6pack
MSI BOD Member
We've talked about the HQL lawsuit needing $100k to get moving and much more if it continues to higher courts.
We've talked about the HQL lawsuit needing $100k to get moving and much more if it continues to higher courts.
the cost of justice, ain't it grand...
I'm sure one of the NRA instructors on the hprb would love the chance to train a large number of people.
I think you need more strategy.
I'd spend some time on WHO DOES GET APPROVED. HOW OFTEN THEY GET APPROVED. WHY THEY GET APPROVED/NOT DENIED.
You reap some benefits from KNOWING THE FACTS AND DATA about who is successful and why.
Without that, you're just shooting in the dark...
Just IMO.
I don't think that information should be public. After all everyone complained when it was talked about publishing the names and addresses of those who legally possess firearms. We can't have it both ways.That should be "public" information.
By that I mean there's surely a way to protect privacy yet still come to some understanding/knowledge as to who has permits.
While I have zero data, I'll bet the ranch that "connected" folks have either a different process and or different approval rate than the "unwashed" masses.
Until you have data, you...like me...are shooting blanks argument wise.
Unless you have data, you are fighting an uphill battle with their rules, on their turf, with your money on both sides of the legal battle.
If and when you can prove they are cooking the books/have at least two sets of rules, then the legality of their "process" will be shown the legal door pronto. Then and only then can you demonstrate it ain't about public safety for them or even Constitutional RIGHTS but indeed about inconsistent and unlawful CONTROL.
I think you need more strategy.
I'd spend some time on WHO DOES GET APPROVED. HOW OFTEN THEY GET APPROVED. WHY THEY GET APPROVED/NOT DENIED.
You reap some benefits from KNOWING THE FACTS AND DATA about who is successful and why.
Without that, you're just shooting in the dark...
Just IMO.
That should be "public" information.
By that I mean there's surely a way to protect privacy yet still come to some understanding/knowledge as to who has permits.
While I have zero data, I'll bet the ranch that "connected" folks have either a different process and or different approval rate than the "unwashed" masses.
Until you have data, you...like me...are shooting blanks argument wise.
Unless you have data, you are fighting an uphill battle with their rules, on their turf, with your money on both sides of the legal battle.
If and when you can prove they are cooking the books/have at least two sets of rules, then the legality of their "process" will be shown the legal door pronto. Then and only then can you demonstrate it ain't about public safety for them or even Constitutional RIGHTS but indeed about inconsistent and unlawful CONTROL.
I think you need more strategy.
I'd spend some time on WHO DOES GET APPROVED. HOW OFTEN THEY GET APPROVED. WHY THEY GET APPROVED/NOT DENIED.
You reap some benefits from KNOWING THE FACTS AND DATA about who is successful and why.
Without that, you're just shooting in the dark...
Just IMO.
Smart guy...notice the quotes around "public" and the discussion about privacy that followed?I don't think that information should be public. After all everyone complained when it was talked about publishing the names and addresses of those who legally possess firearms. We can't have it both ways.
So..I ain't an attorney. I didn't stay in a HI lately...Great, how would you propose that information gets attained so it can be looked at?