u/JimMarch

Base gun is a Taurus TS9; only a few thousand imported into the US from an overrun on an overseas government contract. This thing was mainly marketed as a police and military grade duty gun that could pass NATO trials, built to a much better quality standard than most Taurus guns and designed by Wilhelm Bubits, Same guy that designed the Kimber R7 Mako family...shares the same pure sideways ejecting slide setup and a lower bore axis by tilting the barrel less.

* Sights are a target focus both eyes open iron sight based on the work of Tim Sheehan (RIP) of Goshen Enterprises (RIP), it's a variant of the Hexsite (RIP).

* Massive homebrew gas pedal using a half inch optic riser as the base for the pedal.

* Olight PL2 Mini Valkyrie with 600 lumens on tap.

* Galloway Precision stainless steel striker guide, slicks up the trigger feel just a little and improves reliability by getting rid of a critical plastic part.

* The 17 round Mec-Gar mags also fit my Taurus G3c.

Next step is building the holster for this beast. Range video will follow after that, probably after this weekend because I need to make as much money over this weekend as I possibly can.

Expect updates if you can stand the cosmetics...

:)

The Taurus TS9 isn't like other Taurus handguns in the US. It was built for overseas police and military contracts to a Glock build level. Only a few thousand were imported about a year and a half ago from an overseas government contract overrun. It's the only Taurus that has passed serious NATO trials and the only Taurus designed by Wilhelm Bubits, which is why it looks like the giant ugly jungle cousin to the Kimber R7 family, using the same pure sideways ejection slide.

The ones that made it to the US have all ambi controls, no manual safety, 4" barrel, 17rd mags that also fit the Taurus G3 series like my G3c (in the leather holster).

It has a gigantic single-sided gas pedal, Olight PL2 Mini Valkyrie with 600 lumens on tap, and a 7 inch long hexagonal tube sight based on the Goshen Enterprises Hexsite - an unreleased prototype that Tim Sheehan told me about of the phone but never published prior to his death that I know of. It's a target focus, both eyes open iron sight. I needed the Bubits style slide to make sure a shell can't eject up to the tube body causing malfunctions.

Windage is adjustable by moving the rear dovetail tube mount (the original rear sight turned around backwards lol) and elevation by shimming.

Only other mod is a Galloway Precision stainless steel striker guide.

Next step is to make a holster for this beast and shoot it over the weekend - and record it. So there's more coming on this project :).

The holster is gonna be just as shocking. And completely different from anything I've built before.

I was an OTR owner operator for 8 years ending in mid-2023. There's a possibility I've talked to some of you on the phone as I booked my own loads for the last 5 years or so.

Because my wife is sick and cannot roll around on the truck anymore, I do ride share driving instead right now.

I recently had a passenger who is a lead engineer for this company:

https://www.heatremotesensing.com/

He had been on a multi-week mission to a European country that I won't name so as to keep him anonymous. Let's just say to the Western end of Europe.

They installed this system and had cops waiting to chase down the truckers that they would make a smog tampering claim against.

In every single case the excessive smog coming out of the trucks was caused by deletes: illegal tampering with smog systems. The fines were approximately 4,000 euros a pop. A high percentage of the trucks involved were from Poland lol.

This system is a major moneymaker for local governments. This is coming to America. It won't take long, either...not with $10k fines involved.

I don't know when it will start but when it does, a common business model in the US is for mega carriers to buy brand new trucks, run them legally for about 500,000 miles and then sell it to a smaller carrier. A huge percentage of the smaller carriers immediately run it to a local shop that they know and they do a delete. They then do a lease op deal to a trucker who now takes the full legal risk of the delete on themselves, likely without understanding the potential consequences.

Yes, I'll be posting about this on r/truckers as well. People involved with lease op deals and deleted trucks, or owner operators with deleted trucks need to know that the risks are about to get catastrophic.

It's also going to cause a downward spike in capacity that could last for a year or two. Some of those trucks won't have enough value to be worth dropping a $10,000 DPF and SCR system back into. In other cases people who are trying to restore trucks to legal operating conditions won't be able to buy the parts until the backlog is cleared and that could take a while.

I can't give you a timeline other than to say, pilot programs using this smog detection system have been put in place already somewhere in Pennsylvania according to the guy I spent a half an hour with taking him home from the airport. But seeing the amount of money that can be made with this system, I don't think we have a year before it starts popping up. And if they tie it to the pre-pass system and get the complete transponder codes from every truck that goes by rolling dirty, they don't even need cops present to run them down, they just go chase the trucks back at their home bases later. That would of course require an interstate money sharing agreement but with the amount of money on the table, do you think that'll slow them down for long?

I don't.

Hell, all it would take would be for Illinois alone to start doing these checks on the major freeways around Chicago and it will cripple the spot market for a year or two.

This is coming. Pay attention to developments with this system. When it hits full force the spot market is going to implode.

Continuing the recent gun discussions, let's talk about mass public killings.

Right now the country leading the world in the number of attacks and the number of dead both is actually China, and practically none of it is coming from gunfire. The most common weapon used is an ordinary passenger car or SUV or similar driven at high speed through crowds of pedestrians.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dxz1vzdyzo

One maniac managed to kill 34. Mass stabbings seem to be a bit less common but still rather horrible.

The term for these in Chinese translates to "revenge against society" killings. It may be connected to the fact that Chinese citizens have few if any outlets for redress of grievances. The court systems are just plain bad and publicly complaining will get you whisked off by the secret police. Mass killing starts to look like the only outlet left to file a really serious complaint.

If you read that article another thing that jumps out is that these attacks coming waves and there's an obvious copycat effect. That's what I want to focus on the most.

There's a body of literature in peer-reviewed psychology that talks about "suicidal contagion". If a person commits suicide in some novel fashion, copycats tend to follow. This copycat tendency is stronger when the original is of course well publicized and at least somewhat weird or public. The people copying the first victim will tend to see in themselves some point of demographic or ideological similarity between themselves and the person who previously committed suicide.

Most of the studies of this come out of the fallout from a series of suicides in Vienna Austria in the 1980s. The method of suicide is of a type class as "suicide by rail", namely the local subway system. The majority of the victims were on the young side, late teens to early 20s. Each time the local media would publicize these annoying events (that made lots of commuters late and gave train conductors PTSD), and then there would be more.

And then somebody got smart. They convinced the local media to shut the fuck up about these events. This caused a 75% drop in such incidents within 5 years.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8153751/

This led to a lot of information going out on how to responsibly report on suicide events such as:

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/22163

The US Department of Transportation has a complete set of media guidelines for reporting on rail suicide:

https://oli.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/MediaFacing_Recommendations_reDesign.FINAL_.pdf

What does this have to do with mass public killings (regardless of weapon used)?

Everything.

The people who commit mass public killings know that they are likely to die at the scene, either by somebody else's hand or their own. It's the usual outcome. Therefore these incidents have to be seen as the most vile possible form of suicide.

Therefore, the solution is the same: radically limit the reporting.

Go back to that previous flyer on media responsibility. Look at the bottom suggestions on what NOT to do.

Every time a mass killing cranks off in the US, the media uses the "what not to do" list as a checklist.

I'm not the only one who's started to figure this out:

https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/506ebe99-82a2-4f8d-80bd-b418a1ac8bb9/content

Look at page 10 (PDF page 20):

>Reporting on mass shootings and terrorism > >Research on the imitative effects of media reports about mass shootings and terrorism is not as extensive as research on the copycat effects of media reports about suicides. However, there is some evidence that sensationalist reporting about killings can trigger further homicidal actions. These incidents typically receive considerable media attention, and may or may not include self-directed violence after, or as part of, the murder(s). If such an event includes suicide, it should not be described as a suicide attack or suicide bombing because this magnifies the negative labelling of suicidal behaviour. Referring to such events as “homicidal bombings” or “mass killings” would be more appropriate because the main purpose of these acts is to kill others; only some of the perpetrators may actually be suicidal. In reporting these killings, it is important to remember that the perpetrator may not be suicidal and may not have a mental illness; most mass shootings are not committed by persons with a diagnosed mental disorder. An international expert team lead by Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE) has developed recommendations (https://www.reportingonmassshootings.org) for reporting such events – including reducing the media attention on the perpetrators, because such emphasis can potentially lead others to identify with them and be inspired by them to commit similar acts.

This is from the World Health Organization, 2017. Makes me think the US media blathering about each mass killing knows they're causing the next round of copycats.

We can see the copycat cycle in progress when we look at the demographics of the attackers. Starting with a school shooting in Nashville we saw a string of trans gendered shooters. Not because the trans are particularly dangerous, but because this string triggered the small number of available "on the edge" potential trans mass killers.

A few years ago in California an elderly male east Asian farmworker did a mass workplace shooting. Within months, hundreds of miles away we had another - an elderly Asian guy, farm worker, workplace shooting.

Points of demographic similarity trigger the copycat already on the edge.

It's not that elderly Asian farmworkers are particularly dangerous, any more than the trans community is.

The copycat cycle is the key, and it's media driven.

Gun control won't help, they'll just switch weapons. Gonna ban cars and SUVs?

User /CoolHandLukeSkywalka (great handle by the way!) said that looking at the gun control policies of the Texas Dems might be more interesting than looking at the California subspecies.

Sounds like a good plan. Start here...

https://www.texasdemocrats.org/party-resources

...and there's a button labeled "What We Believe - This is your Party. Read the latest Texas Democratic Party platform" right up top. Awesome.

> We couldn't find the page you were looking for. This is either because: > >There is an error in the URL entered into your web browser. Please check the URL and try again. >The page you are looking for has been moved or deleted. >You can return to our homepage by clicking here, or you can try searching for the content you are seeking by clicking here.

Really?

See, it's shit like this...

Ok. So there's a search function. Plug "second amendment" into that and we get two relevant links:

https://www.texasdemocrats.org/media/media/texas-democratic-party-chairman-gilberto-hinojosa-releases-statement-on-scotus-gun-ruling?rq=Second%20amendment

This is basically a temper tantrum against the 2022 US Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v Bruen.

That case was about whether or not New York could do highly restrictive access to handgun carry permits. Under this system Donald J Trump was for decades declared effectively one of the 500 or so most moral trustworthy people in New York City. (Well no, not really, fucker paid bribes to the NYPD licensing board lol.)

Bruen brought that to an end in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California and Hawaii. Texas was unaffected, they had carry laws already compliant with Bruen.

Now, Bruen did some other things too.

1. Declared carry of a loaded defensive handgun a basic civil right.

2. Made it clear felons and other dangerous people could still be disarmed (refined further in US v Rahimi 2024).

3. Made it clear that states like New York could still require carry permits tied to background checks and training (part of footnote 9).

4. Flat banned "subjective standards" in the issuance of any permit tied to a basic civil right, citing the same concept in the 1969 SCOTUS decision in Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (more footnote 9).

5. Banned "abusive" carry permit issuance processes, and named two abuses: "lengthy waiting times" and "exorbitant fees". (This is also in footnote 9 and yeah, it's doing a lot of heavy lifting.)

6. The only part the Texas Dems might reasonably screech at is the establishment of the "Text, History and Tradition" standard for evaluating future 2nd Amendment restrictions or challenges. But they're complaining because they don't understand what's going on.

Lower courts were not treating the 2nd Amendment as a basic civil right. In one notable case, a county in California used COVID-19 as an excuse to shut down all shooting ranges (including outdoors) and all gun shops to a degree greater than they would anything else. They got sued for it in federal court, the county won at trial but by some miracle a three judge panel overturned.

Here's where it gets funny. The judge who wrote the 3-judge opinion wrote his own parody opinion of his own decision in which he showed how the rest of the 9th circuit was likely to overturn it and the screwed up reasoning they'd use like they had so many other times. The chaos starts at page 46:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/20/20-56220.pdf

This was just before the Bruen decision landed and gives you an idea of the kind of bullshit the US Supreme Court was responding to in Bruen.

But here's the kicker, and the part the Texas Dems didn't understand.

THT as a standard is in there in order to SAVE carry permits in states that believe in them, like New York. They're throwing New York a bone.

Here's how it works.

The usual standard for judging a restriction on a basic civil right is "strict scrutiny" by the courts. There's a whole process judges are supposed to follow. Test #1 is to ask if there's any lesser restriction available that could meet the government's reasonable needs.

At the time Bruen landed we had 26 "constitutional carry" states, no permit needed, just don't be a prohibited person (felon, currently accused of a major crime or subject to a domestic violence restraining order, or previous domestic violence conviction, or under 18 to 25 depending on state). We now have 29 no-carry-permit states.

If the New York carry permit system was challenged on a strict scrutiny basis, it would fail.

Weirdly enough, it would also fail a THT challenge except footnote 9 has that specific carve out for carry permits tied to background checks and training. Which is also why we know footnote 9 isn't dicta, which means the list of abuses also isn't dicta.

Upshot: the Texas Dems are freaking out without understanding the background. They should have done more research before barfing this out.

Next link:

https://www.texasdemocrats.org/media/texas-democrats-demand-gun-safety-reforms-before-the-adjournment-of-the-88th-legislative-session?rq=Second%20Amendment%20

Well hell, this is the position list we were looking for and hit a 404, more or less. 88th session (state legislature) ended in 2023 so it's not too stale.

I'll do a deconstruction piece by piece tomorrow. Gotta sleep sometime. I will give them one attaboy:

> We support the Second Amendment – and we also believe that the best way to uphold Texas’ strong heritage of responsible gun ownership for self defense, hunting, and recreation is to make sure we’re keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and others deemed dangerous to themselves and others. It’s long past time to implement these life-saving, science-backed tactics – small differences in the law that would make enormous strides toward preventing suicides, mass shootings, tragic accidents, and other gun violence.

The attaboy is for including the words "self defense" as a legit use of guns. I guarandamntee you the Dems of California or New York wouldn't go there.

More tomorrow.

In another discussion I mentioned that the Dem party platform on gun issues is hurting them. I didn't cite sources or details.

User u/Kahzgul challenged me to look over the California Dems official position paper and explain what's bonkers. Kewl! Let's do this.

We're starting from here:

https://cadem.org/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

I'm gonna quote each item verbatim so you don't have to bounce over and back.

Dem item 1:

> Support a federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines

As a policy question, this is debatable. Reasonable people can differ here.

Legally however, the US Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen 2022 very specifically said that any future gun control has to pass a "text, history and tradition" test, asking whether or not that gun control idea is something that would work in 1792-ish. And on that basis it fails. Any reading of the history of the early federal period says civilian guns are supposed to be equal in effectiveness to military guns.

Think I'm kidding?

The core constitution has a clause allowing Congress to issue "letters of Marque". You know what that means? Privately owned and operated battleships with rows of cannons. Lol.

So basically you can kiss this law goodbye inside of a year and a half tops.

But now let's look at political tactics and that's where this is a huge fail for the Dems (nationally and in California).

A dozen strongly Dem leaning states have these laws. Ok. So you got a guy in a place like Tennessee, Texas, Utah, whatever. Dude hates Trump. But if he votes Dem he risks his guns. The Dems are creating this dilemma.

If this category of law had any track record of reducing violence, ok, understandable. Still hurts the Dems.

But there's no link between these bans and a reduction in violence.

Dem item 2:

> Support federal expansion of universal criminal background checks to include the sale of every gun, ammunition, and “ghost gun” component;

This is one place they might get some public traction.

I'll point out here that there's a long and well documented tradition of homebrew and cottage industry gun making in the US going back 300 years plus. Any attempt to completely ban homemade guns will fail a Text History and Tradition challenge.

Dem item 3:

> Support legislation that would prohibit those with a history of violence, domestic abuse, or mental health concerns from purchasing or owning a weapon of any kind;

This is where they should focus their efforts instead of messing around with guys like me, fully able to pass a background check and training.

The US Supreme Court decision in US v Rahimi 2024 is a starting point at understanding where the boundaries are on this.

Dem item 4:

> Support requiring educational programs on safe use and storage of firearms and ammunition before any purchase approval;

So this adds a massive layer of complexity on gun buying - not just carrying.

In NYSRPA v Bruen 2022 the Supreme Court says states can make people pass background checks and training before getting a carry permit for a loaded handgun (footnote 9). But a similar permit for basic ownership may be a step too far for the courts. Don't know how that'll play out yet.

But there's much bigger issues here.

California has a history of abusive gun permits. Prior to the Bruen decision of mid-2022, California was one of the eight states doing "discretionary" gun carry permits where police chiefs and sheriffs had total control over who got to pack heat.

The resulting abuses are still legendary, like this actual confession to bribery for access:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/colafrancescopapers.pdf - the sheriff off the county was Craig, Blanas was the under-sheriff at the time.

There was some fallout from this. The deputy who dared to write down what Colafrancesco said was severely punished for at least a decade that I know of.

In 2010 when Blanas was still sheriff, an attorney sued over the discrimination on gun permit access in Yolo and Sacramento counties. Sacramento folded because they didn't want this document turning up in open court. Sacramento was therefore one of the few urban California counties where it was fairly easy to get a gun carry permit until mid-2022 when the US Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v Bruen applied the same fix to the whole state.

That kind of corruption was going on all over the state. In 2002 I got thrown out of the California chapter of the NRA for exposing a Republican sheriff doing even worse: racial redlining in permit access. Basically, in a set of written agreements between a county sheriff and all the chiefs in his county, in which all areas of the county with high minority populations were excluded in writing from permit access.

Proof:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/cccc2.pdf

Here's the fallout - the NRA backed a new law allowing the California DOJ to throw out the public records I was looking for:

https://youtu.be/cPDZjQAHeY0

Finally, the current gun carry permit program post-Bruen has been fixed to block the outright bribery, but many issuing agencies have been charging up to $1,500 for the permits and taking up to a year or more to issue them. The US-DOJ is currently suing Los Angeles County over this based on footnote 9 of the Bruen decision which calls "lengthy waiting times" and "exorbitant fees" abusive. Check for yourself:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Footnote 9 is at the bottom of page 30.

So there's a permitting system we know they can do, but they're abusing it:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-files-first-department-justice-affirmative-lawsuit-support-gun-owners

...so they want another broader permit process?

Support cleaning up the first one, the one the US Supreme Court says you can keep (Bruen footnote 9) and we'll talk.

Dem item 5:

> Support requiring all gun owners to pay an annual registration fee and carry liability insurance for each gun owned;

You can't buy insurance covering your own deliberate acts of suicide, murder or assault. They're just trying to crank the costs of gun ownership up.

Everything I said about another layer of permits at item 4 applies here.

Dem item 6:

> Support requiring all guns have serial numbers and all gun sales, commercial and private, are to be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or appropriate state agency;

Just a rehash of point 2 covering the same issues.

Dem item 7:

> Support policies that would restrict access to firearms by children, suicidal persons, and those in emotional crisis;

Sounds ok but kinda short on details?

How are you gonna keep guns away from "those in emotional crisis"? I'd like to think I'm pretty stable, at least for an Aspie, but emotional breakdown can happen to anybody. So...yeah. Good luck with that.

Dem item 8:

> Support legislation that would hold gun owners liable for any crimes committed with their firearms for failure to follow safe storage practices;

Anti-theft measures required. One of their few decent points.

Dem item 9:

> Support providing necessary resources and funding to implement training and enforcement of California’s existing gun laws, including the Armed Prohibited Persons System Program and the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), and means to trace all guns and to investigate all denied firearm purchasers;

Not the worst in this. GVRO is also known as a "red flag law", basically "strip somebody of guns at the first whiff of trouble". The problem is false reports and a lack of due process when stripping people of a basic civil right.

Based on the totality of this document, the California Dems don't believe gun ownership is a basic civil right despite five US Supreme Court decisions starting in 2008.

Dem item 10:

> Support the expansion of petitioners of GVROs to include co-workers, teachers, principals, employers, and mental health workers;

Can you say "office drama cranked up to 11?"

Show me where the due process is.

Dem item 11:

> Support efforts to protect California’s gun laws from court challenges;

Now this is a biiiig deal. You'd have to know how colossally skullfucked a lot of existing California law is.

The big, big change because of a lawsuit was the end to police chiefs and sheriffs personally deciding who gets to pack heat. That end happened at the hands of the US Supreme Court in mid-2022. They screamed bloody murder about that and major agencies slow-walk the process and crank the fees up to abusive levels in response.

That was the worst California gun law by far but there's others that are pretty ugly. Like the handgun safety roster. Check this out. To get a gun on the approved roster, manufacturers have to submit samples and pay to have tests done on each model. Down to different paint jobs. Ok. But then to keep them on "safe and legal to sell" list, they pay a yearly fee.

What happens when new models come out? The manufacturers (most anyhow) don't pay to keep old models on the list. So older models can't be traded on the used market because nobody else is allowed to pay the yearly fee so they're "declared unsafe".

So costs go up.

That's coming unglued in the courts.

Here's another. Reciprocity in carry permits. Oh God. So let's say I score a New York City carry permit. It has the heaviest training and background check requirements in the US. I get that after massive effort, I take that plus my daily carry handgun to California and walk around strapped. I've committed a felony.

We solved this problem for driver's licenses sometime before WW2. As long as your state's license has certain minimum requirements, and all now do, you can drive from New York to Oregon and not get popped for not having a Kansas driver's license.

That's coming to gun carry permits. Soon. Via the courts. If no one state can do "lengthy waiting times" or "exorbitant fees" (see Bruen footnote 9) then neither can a coalition of 20+. Something else the Dems hate.

Too many more stupidities to list.

Dem item 12:

> Support the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes have been committed with their products;

Another freakshow. Exact translation:

"Every time some scumbag uses a gun horribly we're going to sue whoever made it into oblivion. No more Ruger, Glock, S&W and so on, we'll break the 2A that way!"

And again: Dem voters across the country see this and have to balance their hate of Trump and MAGA against saving access to guns. Why the hell force them into this choice when this proposal is going to come unglued in the courts?

Dem item 13:

> Support the creation of tracking software that would trace weapons used in crimes back to the dealer who sold them;

Ok. And then?

Dem item 14:

> Oppose any school administration with plans to arm teachers;

Really? Are dead children that important to their political ends?

After Uvalde I trust teachers a hell of a lot more than cops.

Dem item 15:

> Work to ensure that California schools have adequate counseling resources to address bullying, domestic violence, suicide awareness, and trauma;

Cool.

Dem item 16:

> Support public outreach and law enforcement training for new and existing law enforcement professionals on the implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO);

They sure love that law. It's like it's the last frontier of heavy gun control: "you like guns so obviously something is wrong with your ass so we need to take your guns!"

Ok...yeah, that's probably overstated. :) But the lack of due process in the red flag laws is scary, and wouldn't pass constitutional muster if we were talking about a sudden end to any other civil right.

If voting rights were suddenly getting stripped on similar backing, the Dems would be screaming bloody murder. So would I.

Dem item 17:

> Encourage candidates running for office in local, statewide, and federal elections to advocate for common-sense gun laws and to support research, community investment, safe storage, and public education focused on reducing gun violence;

Make sure every Dem candidate toes the party line. There IS such a thing as rural Dem voters and therefore a rural Dem candidate who might see the gun control push as pissing off their base. The Dems are officially against that.

Therefore they're against Dem inroads into rural areas?

Which do y'all hate more, guns or MAGA?

You need to think carefully about that question.

Dem item 18:

> Strongly discourage candidates from accepting campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA) or other gun-rights organizations;

Same as 16. Exactly the same, different way of saying it. So take money from George Soros and Michael Bloomberg instead?

Dem item 19:

> Urge Congress to take action by passing common-sense gun safety legislation.

Pretty general but we've seen some ugly details they'd like to push.

This is a threat to take that level of stupid (ok, mostly stupid, some ok, some outright evil) nationally. No thanks!

Dem item 20:

> Support the creation, distribution and training of smart gun technology for members of Law Enforcement;

Lol. Use cops as a testbed for roboguns. Chortle. Good luck with that. Hint to Dems: the movie "Judge Dredd" is science fiction, not a how-to.

Dem item 21:

> Support the transition to smart gun technology for all new guns manufactured; and,

Ok, there's another implication to "smart guns": if there's any kind of remote kill system the original "defense against tyranny" meaning of the 2A is dead.

With a monster like Trump in office, y'all really think that's a good idea?

Really?

Must not be as scared of Trump as y'all claim.

Dem item 22:

> Support stiffer penalties for those dealers who participate in illegal in illegal sales including straw purchases.

(The duplication typo is in the original text.)

Well it's already pretty bad under federal law. How far y'all wanna go? Toss 'em feet first in a wood chipper?

:/