Trucking used to be a way a person could provide for their family, remain independent, and feel in control.
Still can. There are still owner-operators, and they have significant control over how they do their job, as long as they aren't caught cooking their books (...which is what most drivers used to do before there were crackdowns, because you got paid per mile). They usually get paid a lot more than fleet drivers, because fleet drivers aren't responsible for the maintenance of the truck.
Which "legal experts" are claiming Trump could be facing prison? If they actually have JDs, they should be disbarred for incompetence.
SCOTUS has already ruled on this; the president has very, very broad immunity from any criminal prosecution. The case was dropped in Florida because his stealing highly classified documents was an "official action"; if that can be handwaved away, then so can defrauding the country with a shitcoin pump-and-dump.
If both CSAM and criticism of the state of Israel are illegal in Germany, then the admins and mods are legally obligated to remove both. Their feelings and beliefs are not relevant to their legal obligation.
I don't see how you are incapable of understanding this.
Wut?
No, silencers weren't regulated into the NFA by the ATF; congress put them in there, way back in '34. You can read the text of the act here. It's in the very first section:
AN ACT
To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in certain firearms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, that for the purposes of this Act -
(a) The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such a weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm [emphasis added] whether or not such a firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
It's right there in the text.
Aside from that, the ATF per se didn't even exist prior to '72; before that, it was part of the IRS, rather than an agency within the DoJ, and before the IRS, it was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
It's not up to the ATF to make laws; congress is supposed to do that.
Also, "sensible" gun control is functionally no different from "sensible" abortion restrictions. If you want to fix gun violence, fix the problems that lead up to it. If you want to stop abortions, it's easier to teach factual sexual health and make sure that everyone has free access to birth control.
First - the place to shoot is the hard part for many people. Indoor ranges don't allow you to do the kind of practice that you would need to do in order to become proficient with an automatic firearm. Outdoor ranges are quite a drive for most people.
Second, and more important - the fact that people can learn doesn't mean a lot. Most people, including most gun owners, don't. A shockingly large percentage of gun owners don't practice regularly, or at all.
I can't see who is catching a ban for what comment, because the comments have been censored. Q.E.D.
...Much like I have been for pointing out how the law functions. So, that's cool, I guess.
FWIW, a number of states int he US have passed anti-BDS laws; it should be blatantly illegal under 1A to prevent institutions from boycotting Israel, and yet, so far, those laws haven't been seriously challenged.
Hard pass on discussing anything with your denialist guns r gud mentality
Yeah, isn't is strange that someone doesn't want the state to have the monopoly on violence, and believes in civil rights? Weird, right?
From your article:
"Platkin said Glock is profiting by continuing to sell the adaptable version in U.S. markets, even as they make and sell handguns in Europe that cannot accommodate such a switch."
This is something I've having a really hard time finding a source on. Everything I can find says that that about half of the Glock pistols that are sold in the US are made in Austria. And, as I said, sales in Europe for pistols are very tightly controlled, meaning that very few pistols--relatively speaking--are getting into the hands of anyone other than cops and military, so I'm not sure that there's a strong motive for them to make the design alteration in the EU.
Aside from the assertion from New Jersey's AG, I just can't find a source for that. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, and, if the AG is correct, then yes, Glock should change their design in the US. There's already precedent for this; open bolt semi-automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned because they can--in general--be readily converted to full auto. However, given how many Glocks currently exist in the US, that would be an enormous legal mess that could possibly result in the National Firearms Act being declared unconstitutional.
"Also known as “auto switches,” the devices, which are already illegal in New Jersey and some other states, [...]"
They're illegal in EVERY state; it covered under federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act (1934) and Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986). Even if it was legal in New Jersey, it would still be a felony to possess or use one.
How many people actually go out to a range every single week and burn through a couple hundred rounds working on training drills though? I did shooting at distance today (100-550y with .223) and burned through about 140 rounds, and most ranges don't even have that kind of distance available. (Thank fuck the RSO had a spotting scope; I couldn't see my splash in the grass to see where my rounds were going when I didn't hit. He was able to see trace with his scope though.)
Do you have evidence to support that? Because AFAIK, the Glocks made both in the US and Austria have exactly the same design. OTOH, in most of Europe, it's very difficult to get the appropriate license for a handgun, so it's largely irrelevant.
Yes. Trump is not actually friendly to gun rights.
If he was, he'd be pushing to get the Hearing Protection Act (HR 404) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (HR 2395) out of committee and to the floor for a vote.
Biden wasn't friendly to gun rights either. I don't think most politicians are friendly to gun rights, since if they actually managed to expand them to what they should be, they wouldn't have any major issue remaining to campaign on.
???
They both obligate moderators and administrators to remove illegal content, and failure to do so can result in criminal penalties for the people running the site.
Are you intentionally pretending that you don't understand that both types of content--regardless of any morality--can land the admins in jail?