Last edited:
2nd Amendment thread
- Thread starter bigredfish
- Start date
The comments go on and on like this...
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 19,524
- 32,582
^^^^^
Not dumping on this video specifically, rather all of the media and social media reporting. In the first 6 seconds of the video, he says the car pulled itself over, and nobody told it to do that. At 0:58 it says the company pulled the car over, at at 1:49 it says the company detected the gun. So the video obviously contradicts itself. But it's just not here. If you search for "waymo gun" you find a major split in both regular and social media articles and posts that say the car did this all by itself, or alternatively, that waymo employees made the decision, told the car to stop, and called the police. It reinforces my belief that we can't trust anything we read. I understand this happening on social media, but "professional" outlets? The majority of TV stations and newspapers say waymo employees made the decisions and took the action, but there are exceptions. Can't believe any of them.
Not dumping on this video specifically, rather all of the media and social media reporting. In the first 6 seconds of the video, he says the car pulled itself over, and nobody told it to do that. At 0:58 it says the company pulled the car over, at at 1:49 it says the company detected the gun. So the video obviously contradicts itself. But it's just not here. If you search for "waymo gun" you find a major split in both regular and social media articles and posts that say the car did this all by itself, or alternatively, that waymo employees made the decision, told the car to stop, and called the police. It reinforces my belief that we can't trust anything we read. I understand this happening on social media, but "professional" outlets? The majority of TV stations and newspapers say waymo employees made the decisions and took the action, but there are exceptions. Can't believe any of them.
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 19,524
- 32,582
My guess on the process ..
Car AI detects image of gun,
Alert goes to remote monitoring center, and a Human makes the final call
I would think that if I was to take a rideshare to someplace and had to leave my gun at home since they don't allow them, then the rideshare company should be responsible for my safety since they said I could not have said firearm, thereby taking the responsibility for my safety from me. So if I was say robbed or shot after leaving the rideshare, I would sue the rideshare for effectively disarming me and preventing me from defending myself.
Of course, their lawyers would say you had the right to not choose their company...ironically kind of like"no one held a gun to your head"......
I think the "bad guy" was also Otis Campbell the town drunk on "The Andy Griffith Show".
I had one of those Mattel .38 revolvers...you pressed a stick-on cap on the primer end of the "cartridge" and pushed a spring-loaded plastic bullet into the other end of the cartridge. When the hammer hit the cap the cap it would explode and the plastic "bullet" would be launched, albeit somewhat weak. I don't think you could put an eye out with it if you tried.
Seems to me that the "no weapons" policy is selectively enforced. I bet there are a lot of knives carried in the cars that waymo never takes any action over. If there's enough legal action, they might have to require riding naked.
They will have TSA type body scans in the future before you enter...our future sucks...
I do not understand the no weapons policy for a driverless car. Who are you going to jack? There is no one driving.
And we’re all giddy about suppressors and FRTs being unregulated…. We’re amateurs
Interesting. Smells like FALSE ARREST AND IMPRIOSNMENT to me...
EDIT: This ONLY applies to people in the 5th Circuit-- Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. BUT-- it sets a precedent and they are unlikely to allow different rules for different judicial areas for very long.
Last edited:
Appeals Court Rules Federal Ban On Interstate Handgun Sales Unconstitutional
Appeals Court Rules Federal Ban On Interstate Handgun Sales Unconstitutional<!-- --> | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the federal government's ban on interstate transfers of handguns on Sept. 18, finding the nearly 60-year-old law was unconstitutional.
The ruling reverses provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibit handguns from being sold directly from licensed firearms dealers to buyers across state lines.
"The ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation's tradition of firearms regulation, dating back to the founding era, under that Amendment," Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote in the ruling.
The court also rejected the lower court's analysis when dismissing the lawsuit last year, determining that the historical record adequately justified the ban because colonial and state laws regulating the movement of firearms across borders satisfy conditions outlined in the Bruen ruling of 2022.
The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen set a history-based standard: A new regulation must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Smith wrote that the lower court's analysis "stretches the historical record far beyond what it can actually bear."
Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, agreeing with the lower court's decision to dismiss the case last year.
"I agree with the district court's decision that the several provisions of [the gun control act] discussed in this case are not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment," Haynes wrote. "That is all that is in play in this case."
The federal lawsuit was filed in January 2025 by Texas custom firearms dealer Elite Precision Customs LLC and out-of-state customers Tim Herron, a New Mexico-based grand master in the U.S. Practical Shooting Association, and Freddie Blish, a retired U.S. Marine Corps veteran who travels around the country teaching safe firearms handling for self-defense.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, a national gun rights organization, also joined the lawsuit against the federal government.
The plaintiffs argued the law prohibited people from directly purchasing handguns from licensed dealers outside their state of residence, while allowing them to buy rifles and shotguns.
Handgun buyers were forced to arrange transfers through a licensed dealer in their state, which required them to depend on another dealer agreeing to participate in the transaction and usually included more fees and delays, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition.
The Firearms Policy Coalition said the ruling was a win for people's rights.
"This is a massive victory for the People and another major defeat for the federal government's unconstitutional gun-control regime," said the coalition's President Brandon Combs in a statement. "Your right to keep and bear arms does not stop at your state line, and the government cannot make you pay a penalty just to exercise it."
A district court in Texas granted the federal government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Sept. 30, 2025, finding the sale restrictions didn't function as a de facto prohibition on possession but were a reasonable commercial restriction enacted by Congress.
Congress passed the Sale Restrictions provision in 1968, finding that interstate commerce provided an easy way for citizens to evade states' gun laws at the time, according to the lower court.
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 19,524
- 32,582
