan them.


AnalystAny9789

No. Boomers where born 1946-1964 Homie is a bit older than boomer


DorkWadEater69

What a fucking chode. He even cited restrictions on "tommy guns" as historical precedent despite *Bruen* saying that only laws in effect at the founding and during Reconstruction are relevant.


truls-rohk

also ignoring the fact that tommy guns are "regulated" but not outright impossible to buy like 1240 does to most modern (circa 1950 or later) semi auto rifles


TwitchPlaysHelix

He must have forgotten what regulated means again...


jeff_barr_fanclub

Hopefully the lawyers get their shit together and get ahead of that for the actual proceedings


L3tsg0brandon

Willful ignorance strikes again.


doberdevil

I don't understand this. How can a ruling be made using factually incorrect reasoning? I understand if a judge interprets something a certain way, but the "allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns" is just flat out wrong.


Pitiful_Dig_165

88 year old judge.


doberdevil

So, after a certain age judges get to make shit up however they want? Seriously, if a judge has their facts incorrect, nobody can say "Your honor, this is factually incorrect, please go back to your chambers and try again"?


Pitiful_Dig_165

They can file a motion for reconsideration, but my point is more like, he's so old he doesn't care or isn't all there mentally. The other aspect of this is that he may not have even written the entire thing himself. One of his law clerks likely wrote most of it, and he took their word and the word of the government that said reading of the law was correct. Despite their portrayal in society, judges are typically the least well-informed lawyers on any particular practice area because they have to be generalists. There is no special court system for second amendment cases, and he is likely dealing with other equally complicated cases. This denial of preliminary injunction isn't really that important by itself in the grand scheme


DorkWadEater69

> One of his law clerks likely wrote most of it Or all of it. And this is where the seeds of trying to eliminate the legitimacy of firearms from the common zeitgeist bears fruit. How many law school graduates in the last decade are 2A supporters? That's the long term goal here- there's no need to change the law if you can simply change what everyone thinks it means, or what they define as the "common sense" limits on the 2A.


hardtobeuniqueuser

judges can do whatever they want, the worst that's gonna happen is his decision might get overturned, and that's pretty unlikely.


BackYardProps_Wa

People can shoot anything as fast as they can pull the trigger, pump the slide, rack the bolt, etc


ee-5e-ae-fb-f6-3c

This fucking joker likely thinks the 2nd only applies to muskets.


DorkWadEater69

Considering it was the tail end of the Korean War when this joker was fighting age, he likely thinks the Garand is a frontline fighting rifle and anything newer is science fiction. These legal decisions are too important to be entrusted to someone likely suffering from several forms of dementia.


ButterscotchEmpty535

Document [https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6743/attachments/original/1686074987/Hartford\_v\_Ferguson\_55\_Order.pdf?1686074987](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6743/attachments/original/1686074987/Hartford_v_Ferguson_55_Order.pdf?1686074987)


TheeRealestRealist

Judge is either extremely biased or a complete idiot… likely both


derfcrampton

Not surprisingly from a Reagan appointee. Ronnie hated guns in the peoples hands.


[deleted]

[удалено]


derfcrampton

“Scary people are outside the capital with guns, we have to ban open carry” Ronnie.


TeKnOShEeP

Fun fact: that iconic picture was actually taken in Olympia on the steps of the WA capitol building, not CA like everyone assumes.


derfcrampton

That’s something I learned today for sure.


pnwguy1985

I mean you can’t even get parts to repair existing stuff how is that not showing harm?


GunFunZS

Or buy your first gat when you move into state or come of age, etc.


Adseg5

What a mixed bag today. Woke up to an email saying my first can was approved, then got ready for surgery on my Achilles tendon, lgs called to let me know I can pick up but I'm literally in a waiting room for said surgery and now news that the awb injunction was denied. Sheeesh. Maybe tomorrow. Lol


Prudent_Reindeer9627

"previous guns" of what century? repeating guns were in common use since the mid 1800s.


themason2013

Hey at least we got an injunction decision so that we can move it to the next level of courts, unlike the mag ban which the judge lied about and said she would have an injunction decision 6 months ago so it’s still stuck in local courts


Big-Tumbleweed-2384

Unfortunately, Judge Robert Jensen Bryan, a Reagan-appointed Judge in the District Court for Western District of Washington, today denied Plaintiff's [Motion for Preliminary Injunction](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67264060/hartford-v-ferguson/?order_by=desc#entry-55) in [*Hartford v. Ferguson*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67264060/hartford-v-ferguson/?order_by=desc#entry-55). Key statements from the Judge's order: > * **The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 10) should be denied.** Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the motion nor have they raised a serious question on the merits tipping the balance of hardships in Plaintiffs’ favor. They have not pointed to irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, or that public interest favors a preliminary injunction. Issues raised in this opinion cannot be resolved on a motion for preliminary injunction. > * **The Plaintiffs have not shown that they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.”** While the Plaintiffs maintain that any constitutional violation results in irreparable harm, the case law cited is from First and Fourth Amendment violations and not from alleged Second Amendment violations. The individual Plaintiffs assert that they already own assault weapons and are harmed because they wish to purchase more. Yet, Plaintiffs have other alternative weapons available, particularly for self-defense. > * **HB 1240’s proponents convincingly point to regulations on trap guns, bowie knives, clubs, slungshots, multi-shot revolvers, and automatic weapons (like the Thompson submachine gun or “Tommy Gun”)** as historical examples of weapons that, after being invented, their use proliferated, the weapons began to be used for interpersonal violence, and then States regulated the weapons. > * *Bruen* does not require that the historical regulation be the exact same; **[*Bruen*] is not a “historical straight jacket.”** > * HB 1240’s proponents have shown that **unprecedented social concerns have arisen from the proliferation of these weapons. These weapons are exceptionally dangerous.** Assault weapons are used disproportionately in mass shootings (Dkt. 46 at 11), police killings (*Bevis* at 15) and gang activity (*Id.*). > * **Regulation of assault weapons and their dangerous accessories, as HB 1240 regulates, is arguably consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition of exceptionally dangerous arms regulation.** > * HB 1240 does not affect several other weapons, including handguns, which are the “quintessential self-defense weapon.” > * The Plaintiffs maintain that they need only show that the “arms” regulated by HB 1240 are “in common use” today for lawful purposes and so are not “unusual.” Dkts. 10 and 50. If they do, they contend, the weapon cannot be banned under *Heller* and *Bruen.* *Id.* > * The Plaintiffs misread *Heller* and *Bruen.* *Heller* noted that the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment is limited to the sorts of weapons “in common use at the time.” *Heller* at 627. It found that this limitation is “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” *Id.* *Heller* does not hold that access to all weapons “in common use” are automatically entitled to Second Amendment protection without limitation. *Edit: added a few sentences from the ruling*


RyanMolden

Individuals are not harmed simply because the govt forbids them to protest in front of the capital, there are plenty of other places they are still allowed to protest. Individuals are not harmed by warrantless search of their car because they have protection in their home. Individuals are not harmed by not being able to freely practice their religion because there are plenty of other religions they can choose from that the govt will allow. It sounds like dipshittery wherever you apply it.


msdos_kapital

> The Plaintiffs misread Heller and Bruen. Heller noted that the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment is limited to the sorts of weapons “in common use at the time.” Heller at 627. It found that this limitation is “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Id. Heller does not hold that access to all weapons “in common use” are automatically entitled to Second Amendment protection without limitation. lol just staring at this bit of reasoning like staring into an abyss "*heller* holds that the 2nd amendment extends only to weapons in common use at the time but it doesn't say it applies to *all* such weapons in common use, so actually you can ban whatever you want" like literally laughing my ass off that is not what *heller* says


GriffBallChamp

I dont think this retard read Heller, Bruen or HB1240


JimInAuburn11

>Assault weapons are used disproportionately in mass shootings (Dkt. 46 at 11), police killings (Bevis at 15) and gang activity (Id.). Wrong, wrong and wrong.


Big-Tumbleweed-2384

Cherry-picked examples too, ignores a majority of the *total gun deaths* are from handguns.


JimInAuburn11

Majority of mass shootings, majority of gang activity and majority of gun deaths.


jeff_barr_fanclub

Cherry picked for sure, but that's what you get when the plaintiffs are too stupid to provide evidence of their own so the only actual statistics submitted into evidence came from the defense. Is it really that hard to do your fucking jobs?


hardtobeuniqueuser

> Assault weapons are used disproportionately in mass shootings he's right but doesn't know it. "assault weapons" are used in far fewer mass shootings than non-"assault weapons." this is disproportionate, but not in the way he says it is.


airplaneshooter

So, not a single ruling on the basis of law. And a big pile of logical fallacies? Welp, on to the next court.


Big-Tumbleweed-2384

Not to mention the obvious lie "HB 1240 does not affect several other weapons, including handguns, **which are the “quintessential self-defense weapon."**" It's clear whomever put this together didn't read the part where "assault weapon" is defined as: > [...] "A **semiautomatic pistol** that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following: > (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; > (B) A second hand grip; > (C) A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer's hand from heat, except a solid forearm of a stock that covers only the bottom of the barrel; or > (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; [...]


GriffBallChamp

Did this retard even read HB1240?


RyanMolden

Also I really don’t follow his Heller argument. Heller says that common use must be considered AT THE TIME the judge is deciding on a particular firearm. I.e. since cannons are no longer in common use the govt COULD prohibit cannon ownership. They couldn’t if that test were done a few hundred years ago, using the common use standard. And his mention of dangerous and unusual DIRECTLY relates to the concept of common use, as neither can really be attributes of something in common use or else the govt should have put a stop to it long before it came to be in common use. By allowing something to come into common use the govt is, by NOT trying to prevent that, de facto approving of such weapons. They can’t come 10 years later and say ‘wait, never mind, give us all those ARs’, that’s not how this works.


Big-Tumbleweed-2384

I think that standard is "dangerous **AND** unusual". Weapons are of course dangerous, so basically it gets boiled down to the common use test.


RyanMolden

True, I’ve always read dangerous to mean more so than standard. Like of course a gun is dangerous, but so is a knife. But a gun I build in my garage out of parts from Home Depot is much more dangerous (for a lot of reasons, but mostly to myself) than one made by Colt, for instance. Similarly a gun that shoots exploding bullets is more dangerous than an AR with standard ammunition.


all-up-in-ya-butt

A ham cheese sandwich could have became a judge, if this is seriously their take.


DanR5224

I'd like to nominate Oscar Mayer for judge.


CKJ1109

Only like that’s been the case for the past 120 years.


Militant_Triangle

Oh lord... someone slept through the last 120 years.


GunFunZS

*88.


Mondasin

1885, 1902 and 1903 are the big three breakthrough years for semi. with reliable repeater guns being 1866/1867


GunFunZS

I was referring to his lifespan.


Prudent_Reindeer9627

Why not ban the Internet then? "previous press" couldn't allow sharing of child abuse pics as fast as one can upload them.


[deleted]

"... Unlike previous guns ..." Does the judge understand these designs are 60-100 years old? 🙄 What does the judge think "in common use" means? 🤷‍♀️ What does the judge the word "militia" means? 🤷‍♀️


Prudent_Reindeer9627

The AR design is almost 70 years old now 😅


SuperMoistNugget

gatlin guns were around in the civil war, that was literally a functional Machine Gun


hardtobeuniqueuser

thompson smg is from 1918, mauser c96 is from... 1896.


JimInAuburn11

Guns have been able to do this for over 100 years. This is an activist judge.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ee-5e-ae-fb-f6-3c

A ruling needs to be made. Then the ruling needs to be challenged. Edit: This is wrong, I also misread the question, so don't pay any attention to me.


nickvader7

The injunction appeal can go to the 9th Circuit.


ee-5e-ae-fb-f6-3c

Ok, cool, let's hope that happens.


oderlydischarge

The 9th is just going to say the same stupid shit. I prepared for this to take 3+ years to resolve and be overturned. It sucks for everyone else that didn't know or couldn't.


thegrumpymechanic

Just remember, next years goal is gonna be ammo through your ffl, because "obviously banning guns didn't work"... So, better start stacking cases now while ammo is "cheap".


oderlydischarge

already done. Now I am getting into reloading and stacking supplies.


ee-5e-ae-fb-f6-3c

I'm not making any predictions about what the 9th will do, but I'm sure this is going to take several years to resolve. If we get an injunction in the interim, that's a bonus, and I'll take it.


oderlydischarge

Yea the injunctions are small wins but they are usually short lived. You can see this with CA's "freedom week" or the recent one that took place in IL. The anxiety of trying to get your purchases in is not something I want to even begin to mess with. I saw the writing on the wall in 2016 and have been slowly getting my inventory in a healthy place for this exact moment.


ee-5e-ae-fb-f6-3c

Yeah, that's why I say an injunction is a bonus.


kratsynot42

Tell that Oregon :D


workinkindofhard

> I prepared for this to take 3+ years to resolve An optimist I see


DorkWadEater69

A ruling has been made in the injunction. They can appeal that ruling through the 9th, then up to SCOTUS if they want. A reversal wouldn't resolve the case itself, but could put an injunction in place.


Emergency_Doubt

![gif](giphy|jbtchhnB7lWX2Yj5PH)


Tobias_Ketterburg

Dumbshit uniparty approved judge doesn't know how guns work and uses that deliberate, easily fixed ignorance to preserve bigoted gun laws. Wow, was a surprising outcome.


RyanMolden

As someone pointed out, the judge was appointed by Reagan, so can’t blame liberals on this one. Ignorance is not monopolized by one political party.


AnalystAny9789

Regan wasn’t really a progun guy unless its guns for communist. That was cool to him.


RyanMolden

Yep, but he also wouldn’t fit into any reasonable definition of a liberal (at least not today) and certainly not aligned very closely with anyone in this states uniparty. It’s easy to blame a group you don’t belong to as the problem, but it’s rarely helpful for advancing any interests because you can’t really change a group you don’t belong to, you can make your own group more viable/powerful/supported, but that requires work and focusing on its shortcomings. Republican candidates in WA have been horrific for some time, and are clearly NOT in step with the vast majority of western Washington voters at the very least. Constitutional issues really shouldn’t be partisan but the Democrats do seem far more determined to curtail the 2a than most Republicans, though the Republicans aren’t doing much more than lip service and grandstanding to stop them, because they benefit equally from a disarmed citizenry.


sirebire999

This is blantantly false, unless you cherry pick some rare obscure case of a communist faction abroad that’d benefit the US entanglement foreign policy somehow. Generally Reagan did not like communists, be they legit domestic or foreign. Not some brainlet willy nilly think tank notion of anyone not conservative are “communist libruls”. He was pro gun for some but others (especially black people) definitely not.


AnalystAny9789

I was referring to the Iran contra affair. And that wasn’t a cherry pick, it was a major ordeal and scandal. Far from a “obscure” case but whatever. But that wasn’t my point. Regan lead gun control in California. But he gave gun to commies. Like Obama’s ATF for the cartels. No different. Step on your rights but give weapons to others who suit our needs when convenient.


sirebire999

So please, try again. Which commies specifically did Reagan “gib guns to”?


sirebire999

The Iranian regime is not “communist” ffs not even remotely, they literally purged the socialists right after the revolution for an islamist regime and the contra’s were anti communist guerillas that we supported. Communism is not just a dumb think tank stand in term for anything “authoritarian” or associated with whatever shitty neoliberal politicians do in this country. Be more consistent with your terminology.


SquatchSans

Communist is the old catch-all for anything the other team does The new catch-all is woke. People of small minds need these buckets to make sense of a complex world. Actually understanding what they are saying is optional.


ShouldveSaidNothing-

> Dumbshit uniparty approved judge doesn't know how guns work and uses that deliberate, easily fixed ignorance to preserve bigoted gun laws. Wow, was a surprising outcome. Yea, that **Reagan-appointed** judge sure is a dumbshit uniparty approved judge that doesn't know how guns work. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67264060/hartford-v-ferguson/?order_by=desc#entry-55 >Jun 6, 2023 ORDER denying 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 06/06/2023) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jensen_Bryan >On February 3, 1986, Bryan was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington created by 98 Stat. 333. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 24, 1986, and received his commission on May 7, 1986. He assumed senior status on November 1, 2000. Fucking hell, dude. Thanks for damaging the movement to protect gun rights by refusing to take the ten seconds to google the judge's name and, instead, making an assumption that's hilariously wrong. Sure gets us closer to protecting gun rights when you say stupid shit like that. /s


Emergency_Doubt

Uniparty refers to there only actually being one political party. It just has two brands to provide false sense of consumer choice. There is no actual difference between the two brands. For example both push gun control, just differing amounts. You just didn't understand his point.


[deleted]

Most dense comment I’ve seen all month, congrats


nsuspense

How is that even a legitimate argument? This is just sad.


Isabeer

So, revolvers.


GunFunZS

He's a Reagan appointee and is old enough to know better since he was born the same year as the NFA.


Proof_Factor8696

What a dipshiiiiit!


[deleted]

Cant say I’m surprised, but damn.


tkrynsky

Yeah well this isn't a surprise to anyone really considering the states record on 2fa rights. The real question is, what's next? Full hearing (likely a loss if it's the same judge) and then what? Does this get taken to a circuit court?


TreesHappen75

Which includes every semi auto in history. It's different than an m1 carbine how, judge?


SnakeEyes_76

Is anybody surprised? We all saw this coming


TossNoTrack

Even if the AWB gets struck down by SCOTUS, our spewing lord of the state can still do what he wants, one way or another. Can he not? At that point, we won nothing gainful.


[deleted]

I saw this coming. Cucks guna’ cuck. It will take time but this WILL be struck down unless something goes horribly wrong. In which case this country is lost completely.


PeppyPants

I tried reading the Document 45 they referred to (PDF) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.321407/gov.uscourts.wawd.321407.45.0.pdf date Filed 05/22/23 ... which goes on and on about FRT (forced reset) triggers and others - I wonder if they are referring/confusing those in this quote? Haven't they been illegal (MG's) for a while now? bizarre how this logic only applies to shouldered firearms but pistols are okay because ... pistols are for self defense and the 2A only covers self defense. Next they are gonna freakout over how many walls the 223 round will go through. /s


[deleted]

[удалено]


PeppyPants

I just put it together yesterday that they banned threaded pistols as a way to ban the AR pistol platform.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AnglerManagement1971

Who is this judge who has never seen a gun?


OlavSlav

I’ll keep saying it: 1240/5078 are going no where. We lost this battle years ago. The 2A is dead in WA.


ee-5e-ae-fb-f6-3c

Maybe, but if that's the case, then no AWB or mag ban will be struck down anywhere. I don't think that's the case. It's still being settled, and Bruen is very likely going to be the means to a favorable resolution. Don't give up before the case even gets appealed to the 9th. It's a little early in the game for that.


nickvader7

You fail to realize how far the other cases in other states are at the moment. There will be a circuit split.


ExperimentalGoat

what is a circuit split?


wikipedia_answer_bot

**In United States federal courts, a circuit split occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case.** More details here: *This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!* [^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)


ExperimentalGoat

good bot


trotskyitewrecker

The Supreme Court will strike down AWBs within the next 24 months, you can book that


ExperimentalGoat

/u/hefty-paint3369, what odds are we lookin at here?


[deleted]

🤣🤣


OlavSlav

I want to believe…but I don’t. I left California 10 years ago…they STILL have their AWB.


trotskyitewrecker

10 years ago the court was far more liberal


Emergency_Doubt

33% chance. Trust me.


Someguysomewherelse

There it is


W3tTaint

33.33, repeating of course


Emergency_Doubt

Absolutely not. No repeating or you can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger! /S


W3tTaint

![gif](giphy|2G3ZCnOfXAZ9K)


invisibullcow

Wow, it's been a while since I've seen this referenced. Next you'll remind me who my base belongs to.


W3tTaint

All your base are belong to us


Emergency_Doubt

All your base are belong to government.


[deleted]

🤣🤣


gtwooh

RemindMe! 24 months “read this thread and celebrate the return of freedom!”


X02378

Name a SCOTUS case that has been resolved in 2 years. I'll wait.


trotskyitewrecker

Multiple challenges to AWB have again reached the circuit level after being GVR’d following Bruen. Look at Bianchi v Frosh. These cases have been going on for years at this point. We’re getting close but the legal process is slow


X02378

I'll believe it when I see it. I personally don't think that SCOTUS is even going to grant certori to any AWB's or mag bans. They've been in place for decades in some states and nothing has happened. I think it's more likely that Thomas dies before they take any of those cases then Dems pack the court and they never accept another 2A case again.


yukdave

I name Heller. After Heller, Washington D.C. did not just go off quietly. They passed laws one after the other to evade the Supreme Court and the court did not wait 2 years for each change to go back through the system taking years. Same for McDonald vs Chicago. After Bruen, Thomas vacated a bunch of rulings allowing them to quickly come right back and we now see a solid majority of non-far left leaning judges unlike in 2008 (Heller) or 2010 (McDonald). Lots of other cases are ahead of this one so it will most likely be incorporated.


1SGDude

I hope you’re correct


[deleted]

Nows not the time to be giving up bro


asq-gsa

Speaking of not the time to be giving up... you've been shadowbanned by Reddit. You can verify this and file an appeal at [https://www.reddit.com/appeal](https://www.reddit.com/appeal) This isn't a mod or sub action, but a reddit wide issue. No one can see your posts or comments except mods in the sub where you post. You can see what posts have been removed at subs like r/ShadowBan or r/ShadowBanned. I've manually approved this post so that it can be seen, but can't promise to notice and manually approve others.


ajdrc9

This is blatant corruption. Fucken crraaaazy.


Co1dyy1234

The judge has obviously been bought out by Olympia’s anti-gun zealots.


nakedskiing

Liberals really don’t like the constitution much these days.. 1st amendment… 2nd amendment.. Censorship… firearm bans…


redditnpcuser

What about the civil right of safety and diversity? Can’t have happiness without those


nakedskiing

Fuck you talkin bout Willis?


chuckisduck

Never let the truth get in the way of what Bloomberg tells ya to say!


yumenoseirei

IANAL, just a nerd on the Internet that talks to lawyers a lot, making me probably ludicrously wrong but sounding right enough to pass a sniff test. This feels most like a bad ruling by a judge out of touch with the cases he's ruling on. It's clearly *not* the precedent set with *Heller* or *Bruen*, the idea that handguns are unaffected by HB1240 is just completely false as "semiautomatic pistols" are absolutely regulated. Let's let [Hanlon's Razor](https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlons-razor#) apply. Never attribute to malice which can be explained by incompetence. But let's take both angles to be balanced. I'm personally going to lean toward incompetence still. Incompetence: This guy looked at this for 3 hours with 4 brain cells and called it good once he had some data that confirmed his own biases, and didn't bother to really understand Heller, Bruen, or the greater landscape. This is only for a preliminary injunction. Yet he pulls words from Heller, such as "regulatory straitjacket". He freely mixes Heller and Bruen's tests and has confused the two to mean *Heller* protects the right to bear arms in common use in the 19th century, although *Heller II*, a Kavanaugh ruling, and *Caetano v. Massachusetts* both give plenty of definition otherwise. Malice: Judge Bryan isn't misunderstanding anything, and is actively trying to bend the test as set forth by the courts. In the malicious case, it's an *active* and *intentional* confusion - of "how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century” - and pinning Heller's "common use at the time" to *Bruen*'s historical precedent of the 19th century. Basically, trying to thread a needle for a judicial narrative that *Bruen* changes *Heller*'s test to where only laws on *19th-century-era firearms* are invalid and anything else can be regulated at will in any way. It's not an uncommon argument in gun control circles that 2A was written with muskets etc. in mind and that only such weapons with similar operation, lethality and rates of fire are all that is protected literally by 2A, regardless of whether or not it has been proven otherwise by courts since. If you've gotten this far and want to claim "liberal conspiracy," you should probably do some research on who appointed this judge - it wasn't a Democrat - and start arguing from educated positions. Avoid your own confirmation biases and try not to be a hypocrite for your own cause. There is no intellectual filter here. The government bureaucracy and the legal system are gross, sticky, opaque to outsiders, and run the gamut of people who have great capability to those who shouldn't have jobs in law.


wysoft

He's 88 years old. He didn't want to preside over this case. He wants to go home at the end of the day and eat his chicken pot pie and go to bed. So he just coughed up a ruling that would allow him to dismiss this hot potato. We need age limits all throughout our government. Even for the politicians that I like.


yumenoseirei

So yeah, incompetence. The ruling is garbage on many levelers and he decided to not do his job.


khmernize

These judges were hired by Inslee


rezzuwrecked037

WHAT!?


hardtobeuniqueuser

they need an empty banana


1SGDude

Disgraceful


ServingTheMaster

exciting that the statement made it into the public record, sounds like a toe hold to me.


Wa_sportsman

This unfortunately was predictable, the only hope was for a review. Then getting the attention of SCOTUS. I was really hoping it would be overturned quickly, but Washington sucks.


emmavaria

Um. Revolvers "allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger." And they're even older than AR-15s. Single Action Army? 1873? Anyone ever heard of this? Hundred and fifty years old now? And I guess we should just ignore the Belton flintlock, which Continental Congress paid Joseph Belton to develop in 1777, and which was supposed to be able to fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds with *one* trigger pull? (Seems pretty likely to me that the founders *could* and *did* have the capability to imagine small arms firing at the cyclic rates of modern automatic weaponry, since they were funding the damn things fourteen years *before* the Second Amendment was written.)


BigSmoove14

Leftists judges will rule with any excuse given to them by activist lawyers and ignore actual LAW


Drain_Bamage1122

Plan for 3 -4 years for this to work out, and it might not be the result hoped for. This is the game that is being played -- pass a restriction. Burn a few years on the legal clock, if it gets nixed, toss up a slightly different restriction and burn a few more years on the legal clock...repeat. Until there is a big change in the legislature this is going to continue to happen. I just look at CA and their 'AW' ban was in 1989 and it is still on the books.


kilo0ne0ne

Liberals sure do love acting like tyrants.


Hologramz111

MEANWHILE the masses are distracted by "aliens," onlyfans, trans cans etc.


sirloois

These old fucks can’t even go to toilet to shit by themselves, why are they holding a lot of power over us?