#resellers acquire | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

girlyholic · 1 year

Text

"Landmine Clothes" are Typically Not Even Girly Anymore: A Look into How Brands Use the Term

A main topic on this blog back when I started it was discussing the way the term "landmine" has been used in order to sell products. While I mostly covered entities like Lafary, who initially promoted it dishonestly on purpose for clout while it was highly associated with Girly fashion, there have been many other brands who have used it in the past two years in order to sell clothes, as popularity of the term has gone up and down.

But the effects of using this label to death as a selling point are starting to become more clear, now that we are beginning year 3 of the term evolving as a sales point. Because as it turns out, when a controversial term sells well, all kinds of brands will hop onto the trend in order to cash in: even if they're completely unrelated to how the fad initially looked.

Which brings us to the current state of the "style".

Another super long post incoming, so, putting a readmore as per usual.

Something important to start out with: brands and magazines are generally who are responsible for random terms being thought of as styles, which then gets parroted by other people. In fact there's an article on Yumekawaii, Yamikawaii that includes an interview with a Milklim representative, who had this to say about how styles acquire such names.

「私たちは私たちがかわいいと思うものを着ているだけで、そういう名前は外の人が勝手につけてるだけなんですよね」。

"We just wear what we think is cute, and those names are just given to us by outsiders".

Which brings us to landmine fashion, and the brands who tirelessly make up trends to push fads.

A big one is Anonenone, a Taobao reseller that seems to consider itself an authority on what's hot in the landmine fad. Their social media pages also tend to just say completely random things are now a "new trend", such as their recent claim that cyber fashion nowadays is a derivative of "サブカル系 (sabukaru-kei) and 天使界隈 (tenshi kaiwai)" due to it being light blue.

Cyber fashion is so old, a color shift would most certainly not be enough to make it a new derivative. And the two terms they mentioned are not actually fashions either, the latter one being the fan submission hashtag of this online magazine. This is a non-landmine example of what the main issue with their post is.

Anyway, looking into their landmine category on their website, while you will find a couple items that could be considered Girly, it mostly turns up accessories, and the rest of the clothes that are displayed are far from what was originally considered to be "landmine fashion".

Tracksuits and oversized striped sweaters have been quite popular among self-proclaimed landmines for a few months now. Even looking into the 地雷系 tag, you'll mostly find people wearing only those two things, as well as clothes that are very clearly other pre-existing styles, when before you would primarily get the black x pink coordinates that were synonymous with the stereotype.

This shift in what's considered landmine fashion is most prominent in how it has been covered by fashion outlets, such as Larme and Harajuku Pop. Larme actually has a partnership with the aforementioned Anonenone, which is why most of their recent issues recommend them in almost all of the coordinates featured. Although Larme has a rather interesting history with featuring landmine fashion, one that might be better for an entirely separate post...

Anyway, Harajuku Pop also recently did an online article about Reflem, as they're a "must see" brand for landmine girls, and all that's showcased is what I have previously discussed: tracksuits and what would just be considered Yamikawaii or punk-ish coordinates. Here's one example from that article:

And before anyone comes running to explain how all of my examples are just "substyles" of landmine fashion: substyles have to bear the same anatomy of the original style they stem from at least somewhat, hence substyle. Established styles don't just drastically change appearance like this. If pink x black Girly coordinates are what landmine fashion started out as, and now it's oversized sweaters and plain tracksuits, what is landmine as a style, anyway? The answer is that it isn't one.

Unless you count the color black as being the thing that ties landmine outfits together, which would be so broad that everything would be landmine.

To put it into perspective, even when the Girly tracksuit thing was in full swing earlier in 2022, before it had any other associations, the tracksuits coming out had elements of Girly in them, such as frills, dress designs that were similar to maid outfits or nun outfits, etc. They weren't just any, nondescript tracksuits like the ones that are now sold as being landmine, although you can still find that type of Girly tracksuits being pushed as being landmine, as with everything else that's been associated with the term.

I still see a ton of pushback in Western JFashion spaces about using the term Girly Kei, as "landmine is just so much easier of a term to use", but with what's currently being considered landmine within Japan, that no longer holds up. Because now what brands are referring to as landmine fashion is even more broad than Girly Kei, as it encompasses so many varied styles with nothing tying them together except, of course, the stereotype (which is usually just people trying to emulate the physical elements that became associated with it, such as having undereye blush and a hime-cut because that is what "seems" landmine).

The point is, we would have to get rid of several years of pre-established styles in order to fit everything that's being claimed as landmine right now under that one label, which is what makes it even more clear that it's a fad, not a legitimate style.

Especially since many of the brands who pushed the term the hardest, such as DearMyLove, have now gone back to using Girly to push sales, instead of only labeling everything as landmine like they did at the height of the fad. This is likely due to landmine becoming unrecognizable from the clothing they primarily sell, which, has always been called Girly.

#j*rai #jfashion #girly discourse

166 notes · View notes

custom-emojis · 1 year

Text

Hey guys this is a weird post I never thought I’d be making but. I have acquired some Ghost concert tickets from a friend who told me to resell them, for a show in Hamburg, Germany on June 19th.

I have 2 tickets and $162 USD was paid for them. I’m hoping to resell them since I was told I could, price is Negotiable but I’d ideally get at least $150 for em. I’m only selling both tickets together as well!

So if you know any Ghost fan who would be able to make it to Germany and would be interested in buying, please message me! I am being dead serious!

#ghost #ghost band

115 notes · View notes

sleepytoycollection · 8 months

Text

I have acquired the giant Luigi. 💚💚💚 They're only sold as carnival prizes and I've never encountered one in the wild. And resellers be wildin' with prices. But no one else bid and he's mine!!!!

#this boy is gonna get so many hugs

51 notes · View notes

caelichii · 9 months

Text

Soda Pop Pups - Hellhound Adoptable Batch First adoptable batch! Wanted to do these for a loong time and never got around to it. Reblogs are super appreciated to help me get these hellhounds to good homes!

Two on the right hand side (purple & blue) are EO only. Three on the left (green, orange, pink) are OTA with ABs set at £50 to encourage offers. Details and rules under the cut!

Green - limeade [OPEN] AB: £50

Orange - Passionfruit & Mango [CLOSED]

Pink - Summer Fruits [HOLD] AB: £50

Purple - Pastel Blackcurrant [EO] Entertaining Offers Only

Blue - Blueberries [EO] Entertaining Offers Only

OTA Can accept offers including:

££ / $$

art / customs

character trades

only offer what you have

please do not delete your offer without notifying me that you're backing out

offers above £20 will be highly considered but are not a guarantee

Adopt Rules

Adopts acquired via trade (art / character trades) have no currency value and should only be re-traded or gifted.

I retain the right to my artwork - do not claim the art / design as your own work

Do not use my designs for hateful, political or illicit content

Commercial rights are not included

Adopts have a 2 week cooldown - do not resell / trade within that time

You can change their details, outfits etc but please keep them recognisable to their original design

If you do not use ToyHouse, you must notify me of any ownership change and pass on my ToS to the next owner so that I can update ownership logs

You can either comment or DM me to offer!

35 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year

Text

Monopoly's event-horizon

When a superdense, concentrated mass forms a black hole, the laws of physics around it change, giving rise to an eldritch zone where the normal rules don’t apply. When corporations form a concentrated industry, the laws of economics likewise change.

Take copyright: when I was a baby writer, there were dozens of comparably sized New York publishers. The writers who mentored me could shop their rights around to lots of houses, which enabled them to subdivide those rights.

For example, they could separately sell paperback and hardcover rights, getting paid twice for the same book. Under those circumstances, giving authors broader copyrights and easier enforcement systems could directly translate into more groceries on those authors’ tables and more gas in their cars’ tanks.

But today, publishing has dwindled to five giant houses (possibly four soon, depending on whether Penguin Random House successfully appeals its blocked merger with Simon and Schuster). Under these conditions, giving exploited authors more copyright is like giving bullied schoolkids more lunch-money.

Whatever copyright authors get will be non-negotiably extracted from them via the near-identical, unviolable core contracting terms from the Big Five publisher. Today, the bullies don’t just take your paperback rights, they also acquire your audio and ebook rights.

Most of them now want your worldwide English rights, so you can’t resell the book in the Commonwealth, and some have started demanding graphic novel, film and TV rights.

In our new book, Rebecca Giblin and I call this “chokepoint capitalism”. In today’s highly concentrated creative labor markets, copyright’s normal role of giving creators bargaining leverage over their supply chain is transformed.

https://chokepointcapitalism.com

Instead of being a tool for creators, copyright is inevitably transferred to part of the supply chain — a publisher, label, streamer, ebook retailers, etc — where it becomes a tool to beat up on the rest of the supply chain, especially creators.

But copyright isn’t the only policy that breaks down at the event horizon of monopoly’s black hole. Policy itself breaks down, too. When power is pluralized among lots of firms an expert regulator can ask a technical question like “Does net neutrality lead to a decrease in private infrastructure investment?” and get lots of answers.

Some companies — cable operators hoping to override your choices about which data you want by slowing down traffic from sites unless they pay bribes — will insist that they can’t afford to build fiber without this incentive.

Others — ISPs who want to raid the cable operators’ customer base by giving you the data you request as fast as they can — will answer this charge. Both will provide supposedly empirical about their investment choices and capital and running costs, and both will vigorously probe the others’ submissions for factual weaknesses.

But when all the internet in your country has been monopolized so that nearly all Americans have little or no choice of ISP, the truth-seeking exercise of regulation becomes an auction, with the monopolists bidding together to bend reality (or regulation) to their will:

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality

This is called “regulatory capture”: when there are four or five companies running an industry, nearly everyone qualified to understand it is an executive at one of those companies. Obama’s “good” FCC chair was a cable lobbyist, Trump’s “bad” chair was a Verizon lawyer.

Ironically, the term “regulatory capture” originated with right-wing, anti-regulation nihilists. They argued that capture was inevitable and the only way to preserve competition was to eliminate all regulation, including the regulation that blocked monopoly formation.

https://doctorow.medium.com/regulatory-capture-59b2013e2526

Eliminating anti-monopoly rules had the entirely predictable effect of producing lots of monopolies. Today, nearly every global industry — beer, shipping, banking, athletic shoes, concert tickets, eyeglasses, etc — is dominated by a handful of firms:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

Today, the same people who advocated for removing anti-monopoly rules in every administration since Reagan’s insist that their deregulation has nothing to do with the growth of monopolies — that these monopolies arise out of some mysterious force of history: when it’s monopoly time, you get monopolies.

This is a wild thing to say aloud among reasonably intelligent adults, like claiming, “Well, when we put out rat poison, we didn’t have a rat problem. We stopped, and now we’re overrun by rats. But it would be hasty to assume that removing the rat poison led to the explosion of rats (by the way, does anyone have a cure for the plague?)”

But if you haven’t paid close attention to the history of antitrust law since the late 1970s, all of this might feel mysterious to you — or worse, you might mistake the cause for the effect: regulators keep making corrupt choices, so regulation itself is impossible.

This is like the artists’ rights advocate who says, “artists’ incomes keep falling, so we need more copyright” — in mistaking the effect for the cause, both blame the system, rather than the corporate power that has corrupted it.

The same is true in our online “censorship” “debate,” which poses the issue of speech online as one of “which speech rules should the Big Tech companies that have transformed the internet into five giant websites filled with screenshots of the other four adopt?”

https://doctorow.medium.com/yes-its-censorship-2026c9edc0fd

Good communities need good rules, sure — but by focusing on which rules we have, rather than what keeps people stuck in social media silos that have manifestly bad rules, we miss the point. Absenting yourself from the major social media platforms and online messaging tools extracts major costs on your personal, professional, educational and civil life, so many of us stay within those silos, even though every day we spend there is a torment.

The focus on penalizing firms with bad rules is another one of those mistaking-the-cause-for-the-effect-and-making-it-worse phenomena. A fine-grained, high-stakes duty to moderate makes it effectively impossible for small platforms — say, community-owned co-ops — to offer an alternative to Big Tech.

And once Big Tech platforms have a duty to police their users, they can argue, reasonably enough, that they can’t also be forced to interoperate with other platforms whose users they can’t spy on and thus can’t control.

The case that bad community managers give rise to toxic communities breaks down under conditions of monopoly, since attempts to improve platforms with billions of users are a) doomed (there is no three-ring binder big enough to encompass all the rules for three billion users) and b) inimical to standing up smaller, easier-to-administer communities.

Monopoly’s singularity also applies to free software and open source. In the mid-1980s, Richard Stallman coined the term “free software” to apply to software that respected your freedom, specifically, the freedom to inspect, improve and redistribute it.

These were considered the necessary preconditions for freedom in a digital world. Without a guaranteed right to inspect the code that you relied on and correct the defects you found in it, you were a prisoner to the errors or ill intentions of the software’s original author.

In 1998, another name was proposed for software licensed on “free” terms: “open source.” Nominally, this term was intended to resolve the ambiguity between “free as in beer” and “free as in speech” — that is, to make it clear that “free software” didn’t mean “noncommercial software.”

This was said to be necessary to resolve the fears of commercial firms that had been frightened away from free software due to a misunderstanding. As part of this shift, advocates for “open source” shifted their emphasis from free software’s ethical proposition (“software that gives you freedom”) to an instrumental narrative.

Open source software was claimed to be higher quality than proprietary software, because it hewed to the Enlightenment values of transparency, replicability and peer review (“with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”).

Along with this claim, there was a second argument that open source software was cheaper to develop because a “community” would gather to help maintain it. Sometimes, this was couched as a “commons” where lots of actors, large and small, would work to produce a community good.

In 2018 Benjamin “Mako” Hill delivered a keynote to the Libreplanet conference that was a kind of postmortem to the 20-year experiment in instrumentalism (open source) over ethics (free software):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBknF2yUZZ8

Mako concluded that the experiment was a failure, producing a situation in which the tech giants enjoyed unlimited software freedom (because they ran the cloud servers we all depended on) while the rest of us merely had open source (the right to inspect the software powering the cloud, and to suggest ways to modify it).

In this account, the shift from ethics to instrumentalism paved the way for a series of compromises that turned the commons into a sharecropper’s precarious farmstead. When the open community was asked whether cloud software should be subjected to the same copyleft terms as software distributed for users, they weighed this as an instrumental proposition (“will this make the software better”), not an ethical one (“will this give users more freedom?”), and concluded that the answer was “this is fine.”

I think there’s a lot to this explanation — if nothing else, it explains how such a drastic shift took place without much hue and cry. But there’s another phenomenon at work that Mako’s account doesn’t grapple with: the rise of tech monopolies.

The reason that ethical propositions related to software freedom were sidelined so effectively in the decades after 1998 is the increasing power of tech monopolies: as tech giants gobbled up their competitors or put them out of business with predatory pricing, they gained power over regulators, universities, and individual technologists (increasingly employed by or dependent on a tech giant).

Copyleft — like copyright — breaks down at the event horizon of concentrated corporate power. With copyright, the breakdown manifests as the appropriation of copyright’s “power to exclude” by the firms it was supposed to be wielded against. With copyleft, it manifests as “software freedom” being hoarded by the same firms that copyleft licenses were supposed to keep in check.

This phenomenon isn’t limited to free software — it also plagues open-licensed “content” — material released under Creative Commons licenses, say. A year ago, Paul Keller and Alek Tarkowski published an important essay on “openness” entitled “The Paradox of Open”:

https://paradox.openfuture.eu/

In this essay, the authors — both significant contributors to the world of free software and open content — identify a phenomenon akin to the Mako’s observation of “freedom for big companies, openness for the rest of us.” From Openstreetmap to CC-licensed creative works, corporate monopolies have supercharged their power by plundering the commons.

This month, Open Future, who published “Paradox,” published a series of responses to the original paper:

https://paradox.openfuture.eu/responses/

They are uniformly excellent, but the one that I am most interested in comes from James Boyle, “Misunderestimating Openness”:

https://openfuture.eu/paradox-of-open-responses/misunderestimating-openness/

Here, Boyle sharply disagrees with Keller and Tarkowski’s argument, grouping it with similar claims about content moderation and censorship, arguing that openness was only ever a necessary — but insufficient — precondition for a better world. In the same way, online speech forums might be terrible places, but this is a failure of their moderators and their communities and their business-models, not an indictment of the idea of online discourse itself.

Both papers grapple with concentrated corporate power as a corrupting force, but neither puts it in the center of the breakdown of otherwise sound practices.

Reading all these people whom I respect and admire so much debating whether “openness” is good or bad makes me even more certain that fighting concentrated corporate power is the precondition for success in all other goals.

Fighting concentrated corporate power may seem like a tall order, and it is, but in that fight, we have comfort in a key idea from Boyle’s own work.

Boyle describes the history of the term “ecology.” Before this term was in widespread use, it wasn’t clear when two people were engaged in the same struggle. If you care about endangered owls and I care about the ozone layer, are we on the same team?

What do charismatic nocturnal avians have to do with the gaseous composition of the upper atmosphere?

The term “ecology” turns these issues (and a thousand more) into a movement.

Today, there are people of all walks of life living in all kinds of hurt who think their pain is caused by phenomena that are downstream of corporate power. Once we figure that out — once we figure out that to make our tools work again, we need to escape the event horizon of the capitalist singularity — then we can really begin the fight in earnest.

Image: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (modified)

CC BY 2.0 (asserted; more likely public domain) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[Image ID: A NASA rendering entitled 'Neutron Stars Rip Each Other Apart to Form Black Hole,' pictured as a Fibonacci spiral of glowing red lines on black background. Superimposed over this is an image of Monopoly's 'Rich Uncle Pennybags,' clutching a Grim Reaper's scythe rather than a cane, his face a skull. The lower half of his body has been stretched and is disappearing into the black hole at the center of the NASA image. He is limned with red and orange and sports a red/orange comet-tail.]

#pluralistic #the paradox of open #monopoly #singularity

123 notes · View notes

the-bjd-community-confess · 1 year

Text

I moved to Japan last September, and one thing I was looking forward to a lot was attending Dolpa. I went to the one in December where they had Marie Antoinette, who I really wanted. Unfortunately, they sold out while I was in the queue which was a bummer. I had fun at the event buying stuff from various artists (if you haven’t been to a Dolpa in Japan, imagine the artist alley of a typical convention but only doll stuff)however I was a bit sad that I missed out on some stuff due to the artists selling out. Later that week I went on Instagram and discord and saw non-Japanese people with Mary Antoinette. The dolls release at Dolpa almost month earlier than other release methods (online, V0lksUSA), so these must have been from Dolpa. I said something like ‘omg! You were at Dolpa too?!’ because I thought I could have met those people! But what they told me have me some mixed feelings. They hadn’t attended the event at all but had paid proxies to buy the dolls for them. I didn’t think much of it at first, but then I started to see more and more dolls - Marie, Lady Oscar, even the D0llfie dreams that were also available, that people had acquired via proxy without attending the event at all. I also started to realise that a lot of the people with dealer and artist items had also paid proxies to get them. I thought about how I had been at the actual event, in the line, and missed out, while some proxy had made a tidy profit. It made me a bit irritated. Now another Dolpa is coming up, and I am literally seeing proxies advertise ‘slots’. Am I the only person who feels very uncomfortable about this? When people who attend the event miss out, but people who fork over cash to a proxy who is definitely using multiple people to buy up multiple dolls… it gives me a very negative feeling. Here in Japan, this practise is known as ‘Tenbuyer’ (combination of tenbai (resell) and English ‘buyer’ and is looked down on with disgust.

When I attend spring Dolpa, how many people in the same line as me are ‘tenbuyers’ profitting off people so desperate for new dolls they can’t even wait until the international sales…? It’s a bit depressing, to be honest. I am in a small chat group of Japanese hobbyists and was venting about it, and they told me that the tenbuyer thing is a huge problem now, and there are many hobbyists who distrust foreign buyers because of it. I only joined this hobby in the last 2 years or so, so I didn’t know the problem was this bad. I don’t want to shame the people who have paid proxies to acquire dolls from events they aren’t attending, however I would like them to consider why they aren’t just using the regular release methods.

For dealer and artist stuff, I know there isn’t any other way to get it sometimes, but the dealers themselves are starting to cotton on to their stock going to tenbuyers who sell it to people overseas instead of people who have paid to attend the event and are missing out. This is a messy post and I might not be very clear in my opinions. Thank you for reading until the end. I am sure many comments will call me selfish. Some of you may have acquired dolls you wouldn’t have otherwise, and maybe that isn’t a bad thing. However, I don’t think proxies should be profitting so much over this

~Anonymous

#BJD #ABJD #BJD Confessions #Community Confessions #BJD Cons #BJD Dealers

31 notes · View notes

saltminerising · 6 months

Text

https://saltminerising.tumblr.com/post/732636257492107264/ok-the-whole-f2p-not-rich-player-sentiment-is#notes

100% agree with Anon. Just to provide some numbers, I’m f2p and currently have nearly 60kg in pure right now and a lair, that if liquified, would be worth a small fortune as well. This is just the result of fairgrounds, light coli-grinding during fests/NotN, selling random junk I acquire in my hoard, and reselling UMAs I no longer need. Nothing more. I am sure that there are other f2p players out there that do more than me, whether that be gameplay or art sales, that earn buckets more.

That is to say: f2p does not equal broke, and I’m not sure why there seems to be so many posts here recently that make a distinction between “broke, f2p” players and “elite” G1 and UMA collectors. F2p players exist in both communities and I don’t feel it’s fair to make this debate into a “rich player issue” when that isn’t really the case.

#submission #g1s #skins and accents

13 notes · View notes

cogitoergofun · 23 days

Text

Twenty-five years ago, Scott King, then mayor of Gary, Indiana, spoke solemnly as he described a new strategy the city was taking to deal with the flow of illegally purchased guns fueling violent crime there.

Undercover Gary police officers had fanned out across the area for Operation Hollowpoint, successfully purchasing guns and ammunition at federally licensed firearm retailers despite representing themselves as suspicious buyers. King presented surveillance footage in an 18-minute video produced by the city.

Inside one pawn shop, a bespectacled clerk and two undercover police officers are shown discussing a 9 mm pistol. After the male officer admitted he did not have the permit required to buy the gun, the female officer accompanying him told the clerk she did. The clerk then suggested she buy the gun on her partner’s behalf in violation of federal gun restrictions.

“Might as well put it in your name then so I don’t have to make a call,” the clerk responded. “The feds are constantly screwing with people.”

The footage, which documented four suspicious purchases at different retailers selling guns, showed “how easy juveniles, felons and other prohibited purchasers can acquire guns from legitimate gun dealers through the use of a straw purchaser,” King said in the video.

The stings formed the basis of the city’s historic lawsuit seeking to hold local gun retailers and major gun manufacturers, such as Smith & Wesson, Glock and others, responsible for illegal sales like those uncovered in the investigation. As part of the suit, the city sought monetary damages and changes in industry practices.

Relentless legislative and legal efforts across the country have eliminated a flurry of lawsuits initiated by cities against the industry two decades ago. A bill approved by the Indiana legislature and signed into law this month by Gov. Eric Holcomb may be the final blow to Gary’s suit, the last one standing from that original group of cases.

But the problem of illicit gun sales outlined by King and detailed in that grainy footage remains and continues to contribute to violence in northwest Indiana, nearby Chicago and beyond.

Over the years, Gary’s lawyers have sought to keep the suit going by arguing that negligence plagues the firearms industry, not just in the city but across the region, creating an ongoing public nuisance. To emphasize that point in court filings, they’ve included long lists of federal indictments of gun traffickers and their ties to illegal purchases at northwest Indiana retailers.

Combing through the suit’s voluminous records, ProPublica found and then analyzed over 100 separate criminal cases involving straw sales — transactions where suspects participated in schemes to buy guns from federally licensed retailers and resell them to people barred by law from purchasing guns themselves.

The federal gun cases represent a small but illustrative sampling of the nation’s illegal gun trade, whose contours are well known to law enforcement but shrouded in mystery to the public because of industry-backed laws that keep a tight lid on data involving illicit gun sales.

Some of the cases examined by ProPublica involve just one transaction for a single firearm. Others are part of elaborate and organized schemes, where prolific traffickers use others with clean records to purchase multiple guns from one retailer, then head to the next gun shop and repeat the process over and over again. Most can be tied back to at least one northwest Indiana gun retailer.

One of the cases involves three guns purchased in 2020 that ended up in the hands of a wanted fugitive. He later turned one of those pistols on two police officers in Wisconsin, seriously injuring both. “I knew that at some point I may die that night,” one officer later testified.

But just as those examples showcase the scope of the straw sale problem in the United States, the vigorous effort by the firearms industry to quash the suit shows its commitment to the push back against stepped-up regulation and legal threats.

[...]

Gary’s attorneys have for years sought those documents as they try to prove that manufacturers are aware of the straw sales occurring at the Indiana retailers they supply. But the discovery process might never be completed, now that the Indiana legislature has passed a bill making the Gary lawsuit and any like it illegal. The intent of legislators was clear: The law was made retroactive to Aug. 27, 1999 — three days before Gary filed its lawsuit.

[...]

Melton, himself a former state senator, strode to a podium inside a meeting room at the Statehouse and made his pitch. “I’m asking you to think about what kind of precedent this will set,” he said. “Local governments have the right to fight back against bad actors. What message will this send across our state and nation if Indiana were to pass a bill that allows the state to inject itself in an active lawsuit and effectively eliminate this right?”

Aaron Freeman, a Republican and one of the bill’s chief backers, was unmoved. The power of such legal action should, as the bill dictates, rest in the hands of the state’s attorney general, he said.

“This one is out of bounds,” he said of Gary’s lawsuit. “It’s a 25-year-old situation. There’s other municipalities that could do this, and I think only the state of Indiana should.”

The Senate eventually passed the bill by a vote of 33 to 15, along party lines.

More than two decades ago, when its suit was filed, Gary joined a wave of American cities that included Detroit and Chicago seeking solutions to gun violence problems through legal action. Under pressure, the firearms industry then turned to its political allies for relief.

In 2003, Congress passed a law known as the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from publicly releasing information identifying the retailers who originally sold guns confiscated by police during criminal investigations.

Two years later, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which radically altered the nation’s relationship with guns. It gave manufacturers and retailers broad protections against civil litigation. Following passage of the act, lawsuits against the industry began to crumble.

In 2015, the Indiana legislature passed its own law granting additional protections to firearm manufacturers, dealers and retailers. After then-Gov. Mike Pence signed the bill into law, defendants in the Gary suit all moved to have the case thrown out.

4 notes · View notes

emilylaj · 6 months

Text

🦋 Mind the Moths 🦋

Drawtober 2: Moth Bitten Library

The rules of this library are as follows:

Mind the moths. They are hungry for knowledge just like you.

Inside voices only (Books excluded).

NO Spell-Casting. Enchantments, potions, curses, and rituals are prohibited in the common areas. Practice rooms are located in the basement and can be reserved up to 48 in advance.

Light orbs and magnifying glasses are available upon request.

Ask for assistance in acquiring books floating higher than 6 ft.

Red-spined books will BITE if mishandled; read with caution.

No need to return books. They will find their way book.

～✦～✦～✦～✦～✦～✦～✦～✦～✦～✦～

✦ Like my art? Consider supporting me: Ko-fi. For custom art for personal use, view my Commission Info. For graphic design/art for business purposes, i.e to make profit from reselling the work as a product, using it for advertising/promotion, etc., view my Contract Details on my website: emilylaj.com/contract-details. ✦

5 notes · View notes

iptvtunes · 2 months

Text

IPTV Codes for Android Devices

https://iptvtunes.com/

Are you feeling restricted by the limited channel options on your Android device? Have you ever pondered the possibility of expanding your streaming choices affordably? Look no further! This article delves into the realm of IPTV codes designed for Android devices, showcasing the incredible potential they hold for enhancing your entertainment experience.

In essence, IPTV codes open up a vast array of channels, delivering global content directly to your Android device. With just a few codes, you can gain access to a plethora of movies, TV shows, sports events, and more. Picture enjoying premium content without the burden of hefty subscription fees. This article provides a comprehensive breakdown, guiding you through the process of acquiring and utilizing IPTV codes on your Android device.

Understanding IPTV Codes

IPTV codes play a pivotal role in enhancing the functionality of IPTV on Android devices. Essentially, these codes serve as keys to unlock a vast array of channels, content libraries, and features. The benefits they bring to the table are not only significant but also contribute to the growing popularity of IPTV among Android users.

How to Find and Use IPTV Codes

IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) codes, also known as IPTV subscription codes or M3U codes, are alphanumeric strings that provide access to IPTV services. Please note that using IPTV codes to access content without proper authorization may violate copyright laws and terms of service, so it’s important to use them responsibly and within legal boundaries.

To Become iptv Reseller

Here’s a general guide on how to find and use IPTV codes:

Finding IPTV Codes:

Online Forums and Communities:

Many IPTV users share codes and playlists on forums and online communities. Look for IPTV-related forums or groups where users share their experiences and codes.

Social Media:

Platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook have communities dedicated to IPTV. Search for keywords like “IPTV codes” or “IPTV playlists” to find relevant discussions.

IPTV Providers:

Some IPTV service providers offer free trial codes to potential customers. Check the official websites of reputable IPTV services to see if they provide trial codes.

YouTube Tutorials:

YouTube often has tutorials and videos where users share IPTV codes. Be cautious and verify the legitimacy of the source before using any codes.

Using IPTV Codes:

M3U Playlist URL:

The most common form of IPTV codes is the M3U playlist URL. It is a text file that contains information about the channels and streams. Copy the M3U URL provided by the code.

IPTV Player:

Use an IPTV player or application to input the M3U URL. Popular players include VLC, Kodi, IPTV Smarters, and others. Download and install the player on your device.

Player Configuration:

Open the IPTV player and locate the option to add a new playlist or source. Paste the M3U URL into the designated field.

Verify and Save:

Verify that the playlist is working by checking a few channels. Save the playlist, and the player will usually refresh to display the available channels.

Enjoy IPTV:

Once the playlist is added successfully, you can start enjoying IPTV channels. Navigate through the channels using the player’s interface.

IPTV Services What You Need to Know Related To IPTV

Important Considerations:

Legal and Ethical Use:

Ensure that you have the legal right to access the content. Avoid using codes that provide unauthorized access to copyrighted material.

Security:

Be cautious about the sources from which you obtain IPTV codes. Avoid sharing personal information, and use reputable sources to minimize security risks.

Quality and Reliability:

Consider using reputable IPTV services to ensure better content quality, reliability, and customer support.

Top IPTV Codes for Android Devices

Navigating through the myriad of available IPTV codes can be overwhelming. To simplify your choices, we review some of the top IPTV codes for Android, comparing their features and performance. This section acts as a comprehensive guide for users looking to make informed decisions.

Tips for Optimizing IPTV Experience on Android

While IPTV codes enhance your streaming experience, it’s crucial to optimize the overall performance on your Android device. Learn about compatibility, and gain insights into troubleshooting common issues to ensure a seamless and enjoyable IPTV experience.

Legal Considerations and Best Practices

Before delving deeper, it’s essential to address the legality of IPTV codes. This section outlines the legal landscape and provides best practices for responsible use, ensuring users stay within the bounds of the law while enjoying IPTV content on their Android devices.

Future Trends in IPTV Technology

As technology advances, so does the world of IPTV. Explore the evolving features and anticipated developments in IPTV for Android devices, providing readers with a glimpse into the future of streaming technology.

User Reviews and Recommendations

Real-world experiences matter. This section showcases user reviews and recommendations, offering valuable insights from those who have explored the world of IPTV on their Android devices. Learn from their experiences and make informed choices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, IPTV codes for Android devices open up a world of entertainment possibilities. Recap the benefits and express final thoughts on how these codes revolutionize the way we consume digital content.

https://iptvtunes.com/

#iptv usa #iptv subscription #iptv firestick #iptv #adult iptv #iptv m3u #best iptv #iptv in 2023 #movies #tv series

2 notes · View notes

multystuff · 5 months

Text

The must haves tools and software which makes you rich, its market value over $1000 now 87% off...

Over time, technology continues to advance, causing us to integrate old things and traditional methods with new technology. In the field of digital marketing, these changes happen very quickly. Consequently, the skills we acquire either become obsolete, or their productivity diminishes if not adapted to new technologies. In today's era, Artificial Intelligence is predominant, and we are gradually entering the AI era. Due to this, many jobs, especially in digital marketing, are at risk. Some creators even fear that AI might replace their work.

In such situations, there are tools and software that act as a foundation, with their utility existing both before and after the advent of AI. Without these tools and software, we cannot effectively utilize AI. Our team thoroughly analyzed this matter, conducted market research, and developed a bundle of tools and software that will remain essential. If you use these software and implement them effectively, no one can stop your success in digital marketing. These digital products are designed for every platform.

For instance, if you are a YouTuber, there are video editing and audio editing software, after-effects tools, and copyright-free background music. If you own an agency or work as a freelancer, there are numerous audio-video templates that you can use for running your ads. If you sell digital products on Etsy or any online platform, there are graphics bundles, after-effects tools, face tools, neon kit bundles, eBooks, AI-generated t-shirt bundles, logo designs, Corel Draw, and many other products available.

Whether you are a content creator, SEO expert, or web designer, there is something for everyone in this bundle. The best part is that you can use it for your creativity and resell it. We provide resale rights for all these products to ensure you face no problems in the future. Additionally, we offer other services alongside, with customer support being the most crucial. Our team is active 24 hours a day to promptly address any inquiries or issues because, in the end, trust builds a brand, and our main goal is to stand by our customers' trust.

The market value of this entire bundle is over $1000, but today we are offering it at a significantly reduced price. We are providing an 87% discount on this product, along with a $500 bonus, but this bonus is exclusive to the first 50 buyers. So, don't delay; click on the link provided now, visit our product page for complete details, and who knows, you might not get such a golden opportunity again.

Click link below to know more

https://multystuff-reviews.com/

5 notes · View notes