Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NueZug8VKA4
TRUMP DOJ MOVES TO END ALL AR-15 BANS
- Thread starter Swordsmyth
- Start date
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,573
If Trump goes to war with Iran will this be put "on hold"? And at least he "meant well"? Or something?
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,443
Dumped in the monster heap with the rest of "great things Trump suggests but never will actually do"
Right next to getting rid of the IRS and DOE
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,443
For updates on the court case in question you can check:
Trump DOJ's Amicus Curiae brief in support of the above case:
Barnett v. Raoul - Michel & Associates, P.C.
Case Name: Caleb Barnett, et al. v. Kwame Raoul, et al. District Court Case No.: 3:23-cv-00209 SCOTUS Case No.: 23-879 Case Consolidated with: Harrel v. Raoul (Case No.: 23-141-SPM), Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Jay Robert Pritzker (Case No.: 3:23-CV-00215), Langley v. Kelly (Case...
michellawyers.com
Trump DOJ's Amicus Curiae brief in support of the above case:
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
It's in the courts.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,469
What courts?
You say you have that information. Why not share? Some of us might like to look into it, and keep tabs on it.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
I don't have to provide all the details every time, but you are apparently blind because what you ask for has already been posted:
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,469
That's my point. You never provide any details. unknown asked a question, TheTexan showed where someone could keep track of the case, which was very helpful, and you (who accuse everyone and their dog of not reading stuff) "answer" a question that was already answered properly with the most vague and unhelpful cliché ever--"It's in the courts".
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
LOL
I had not gotten down to the Texan's post yet when I replied, and I frequently provide the details, I just don't have to every time.
If they hadn't already been provided and the person I replied to asked for more information instead of looking it up as the Texan did I might have dug up the details and posted them, but I'm not going to let a person who didn't even ask the question bully me, especially when the details had already been provided.
Truth be told, it was a dumb question, such court cases always take a long time, and if someone wants to know the current status it's not to hard to find out instead of asking other people to do the work and trying to imply that it had gone away and was going to be nothing but a false promise.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,469
Because keeping you mouth shut when you have nothing to say obviously isn't ever an option.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
I had something to say.
I replied to his question with the accurate statement that it was still working through the courts and hadn't disappeared.
You on the other hand had nothing useful to add and just butted in with your usual bullying.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,469
But you didn't say anything of substance. So either you didn't, or you're so arrogant you think your every belch is enlightening.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Your usual lie through editing the quote, I laid out exactly what substantive information was in my comment.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,469
I was talking about this post:
I didn't edit it. There's nothing there to edit.
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
No, you were replying to and edited this post:
Similar threads
