Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on December 16, 2012, 04:14:17 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html
The Huffington Post is reporting that Senator Feinstein will be introducing a new AWB when the new Congress begins. Hopefully this discussion will go better than the last AWB thread.
-
I saw her on Meet the Press this morning. She said the bill will be simultaneously submitted to the House and Senate. It entails banning 940 firearms and that includes the sale, transfer?, and poessession of these firearms. The bill if passed as written would be retroactive. That is what I think she said, but not what is in the article above. It also bans the poessession and use of magazines (etc) which hole more than 10-rounds. This is pretty hard core.
My version is a little different from the linked article. This AWB is certainly not a renewal.
You can watch the entire show by going to the NBC website. I think that I am going to watch it again for some of the finer points.
Added: It is not RETROACTIVE but PROSPECTIVE. I wanted to clarify this as that would be a huge deal.
-
She's 79 years old now. Any word on her health?
-
I saw her on Meet the Press this morning. She said the bill will be simultaneously submitted to the House and Senate. It entails banning 940 firearms and that includes the sale, transfer, and poession of these firearms. The bill if passed as written would be retroactive. That is what I think she said, but not what is in the article above. It also bans the poession and use of magazines (etc) which hole more than 10-rounds. This is pretty hard core.
You can watch the entire show by going to the NBC website.
How does crap like this even PRETEND to get around the prohibition on ex-post-facto laws???
-
We need a ban on assault congresscritters, considering how they continue to assault us with nonsensical laws and restrictions on our liberty.
-
I wonder what Heller's "weapons in common use" clause would do to a law like this in .
-
I think we are going to find out relative to Heller and individual rights. Never stopped them from trying to pass an unconstitutional law before. Just look at Obama Care. Then the issue of new nominations to the Surpeme Court come into play that will likely happen during the next 4-years.
Sandy Hook appears to have lasting ramifications.
-
How does crap like this even PRETEND to get around the prohibition on ex-post-facto laws???
They really don't give a *expletive deleted*it about the constitution, they just don't have the honesty say so, or to try to amend it.
-
Republican majority in the House, and slim Democratic margin in the Senate.
How is this going to pass ??? [popcorn]
Or will the Emporer just decree it ? ;/
-
How does crap like this even PRETEND to get around the prohibition on ex-post-facto laws???
Because the rule only applies to penalising people for past conduct. It does not mean that anything you ever bought cannot be confiscated.
-
Because the rule only applies to penalising people for past conduct. It does not mean that anything you ever bought cannot be confiscated.
They wantz my gunz....they'd better bring THEIR GUNZ. [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: >:D >:D
-
They wantz my gunz....they'd better bring THEIR GUNZ. [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: >:D >:D
Saying things like that strongly increases the chance that they will indeed take your guns
-
Saying things like that strongly increases the chance that they will indeed take your guns
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Because the rule only applies to penalising people for past conduct. It does not mean that anything you ever bought cannot be confiscated.
Takings clause? It doesn't specify real estate (its common use) it says "private property", and since "just compensation" is pretty damn easy to determine given market values and numerous insurance cases settled by judges, it would be tough to do a confiscation. Remember, this isn't gold (that worked due to packing threats, and the fact it was actually money then, and thus market value was established, and it was an "exchange".
The government has never really been able to confiscate anything, only make its use or future production illegal or regulated (see drugs, leaded gas, Hughes amendment, etc)
If the penalty for not surrendering property is criminal, then ex post facto applies, so possession becomes a civil matter or eminent domain.
Extension of eminent domain to objects is a big stretch, and would be challenged heavily. Additionally, even if the takings clause were twisted to allow this, the .gov can simply not afford to provide fair value, and thus nearly ever case would be challenged.
Additionally could the .gov even afford it? There are 300 million firearms, even if 1/3rd are eligible, and the average price is $300-500, that's $30-50 billion, plus the economic effects of killing that industry...and the calls from those companies to their congress critters.
Molon labe.
-
They wantz my gunz....they'd better bring THEIR GUNZ. [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: >:D >:D
After watching you for months, I've determined that your reckless full-auto use of emoticons is unacceptable. As such, I propose the ECA (emoticon control act)
-
I suspect the prices of firearms and magazines under consideration wil rise sharply, as they did in late '94. I have found no online retailer that shows 9mm Gockazines in stock. Botach doesn't count. (They lie) I ordered anyway. I will report the outcome.
-
After watching you for months, I've determined that your reckless full-auto use of emoticons is unacceptable. As such, I propose the ECA (emoticon control act)
As long as I can still use "the thing that goes up" I will be happy!!!! :-* [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] :-* :-* [popcorn] [popcorn] :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I wonder if Feinstein's bill is going to ban fully automatic weapons, or just the "semi-automatic assault rifles." Because it would be rather humorous if they banned all of the semi-auto stuff and forgot that the Title II stuff is still available.
'Course, that would just be a good excuse to go ahead and ban the automatics. ;/
-
As long as I can still use "the thing that goes up" I will be happy!!!! :-* [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] :-* :-* [popcorn] [popcorn] :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now, now, this is a family-friendly forum.
-
Time to start writing and calling your representative now. With a Republican majority in the House they can keep it from even being heard.
-
You're assuming that the GOP has a spine
-
I wonder if Feinstein's bill is going to ban fully automatic weapons, or just the "semi-automatic assault rifles." Because it would be rather humorous if they banned all of the semi-auto stuff and forgot that the Title II stuff is still available.
'Course, that would just be a good excuse to go ahead and ban the automatics. ;/
Intriguing notion.
Time to finish that 26mm flare rifle off properly, and look into a Tec9, Uzi, or full auto MPA... hmm.
-
Well, we have a couple weeks to ponder it and then the bill will be introduced we can read it hopefully. It sounds more restrictive than the last one where certain qualities combined made a gun illegal. This time it seems to be just "semi-automatic". Don't be surprised if this gets support, that semi-auto handguns are rolled into the mix. This creates a huge 2A issue.
If the Democrats are up to their usual dealings and this bill gets little traction, look for them to try to attach it to another bill such as spending cuts. I hope both Democrats and Republicans both see that as offensive.
-
Just got back from a football watching party with a bunch of lawyers, including several staffers for Congress-critters. The sooting came up, and the talk of these staffers is that there has been email traffic about intoducing legislation to outlaw all autos, semi and full. Plan to stand on the theory that 2A will be satisfied by allowing private ownership of other guns, like revolvers. Push the emotional edge to gain bipartisan support. No mention of retroactive application//confiscation, amd I sure wasn't bringing it up/planting seeds.
I've now seen similar soundbites on the news. This is scary stuff, as I've now heard some gunnys say they could live with that
-
They really don't give a *expletive deleted* about the constitution, they just don't have the honesty say so, or to try to amend it.
I think Bill Whittle has given possibly the most direct and concise summary concerning this.
http://youtu.be/bNzPVqgFRSg
To the OP: I'm starting to wonder if 35 standard capacity magazines for my AR is enough. =|
-
Just got back from a football watching party with a bunch of lawyers, including several staffers for Congress-critters. The sooting came up, and the talk of these staffers is that there has been email traffic about intoducing legislation to outlaw all autos, semi and full. Plan to stand on the theory that 2A will be satisfied by allowing private ownership of other guns, like revolvers. Push the emotional edge to gain bipartisan support. No mention of retroactive application//confiscation, amd I sure wasn't bringing it up/planting seeds.
I've now seen similar soundbites on the news. This is scary stuff, as I've now heard some gunnys say they could live with that
And then another whackjob kills some folks with Daddy's 870 birdgun, or Grandpappy's 30.30...and away we go. =|
-
Birdman, there's a takings clause question for sure but several factors make it less than promising for gun owners.
Eminent domain applies to all property - even intellectual property. But it generally isn't considered eminent domain to completely eliminate a kind of property for public interest reasons. I haven't had a detailed look since law school, but IIRC a good rule of thumb is that if the government isn't using the property or giving it to someone else for value (or reducing the value of property through some related economic activity, eg, flying planes low over someone else's land), there probably won't be any right to compensation.
What the government can do is make possession illegal - after a certain date. Ex post facto would only apply if the government made pre-ban possession illegal, in which case you would be liable for a crime that happened before the law was passed.
The only real legal barrier to a ban is the second amendment as interpreted by the Heller decision. That is where new regulations will stand or fall.
Edit: iPhone fixup
-
You're assuming that the GOP has a spine.
And therein lies the problem. The GOP frequently proves the malleability the Party's spine.
-
Birdman, there's a takings clause question for sure but several factors make it less than promising for gun owners.
Eminent domain applies to all property - even intellectual property. But it generally isn't considered eminent domain to completely eliminate a kind of property for public interest reasons. I haven't had a detailed look since law school, but IIRC a good rule of thumb is that if the government isn't using the property or giving it to someone else for value (or reducing the value of property through some related economic activity, eg, flying planes low over someone else's land), there probably won't be any right to compensation.
What the government can do is make possession illegal - after a certain date. Ex post facto would only apply if the government made pre-ban possession illegal, in which case you would be liable for a crime that happened before the law was passed.
The only real legal barrier to a ban is the second amendment as interpreted by the Heller decision. That is where new regulations will stand or fall.
Edit: iPhone fixup
Regarding future possession, can you name something that isn't destroyed upon use (eg drugs) (and thus the "use" becomes the regulated act) that the government has successfully made possession of illegal when the manufacture date was before the law was enacted?
I can think of numerous things that have been banned, but I can't think of anything that has been banned where the possession of previously manufactured items is now illegal.
-
What the government can do is make possession illegal - after a certain date. Ex post facto would only apply if the government made pre-ban possession illegal, in which case you would be liable for a crime that happened before the law was passed.
How is this different from a "taking"?
I own a widget. It's mine. I bought, I paid for it, widgets are legal. My widget is my property.
If the .gov enacts a law that says after July 1, 2013, possession of widgets is unlawful and anyone found in possession of a widget shall be fined or imprisoned or both -- that boils down to my being deprived of the lawful possession and enjoyment of MY property, that I bought and paid for in a completely legal and above-board transaction.
Say I own 50 widgets, and the average value of my widgets is $750. If I have to dispose of or destroy them all as of June 30, 2013, I'm out of pocket $37,500. How is this NOT a violation of the 5th Amendment?
-
How is this different from a "taking"?
I own a widget. It's mine. I bought, I paid for it, widgets are legal. My widget is my property.
If the .gov enacts a law that says after July 1, 2013, possession of widgets is unlawful and anyone found in possession of a widget shall be fined or imprisoned or both -- that boils down to my being deprived of the lawful possession and enjoyment of MY property, that I bought and paid for in a completely legal and above-board transaction.
Say I own 50 widgets, and the average value of my widgets is $750. If I have to dispose of or destroy them all as of June 30, 2013, I'm out of pocket $37,500. How is this NOT a violation of the 5th Amendment?
It is, and has been challenged as such, specifically with regard to coastline and wetlands. There the opposing argument is based on extension of public use to mean public benefit from NOT developing the land (BS I know), but it hasn't been extended to property--even intellectual property, in fact, the govt has been sued successfully for infringing on private IP as a 5th amendment takings.
Again, I ask, can anyone name something where future possession of prior created (with the "not destroyed in use" caveat) has been done?
-
You're assuming that the GOP has a spine
No, he's reminding us that we are the spine.
-
i would like to take this opportunity to call for banning idiot politicians. yes really, deporting them to Iran would be a small start.
-
Regarding future possession, can you name something that isn't destroyed upon use (eg drugs) (and thus the "use" becomes the regulated act) that the government has successfully made possession of illegal when the manufacture date was before the law was enacted?
I can think of numerous things that have been banned, but I can't think of anything that has been banned where the possession of previously manufactured items is now illegal.
The obvious one is slaves - but why did you think that destruction upon use would be relevant? A drug ban isn't more or less a taking because the goods are consumed.
Hawk moon, public interest regulatory moves and the exercise of police powers by the state are and always have been treated differently than commercial activities. The reason why the .gov is taking your widgets makes a big difference.
Birdman, the rules of eminent domain to takings apply to any property. Whether its tangible, intangible, real or personal. In some cases, restrictions on even on real property that reduce value are not compensible, depending on the regulatory power being exercised.
"Destruction on use" isn't a feature of takings law.
-
The act of enslavement is harm visited on another person, akready criminalized so I don't see how you can legitimately compare transacting in slaves with transacting in previously legal widgets as it relates to takings.
-
The reason I brought up the destroyed upon use was having a possession law on such things could be done with a time-horizon, and new manufacture banned.
As for slavery, they didn't make possession of slaves illegal, they made ownership of citizens illegal, and they made the property CITIZENS, a slight difference.
So again, any examples of banned property?
-
The reason I brought up the destroyed upon use was having a possession law on such things could be done with a time-horizon, and new manufacture banned.
As for slavery, they didn't make possession of slaves illegal, they made ownership of citizens illegal, and they made the property CITIZENS, a slight difference.
So again, any examples of banned property?
Gold. Exotic Animals.
-
The reason I brought up the destroyed upon use was having a possession law on such things could be done with a time-horizon, and new manufacture banned.
As for slavery, they didn't make possession of slaves illegal, they made ownership of citizens illegal, and they made the property CITIZENS, a slight difference.
So again, any examples of banned property?
Just a point to note there: slaves weren't citizens and many slave owners did believe they should be compensated. Emancipation specifically didn't deal with the dredd Scott question.
I've given two examples federally - drugs and slaves. Numerous states have banned possession of weapons like black jacks, brass knuckles, etc with no defense of "owned before the ban", NY being a prime example often cited in gun discussions.
Where does this notion that a time horizon for use has something to do with takings come from? I've never heard of it and can't see how it would be relevant to the takings question, legally anyway. It might matter for government policy, but it certainly doesn't change constitutional analysis.
-
Gold. Exotic Animals.
Gold was money, and fair market exchange was the logic used, currency for currency, $35/oz
Exotic animals that have been banned, but were in legal possession before the ban were not destroyed or confiscated.
And to address DS's question, my point remains, the reason I ask is to put in context that a confiscatory law would be treading on really new ground.
The reason I put a time horizon is to ATTEMPT to elucidate the logic pols might use when banning certain things in a confiscatory fashion. If the item is perishable, or destroyed upon use, then you don't have to confiscate it, but rather make the use illegal, thus avoiding the takings argument.
Why is my question so difficult to understand?
-
Obama said he wants to take "meaningful" measures. Fellow travelers echo "meaningful" actions. "Meaningful" is a different word introduced into the debate so it makes me wonder what will be different. I speculate initial actions will be regulatory using any number of conveniently crafted laws. The congressional debate will follow on with the major purposing being that of a red herring drawing attention away from the real effort.
Just remembered, the other new term being floated is that of mental health. I wonder if the regulatory gambit will come from the healthcare side of the federales.
-
Birdman, I think your question has been answered here - drugs, slaves, and weapons have all been banned and not paid for. Destruction of these items (de facts or physical) can and has occurred without compensation.
I see why you're raising the issue of shelf-life now, but that issue has no relationship to common law analysis of the question. Generally, if the government seizes property it must pay compensation, but there are exceptions to the rule that government can and has invoked.
-
Gold was money, and fair market exchange was the logic used, currency for currency, $35/oz
Gold bullion was/is a commodity. Minted coins made from gold were a type of commodity money, as opposed to representative and fiat money. The former was property, the latter legal tender. Both were seized.
And no, they were not paid fair market value. In 1933 the value of gold was $26.33/toz., however people were paid $20.67/toz. for their gold.
To put it in modern terms today gold closed at 1,697.00/toz., now imagine that tomorrow you were compelled under threat of criminal prosecution to drive down to your local municipal building and turn over your private holdings of non-coin gold, and they decided to only pay you $1,332.21/toz. for it?
Exotic animals that have been banned, but were in legal possession before the ban were not destroyed or confiscated.
Still hunting for the news articles, but I recall several localities banning species such as pitbulls and compelling the owners to remove them out of the locality.
And to address DS's question, my point remains, the reason I ask is to put in context that a confiscatory law would be treading on really new ground.
As distasteful as this is, I feel need to point out that at one time it was legal to own a human. They were the legal equivalent of property. Then a law was passed to make them not property.
Regardless of the situation, the former owner at time point A was the owner of property considered to have certain value, then at time point B it was declared that he no longer had ownership of that property and his personal wealth was reduced by that value (he no longer owned the slaves that he had invested a particular amount of wealth into and was not remunerated for that lost wealth).
That the property in question was a sentient creature and never should have been property to begin with does not alter the fact that the process involved declaring that a particular type of property (slaves) was illegal after a particular date in time.
-
Let them ban whatever they want....they'll be plenty of "moonshiners" that can deal with that....
-
Let them ban whatever they want....they'll be plenty of "moonshiners" that can deal with that....
A prison inmate made a 9mm submachine gun out of a chair leg and bed springs. That should tell you how well any sort of total ban would be.
-
Birdman, I think your question has been answered here - drugs, slaves, and weapons have all been banned and not paid for. Destruction of these items (de facts or physical) can and has occurred without compensation.
I see why you're raising the issue of shelf-life now, but that issue has no relationship to common law analysis of the question. Generally, if the government seizes property it must pay compensation, but there are exceptions to the rule that government can and has invoked.
Weapons? Name it.
Okay, so the only "confiscation" we have so far is slaves and gold. And the logic for both was fundamentally different than this one.
My point remains, it is for the most part, and only by really expanding the argument, untreaded ground.
As for my shelf life argument, I wasn't trying to apply it to the common law sense of the current question.
-
A prison inmate made a 9mm submachine gun out of a chair leg and bed springs. That should tell you how well any sort of total ban would be.
Source?
Not that I don't believe you. I just REALLY want to see it!
-
Source?
Not that I don't believe you. I just REALLY want to see it!
Wait one. Lemme see if I can dig it up on the intarwebs. Last time I saw it was in an improvised weapons book.
-
A prison inmate made a 9mm submachine gun out of a chair leg and bed springs. That should tell you how well any sort of total ban would be.
Isn't that how the Sten is made?
-
I kind of doubt that the AWB will pass. It has several different problems, aside from the ones that birdman is pointing out.
1) It has to get through Congress first. Most likely it will be DOA in the House. The NRA's strategy of courting pro-gunners on both sides of the aisle will likely pay off there.
2) Even if it does pass, it has to get through the Supreme Court. Heller established the "in common use" test, and you'd have to have a particularly obtuse reading of "in common use" for EBRs not to be covered. They're simply way too damn popular.
The biggest danger, I think, is going to be whatever Obama tries to pull off using EO's and rule changes. Those will not be as easily thwarted, and I suspect that the AWB proposal is simply being used to draw fire while Obama quietly implements the other stuff behind Congress' back.
-
Because the rule only applies to penalising people for past conduct. It does not mean that anything you ever bought cannot be confiscated.
Which brings us back to ex-post-facto, if one is going to be rational AT ALL about it.
-
Isn't that how the Sten is made?
Pretty much, and that's why it's a ridiculous notion. Some tubes, a small heavy tube, a block of metal, some springs, and a hook catch mechanism. You now have the general materials needed to make an open bolt blow back submachine gun. Hell, the underground gun makers during the polish resistance in WW2 didn't even bother rifling the barrels. They cut the chamber and that was it. The 9mm Luger round still provided minute-of-nazi accuracy out to around 50-100 meters, and so was suitable for urban street fighting.
Anyways, here's the one I found. Looks like an improvised design used by the Free Ireland types. Book I was reading said they found one of these in a British penitentiary, and was assembled from a chair leg, coil springs taken from his sleeping mattress and some other odds and ends smuggled out of the machine shop.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-l5fqSfou1ho%2FTc3D6W40GEI%2FAAAAAAAAAEs%2F_0bJqILB5F4%2Fs1600%2Fuvfimprovisedsubmachinegun%2Bimproguns.jpg&hash=9d3e44b8db42c62dbad71589194d477369410286)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F--qbGnTOFBE8%2FTc3EQsAYb0I%2FAAAAAAAAAEw%2Fg89rR8n-1dw%2Fs1600%2FUVFhomebuild.JPG&hash=c7407d232a26a64ff7757434ab9022890f040664)
Many, many thanks to this website for documenting this aspect of the invention known as a gun. For a loooot more improvised WTF moments, please clicky the link.
http://improguns.blogspot.com/
-
Weapons? Name it.
Ninja stars, switch blades, brass knuckles, and similar have all been banned outright, possession included.
Okay, so the only "confiscation" we have so far is slaves and gold. And the logic for both was fundamentally different than this one.
My point remains, it is for the most part, and only by really expanding the argument, untreaded ground.
As for my shelf life argument, I wasn't trying to apply it to the common law sense of the current question.
It's certainly not as well established as eminent domain cases, but the existence of exceptions to the rule and government's power to confiscate without payment is well established.
The question is whether any law crafted by the congress will meet the legal requirements for those exceptions. Not whether they exist.
-
There are plenty of spineless RINOs who will only be too happy to compromise your rights away. And plenty of FUDDs who will help gun owners in complying with the new law...
-
And plenty of FUDDs who will help gun owners in complying with the new law...
Not exactly sure what you are suggesting here?
-
Not exactly sure what you are suggesting here?
Informing for a nice reward...Collaborating with the anti's and such...after all they got to keep their hunting rifles and shotguns
-
>Ninja stars, switch blades, brass knuckles, and similar have all been banned outright, possession included.<
My understanding (at least as far as Wisconsin law goes) is that none of the above items was declared illegal, then confiscated from peoples' homes.
"Owning" them are fine, so long as they never leave the house
-
I kind of doubt that the AWB will pass. It has several different problems, aside from the ones that birdman is pointing out.
1) It has to get through Congress first. Most likely it will be DOA in the House. The NRA's strategy of courting pro-gunners on both sides of the aisle will likely pay off there.
2) Even if it does pass, it has to get through the Supreme Court. Heller established the "in common use" test, and you'd have to have a particularly obtuse reading of "in common use" for EBRs not to be covered. They're simply way too damn popular.
The biggest danger, I think, is going to be whatever Obama tries to pull off using EO's and rule changes. Those will not be as easily thwarted, and I suspect that the AWB proposal is simply being used to draw fire while Obama quietly implements the other stuff behind Congress' back.
This is where I'm at, and what I'm expecting. Too many reps and senators will be getting overwhelming pro-RKBA feedback from their individual states that will drown out any national/media pressure, and won't vote for anything worse than window dressing, or some "mental health" tightening of NICS. (Other vets posting about PTSD worries and diagnoses, their concerns are legit.)
Although I was dead wrong about the last POTUS election too, not believing any way it could be anything other than Reagan/Carter II. That is nagging at me.
Otherwise, if it all goes sideways on us, all I can say is "I will not comply". and leave it at that. Anything else, can't be said in a public forum.
-
>Ninja stars, switch blades, brass knuckles, and similar have all been banned outright, possession included.<
My understanding (at least as far as Wisconsin law goes) is that none of the above items was declared illegal, then confiscated from peoples' homes.
"Owning" them are fine, so long as they never leave the house
That might be true in WI, however it's not true in some other jurisdictions. I'm thinking of NY and CA in particular.
There's significant variation on weapons laws between the states. As far as I know, no state has ever had an outright ban on possession if weapons ruled to be a taking.
-
Can we look to other western countries for possible scenarios?
How did it work in England, Canada and Australia when possession of certain classes of guns was outlawed and surrender of the weapons was ordered?
There are millions of untraceable guns in this country today. One face to face sale breaks the trail. Not to mention the number of guns in circulation from pre-1968 that never had a paper trail though far fewer of them would fall into the "assault weapon" niche.
I am not optimistic the Obama's "meaningful" action is going to be anything as benign as the '94 AWB.
We already have all the usual characters calling for new "meaningful" gun control with the full and active participation of Obama's press core(MSM). We also see anyone that criticized the call for new gun control while the victim's bodies weren't even cold yet being labeled as uncaring monsters. I can only imagine the labels that will be thrown at any politician that is so evil as to oppose the new "meaningful" gun control laws.
I got a feeling it's gonna get even more interesting in the coming months.
-
I can only imagine the labels that will be thrown at any politician that is so evil as to oppose the new "meaningful" gun control laws.
What labels will they use against the demonstrators that march through town with slung ARs?
-
Well duh, racist bigoted anti woman homophobic religious zealot right wing nut job tea party/tea-bagger child hater...
Yeah pretty much the same ones the left use for anyone that doesn't march in lockstep with their agenda.
-
What labels will they use against the demonstrators that march through town with slung ARs?
Enemy combatant? It might be clearly bs, but who's going to challenge it?
-
Can we look to other western countries for possible scenarios?
How did it work in England, Canada and Australia when possession of certain classes of guns was outlawed and surrender of the weapons was ordered?
There are millions of untraceable guns in this country today. One face to face sale breaks the trail. Not to mention the number of guns in circulation from pre-1968 that never had a paper trail though far fewer of them would fall into the "assault weapon" niche.
I am not optimistic the Obama's "meaningful" action is going to be anything as benign as the '94 AWB.
We already have all the usual characters calling for new "meaningful" gun control with the full and active participation of Obama's press core(MSM). We also see anyone that criticized the call for new gun control while the victim's bodies weren't even cold yet being labeled as uncaring monsters. I can only imagine the labels that will be thrown at any politician that is so evil as to oppose the new "meaningful" gun control laws.
I got a feeling it's gonna get even more interesting in the coming months.
There were a few threads on the old THR that went in to what happened in the UK in minute statistical detail, but basically there was no discernable statistical effect (positive or negative) from any of the bans (either post Hungerford or post Dunblane), and we appear to have had much the same level of spree killings (ie: one a decade) irrespective of many thousand legally held firearms being taken away.
-
Can we look to other western countries for possible scenarios?
How did it work in England, Canada and Australia when possession of certain classes of guns was outlawed and surrender of the weapons was ordered?
There are millions of untraceable guns in this country today. One face to face sale breaks the trail. Not to mention the number of guns in circulation from pre-1968 that never had a paper trail though far fewer of them would fall into the "assault weapon" niche.
I am not optimistic the Obama's "meaningful" action is going to be anything as benign as the '94 AWB.
We already have all the usual characters calling for new "meaningful" gun control with the full and active participation of Obama's press core(MSM). We also see anyone that criticized the call for new gun control while the victim's bodies weren't even cold yet being labeled as uncaring monsters. I can only imagine the labels that will be thrown at any politician that is so evil as to oppose the new "meaningful" gun control laws.
I got a feeling it's gonna get even more interesting in the coming months.
The one bright spot is that we've been primed, by the original '94 AWB, both Obama elections, and the Internet and alternative media is now established and mature. And as mentioned, we have Heller.
I'm not saying it will, or won't be enough, but we are in a much better position to resist and push back than we were in '94. And the number of "invested" pro-gun people is higher.
-
I kind of doubt that the AWB will pass. It has several different problems, aside from the ones that birdman is pointing out.
1) It has to get through Congress first. Most likely it will be DOA in the House. The NRA's strategy of courting pro-gunners on both sides of the aisle will likely pay off there.
2) Even if it does pass, it has to get through the Supreme Court. Heller established the "in common use" test, and you'd have to have a particularly obtuse reading of "in common use" for EBRs not to be covered. They're simply way too damn popular.
The biggest danger, I think, is going to be whatever Obama tries to pull off using EO's and rule changes. Those will not be as easily thwarted, and I suspect that the AWB proposal is simply being used to draw fire while Obama quietly implements the other stuff behind Congress' back.
I like your sentiments, Regolith, but I am nowhere near as sanguine as you about an AWB's chance of passage in the House. Especially after this last election cycle. I simply do not trust the GOP to not cave on the issue.
-
>Ninja stars, switch blades, brass knuckles, and similar have all been banned outright, possession included.<
My understanding (at least as far as Wisconsin law goes) is that none of the above items was declared illegal, then confiscated from peoples' homes.
"Owning" them are fine, so long as they never leave the house
I can't speak to ninja stars these days, but when I was in Jr High, they were easy enough to get in Tennessee. As for "switch blades", in VA they are illegal to carry, but quite legal to own (can't easily buy them in state though). I've owned two. When my home was burglarized in 2010, the thieves took one from my house. I told the cops (it was listed on my inventory of missing items) and the insurance company. Nobody said a thing and insurance covered the loss.
One can buy automatic knives (switchblades) at knife shops in Alabama. I bought one there myself a couple years ago. They're controlled, but not universally illegal.
Chris
-
I can't speak to ninja stars these days, but when I was in Jr High, they were easy enough to get in Tennessee. As for "switch blades", in VA they are illegal to carry, but quite legal to own (can't easily buy them in state though). I've owned two. When my home was burglarized in 2010, the thieves took one from my house. I told the cops (it was listed on my inventory of missing items) and the insurance company. Nobody said a thing and insurance covered the loss.
One can buy automatic knives (switchblades) at knife shops in Alabama. I bought one there myself a couple years ago. They're controlled, but not universally illegal.
Chris
Oh, the joys of free state living....I grew up with 14 day waits and handgun registration. Ninja stars strictly forbidden.
-
That might be true in WI, however it's not true in some other jurisdictions. I'm thinking of NY and CA in particular.
There's significant variation on weapons laws between the states. As far as I know, no state has ever had an outright ban on possession if weapons ruled to be a taking.
PRECISELY.
The problem is, these are STATE actions, the takings clause, and the ex post facto prohibition are constitutional (federal) issues, and as others have pointed out, possession of those objects (and not use) was not banned (switchblades, etc). In the NY case, if you have those on your person in public, that is construed as "use", however, I don't believe possession was ruled illegal at home. (See the switchblade example). In the case of carrying those in public, confiscation isn't taking, as they are part of a crime.
My point remains, while states have banned things, there has not been a non-grandfathered confiscation without use from private homes of objects without renumeration, and I still can't think of one even with renumeration. Also, federal law is different, while there is constitutional supremacy w.r.t. Takings and ex post facto, different states have interpreted how to get around those differently, (kelo v new London) and they nearly always have been challenged.
So the point remains, can anyone think of a non-grandfathered, possession in ones home without use, banning with confiscation (with or without renumeration) of an object FEDERAL example (specifically, where the mere possession of the object was the crime rather than tied to a crime of use or manufacture). POST reconstruction.
Other than drugs, I can't think of anything, and even in those cases, constructional possession isn't applied (drug precursors for example).
At this point, I'm still just trying to make the point that it is legally a BIG reach, without much if any precedent.
England and a few other places were able to do it as RKBA wasn't enshrined, and getting over the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" (emphasis mine) is a tough hump, especially given recent precedent.
I'm sure such a law, IF PASSED, would be challenged innumerable times, under a variety of defenses (takings, pure 2A, ex post facto, etc) not to mention there are plenty of states where RKBA is enshrined as an individual right in their state constitutions, leading to federal supremacy arguments (provided 2AM wasn't repealed through amendment, which would also be effectively impossible given the highly diverse nature of the amendment process which gives a tremendous amount of power to the flyover states.
-
PRECISELY.
The problem is, these are STATE actions, the takings clause, and the ex post facto prohibition are constitutional (federal) issues, and as others have pointed out, possession of those objects (and not use) was not banned (switchblades, etc). In the NY case, if you have those on your person in public, that is construed as "use", however, I don't believe possession was ruled illegal at home. (See the switchblade example). In the case of carrying those in public, confiscation isn't taking, as they are part of a crime.
Ex post facto is prohibited to states. See clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
If this were a possible route to challenge, it didn't work. I am sure someone would have tried in those states, though I may be wrong.
-
So the point remains, can anyone think of a non-grandfathered, possession in ones home without use, banning with confiscation (with or without renumeration) of an object FEDERAL example (specifically, where the mere possession of the object was the crime rather than tied to a crime of use or manufacture). POST reconstruction.
Ignoring your POST reconstruction clause, the only thing that comes to mind is slaves.
And that's bad enough. And perfectly applicable. Heck, if Lincoln can start disregarding the Constitution, then Obama is the perfect person to relegate it to an inapplicable past.
Lincoln shredded the original foundations of the Union... Obama can destroy the remaining tattered shreds of State-Sponsored Liberty.
What labels will they use against the demonstrators that march through town with slung ARs?
These types of protests will happen. The AR's will be slung with empty mag wells, but there will probably be a few 30's in coat and jeans pockets, as well as loaded pistols on hip.
-
Here's my fear in this situation...
1. AWB introduced. I've not seen anything concrete on bill language, other than what appears to be a mag limit (again), and a list of prohibited "assault weapons," the length of which we can only guess at this point. After much debate, which will include photos of the victims, the RINO's will cave, and a law will be passed.
2. The bill will include a grace period before enforcement begins, during which time individuals can turn in the prohibited items without fear of prosecution. Some will do so, some won't. Some will seek court action by filing suit, perhaps even seeking a declaritory judgment.
3. The federal court system is notoriously slow. As such, a smart lawyer will seek a stay on the enforcement of the AWB pending outcome of the legal action. You may or my not find a judge willing to take that stand. The case spins its way through the system towards SCOTUS.
4. Meanwhile, Obama may get a chance to change the make-up of SCOTUS through new appointments to the bench. Doubtful that 2A issues even get brought up in the confirmation process, but you can be sure where his nominees would fall on that issue.
5. AWB gets to SCOTUS, and the new SCOTUS will (a) rewrite Heller to include some "reasonable restriction" language allowing for the AWB, (b) ignore Heller and find teh AWB not in violation of 2A, or (c) overturn Heller altogether.
6. Depending on how this all plays out, especially is SCOTUS somehow supports 2A, see a movement to call for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal 2A. Before you start to say this can never happen, look at the results of the last presidential election. Get enough celebs on TV doing ads to support the repeal, featuring photos of the chidlren, and I fear that you might be able to get it ratified.
-
5. AWB gets to SCOTUS, and the new SCOTUS will (a) rewrite Heller to include some "reasonable restriction" language allowing for the AWB, (b) ignore Heller and find teh AWB not in violation of 2A, or (c) overturn Heller altogether.
I don't even think Heller requires a rewrite to do what you suggest. Scalia writes in Heller:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
Unfortunately, I think a mag limit could fall under a "reasonable restriction," as would a restriction on some guns.
-
6. Depending on how this all plays out, especially is SCOTUS somehow supports 2A, see a movement to call for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal 2A. Before you start to say this can never happen, look at the results of the last presidential election. Get enough celebs on TV doing ads to support the repeal, featuring photos of the chidlren, and I fear that you might be able to get it ratified.
This is the biggest one that would impede such a thing. An ammendment requires 3/4 of states (38) to pass, and considering 24 states were won by Romney, and at least 12-13 of those by good margins, a constitutional amendment would be kinda tough.
Take the following list:
Idaho
Montana
Alaska
North Dakota
Arizona
Texas
Arkansas
Tennessee
Kentucky
West Virginia
Wyoming
And two of the remainder
SD, NE, KS, SC, NC, GA, MS, MO, LA, AL, IN, OK, NV
And it doesn't pass.
My worry isn't legislation, its a derivative of the UN ban or an EO.
-
My worry isn't legislation, its a derivative of the UN ban or an EO.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see some thing in the form of an EO before Christmas. Some dealing with imports maybe. [tinfoil]
-
I also suspect that the mag limit will be considered constitutional and I doubt it would be challenged specifically. It is a restriction not a denial of rights. Making many commonly available firearms illegal is another matter and that will be the big test if that in fact happens.
The mental health issue needs to be addressed, but it is a matter of degree in my opinion. Requiring for example a mental health examination prior to the purchase of a firearm would be restrictive of the right. Requiring you to provide personal references attesting to your sound character are another.
Requiring effectively all firearm transfers to go through a FFL is almost a given if a new law is passed.
Executive Order (EO) powers are not clearly defined. But I think it is clear that the President has the authority to restrict specific imports.
Strengthening Federal firearm laws without legislative action is debatable. But "smaller" revisions to Form 4473 and BATFE authority are likely.
The UN Small Arms Treaty is another concern but with Sandy Hook, ratification becomes a possibility at this point.
-
My worry isn't legislation, its a derivative of the UN ban or an EO.
I wish I could be so optimistic. There is way more of a clamor to do something than I remember in the last 20 years.
Do you think that Congress will just be lazy and focus on something else or do you think there will be enough Rep's and Senators standing up to the Feinstein et al?
-
Part of my fear on this is the shame factor that can (and will) be thrown at anyone standing in opposition to any gun control measures proposed. Like it or not, in this age of social media and elections based not on qualifications but charisma, a politician will be unlikely to stand up in favor of gun rights when a future opponent will post photos of these murdered children on a commercial or web page with a tag line "Congressman Smith voted to keep guns like the ones used to slaughter these children on the streets, putting the lives of millions of other children at risk." Yeah, we'll call bull, but a lot of parents at the PTO meeting will be voting against Congressman Smith because of ads like that.
-
Meanwhile, another lonely police chief acting as a voice of sanity crying out in the wilderness of mass hysteria:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/
-
Part of my fear on this is the shame factor that can (and will) be thrown at anyone standing in opposition to any gun control measures proposed.
Ive already seen the NRA condemned for their comments on the shooting, all they said was No comments till all the facts are in.
-
Just a quickie because it relates to gun control and the Sandy Hook shootings. Rush L is throwing a bit of a different slant on things and worth listening to.
-
I also suspect that the mag limit will be considered constitutional and I doubt it would be challenged specifically. It is a restriction not a denial of rights. Making many commonly available firearms illegal is another matter and that will be the big test if that in fact happens.
The mental health issue needs to be addressed, but it is a matter of degree in my opinion. Requiring for example a mental health examination prior to the purchase of a firearm would be restrictive of the right. Requiring you to provide personal references attesting to your sound character are another.
Requiring effectively all firearm transfers to go through a FFL is almost a given if a new law is passed.
Executive Order (EO) powers are not clearly defined. But I think it is clear that the President has the authority to restrict specific imports.
Strengthening Federal firearm laws without legislative action is debatable. But "smaller" revisions to Form 4473 and BATFE authority are likely.
The UN Small Arms Treaty is another concern but with Sandy Hook, ratification becomes a possibility at this point.
1. Regarding the mg limit, without confiscation and/or ex post facto, it would be useless, and also cause the same problem NY has with their mag limit, since date of mfg isn't stamped on mags anymore post AWB sunset, there is no way to prove it isn't grandfathered. Given the dramatic increase in number of modern sporting rifles in use with standard 20-30rnd magazines, and the dramatic rise in the maker movement, any magazine restriction will likely simply create a sound black/grey (since date can't be proven) market for modified magazines, not to mention production of modifiable magazines. Think the way designer drugs skirt the law, and give the incentive to more people with more money.
2. Regarding mental health of any kind (including references) not not no, but HELL no, it would've ext to useless in stopping instances like this, create a massive grey market in "straw references" or "one hand washes another" and create an opening for official adjudication and the associated slippery slope. It won't prevent how the crazies get weapons, and simply create yet another hoop for legal purchases by law abiding folks.
3. All transfers through an FFL eliminates the last impediment to national registration, as it allows the same type of EO or non-legislative regulation that they threw at the border states for long gun registration. Universal registration is ALWAYS (in every country that has done it) followed by restriction or elimination. It's no ones business how many firearms I own, jet like its no ones business how many laptops I own. Also, this wouldn't prevent any crimes, illegal transfers would still occur, straw purchases would still occur, and all it does is create a slippery slope opening.
We all need to face the cold truth, the only way to stop someone intent on killing others and going through with it is to stop them as quickly as possible, no laws will prevent it, only citizens and LEOs (when possible) defending themselves and others.
-
Sen. Joe Manchin (D. W.V., NRA A-rated) calls for a discussion about assault weapons (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nra-member-sen-manchin-says-newtown-shooting-open-141440511--election.html).
Manchin issued criticism of assault weapons, saying, "I don't know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."
It looks like we'll get to separate the NRA A-rated congressmen into two groups: the true 2nd Amendment supporters, and the Fudds.
-
All those things I agree with Birdman.
-
I feel that a national discussion may be warranted. That is politics. It does not change the fact that most of the likely changes to existing Federal law would have no effect on stopping a Sandy Hook and only create more restrictions for legal gun owners which usually means it will be more expensive, more inconvenient and so forth.
I thought it interesting that the perps mother was deemed a prepper by Rush. Target shooting was a new found hobby and I would think it normal for her to share that experience with a 20 year old son. Ultimately the damn kid shot her. That is love for you. Words do not describe my disdain for this punk.
-
I feel that a national discussion may be warranted. That is politics. It does not change the fact that most of the likely changes to existing Federal law would have no effect on stopping a Sandy Hook and only create more restrictions for legal gun owners which usually means it will be more expensive, more inconvenient and so forth.
That's using common sense and logic in a situation being driven by nothing more than pure, raw emotion resulting from the tragedy. It's the nature of politicians to step up in times like this to do what they do best...propose and pass laws that do nothing to actually prevent the tragedy from re-occurring, but will give them something to brag about during the next election cycle.
The problem with any tragedy like this one, or going back to Columbine, Paducah, and any of the other mass shootings is that there is no one quick fix solution to the problems. We here on APS know this, just like we know that banning every gun from private ownership will not stop mass violence from occurring, but merely change the weapons of choice. Yet, to those who see no value to the private ownership of firearms, a ban causes no problems but creates the illusion of greater safety because "the bad guys can't get guns to do this again." Yeah, they can, so it won't fix the problem. But I fully expect Feinstein to rally the troops and call for cap restrictions, bans of specific firearms, and more. Frankly, I hope that the quotes I've read are accurate, and that it's just a prospective ban on these items, and not a ban on their current possession.
-
So tired of the line that "we need to have a discussion about guns." Liars. We've been having the discussion for decades. The bad guys have been losing. Liars.
-
On ex post facto, that may be a factor if buying EBRs is banned. But if mere possession is banned, that is something that EBR owners are currently doing. (Unless, of course, you lost them in a boating mishap.)
-
discussion my ass.
Their idea of a discussion is explaining to us backward folk why we need to get with the times and give up our guns.
-
I don't attend 1-way "discussions."
I'll be in the desert, hunting rabbits with my AR.
-
Go read at least the opening chapters of Matthew Bracken's first Enemies book. That is all.
-
On ex post facto, that may be a factor if buying EBRs is banned. But if mere possession is banned, that is something that EBR owners are currently doing. (Unless, of course, you lost them in a boating mishap.)
The deal on ex post facto is that the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. This means laws which make certain behavior criminal, and then the .gov attempts to apply these new laws to old facts. In other words, say the AWb is passed and makes it illegal to buy or sell an EBR. You are seen at a range with an ABR that you purchased in 1980. You cannot be covicted for the purchase of that weapon in 1980 under the new AWB, as that would amount to an ex post facto law.
Where the concern shoud lie is that in Calder v. Bull, the Constitutional proivision against ex post facto was found to apply only to criminal laws, and not civil laws. This is key to our discussion as the feds use civil suits to seek confiscation and forfeiture of property. If current possession is outlawed, it wouldn't surprise me to see civil actions initiated seeking forfeiture of the property...
-
The deal on ex post facto is that the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. This means laws which make certain behavior criminal, and then the .gov attempts to apply these new laws to old facts. In other words, say the AWb is passed and makes it illegal to buy or sell an EBR. You are seen at a range with an ABR that you purchased in 1980. You cannot be covicted for the purchase of that weapon in 1980 under the new AWB, as that would amount to an ex post facto law.
Where the concern shoud lie is that in Calder v. Bull, the Constitutional proivision against ex post facto was found to apply only to criminal laws, and not civil laws. This is key to our discussion as the feds use civil suits to seek confiscation and forfeiture of property. If current possession is outlawed, it wouldn't surprise me to see civil actions initiated seeking forfeiture of the property...
Then make it as impossible as possible (???) to collect damages.
They win the civil case, fine. I don't have the firearm. Here's $1000, the equivalent of its value. Now go away, you've won your judgement. (And I just cost them thousands of dollars to enforce their stupid civil case enforcement methodology.) You think I still have it? Fine, sue me again. Prove I still have it. Hire PI's to tail me. Gosh, I lost it again. Darn.
-
Then make it as impossible as possible (???) to collect damages.
They win the civil case, fine. I don't have the firearm. Here's $1000, the equivalent of its value. Now go away, you've won your judgement. (And I just cost them thousands of dollars to enforce their stupid civil case enforcement methodology.) You think I still have it? Fine, sue me again. Prove I still have it. Hire PI's to tail me. Gosh, I lost it again. Darn.
I agree that any kind of large scale civil confiscation would be expensive and not very feasible. Buying, selling, and possessing firearms, as it is, can be prohibitive. I certainly don't relish it getting more difficult.
-
I agree that any kind of large scale civil confiscation would be expensive and not very feasible. Buying, selling, and possessing firearms, as it is, can be prohibitive. I certainly don't relish it getting more difficult. I
Meh.
It's already un-enforceable. I'm at the point of apathy. To hell with 'em. Long live private purchases. They'll just become word-of-mouth, rather than via Backpage.com. Or some other means to advertise a gun for sale via private party.
I'm already happy buying private party almost exclusively... no 4473, no paper trail, no excise tax to feed Leviathan, no sales tax to feed the local Jabberwockie... everything needed to spite the State.
-
1) Prohibitive and punative taxes on ammo and components.
2) 4473 for Ammo purchases over probably 50 rounds at a time.
3) I would not be surprised if they go for the full monty this time. AWB II including banning the manufacture of new AR15's and components.
They killed the street sweeper by name, remember?
Just my gut.
-
AWB is dead before arrival, already.
We can print polymer AR lowers with a $1000 open source 3d printer.
Someone will rapidly figure out how to print 30rd AR mags similar to PMAGs, as soon as/if a ban hits. Right now, at $10/mag for PMAGs and $7/mag for aluminum ones, it ain't worth it.
Any AWB will have to include the upper receiver as a redefinition as a firearm in order to take into account , which will create massive problems. All our "unserialed" uppers will be worth a small fortune. Possibly on par with the 1986 FOPA fiasco. How do you perform a barrel replacement? Military and law enforcement don't track uppers, and they'd have to start doing that as well.
-
2. Regarding mental health of any kind (including references) not not no, but HELL no, it would've ext to useless in stopping instances like this, create a massive grey market in "straw references" or "one hand washes another" and create an opening for official adjudication and the associated slippery slope. It won't prevent how the crazies get weapons, and simply create yet another hoop for legal purchases by law abiding folks.
As an aside, wasn't Roe V. Wade decided on the basis of patient-doctor confidentiality (ie privacy)?
It would be an interesting knot the libs would tie themselves in if they approached from that angle alone.
-
If I have to turn something in... I want paid in silver at face value. Silver Eagles would be just fine. Legal currency.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg405.imageshack.us%2Fimg405%2F5767%2Fdrugcartels.jpg&hash=37ae570fe9cd4acae1104f306048e66ac8cc21f8) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/drugcartels.jpg/)
-
Meh.
It's already un-enforceable. I'm at the point of apathy. To hell with 'em. Long live private purchases. They'll just become word-of-mouth, rather than via Backpage.com. Or some other means to advertise a gun for sale via private party.
I'm already happy buying private party almost exclusively... no 4473, no paper trail, no excise tax to feed Leviathan, no sales tax to feed the local Jabberwockie... everything needed to spite the State.
I understand that there will be ways around it and there will be plenty of people that have "boating accidents", but if the end result is super expensive components, mags, etc. (like in the previous AWB), then it will unfortunate. I am also concerned what effect a broad based ban would have on the firearms industry.
-
I understand that there will be ways around it and there will be plenty of people that have "boating accidents", but if the end result is super expensive components, mags, etc. (like in the previous AWB), then it will unfortunate. I am also concerned what effect a broad based ban would have on the firearms industry.
With a corresponding stigma, and reversal of the positive trend in views of firearms generally.
-
Well when Remington and Ruger are making/selling AR-15 rifles as sporting weapons, I don't know how much fire there will be for a AWB after a week or two.
Some other Kardashian/Lohan/Snooki/David Bowie event will dominate the news soon.
-
If we get a prospective ban on buying/selling EBR and full-cap mags, but no resgriction on possession of what is already owned, I suspect we will see a repeat of what happened last time...climbing prices on parts, screami.g high prices on the EBRs already out there, and an industry shift away from big mags to designs that match mags that fit the law. It may result in resurgence of revolvers.
-
Well when Remington and Ruger are making/selling AR-15 rifles as sporting weapons, I don't know how much fire there will be for a AWB after a week or two.
Some other Kardashian/Lohan/Snooki/David Bowie event will dominate the news soon.
;)
The media is having a feeding frenzy & I'm not jumping in. I am wearing my NRA shirt around though :angel:
It just so happened that my innernet turned off during the whole thing, was actually a little happy about that.
I even deactivated my old facebookaccount - tired of cirular arguments with idiot radlibs from Frisco.
-
Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons. I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.
The way I see it:
-there may be political will for a ban on possession. They won't confiscate, what they'll do is just throw the book at people for not destroying or turning in EBRs and high cap mags as they find them. If. They're really nice they might let people weld their guns into inoperability. There is no legal or constitutional barrier to them doing this apart from Heller. Ex post facto only works for acts done in the past. Criminalising future possession of an existing item is 100 percent in the clear.
-I'm sure someone will raise a 5th amendment takings argument if this happens. I'm equally sure it won't stop the program or amount to much payment. This has been done in the states, and no one's been paid for restrictions or bans.
-the level of scrutiny that comes with Heller potentially has a big impact. The higher the scrutiny, the more focused the rules need to be on outcomes. It's more difficult for the most restrictive elements of a law to survive constitutional challenge.
-then there's politics. But that doesn't look great at the moment.
-
Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons. I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.
Thanks for reminding me about that.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrawinningteam.com%2Fconfiscation%2Flockyer1.gif&hash=38ea41784aee15aeed93945abde5cdfe4a288b31)
Now you can have them, and now you can't.
-
AWB is dead before arrival, already.
We can print polymer AR lowers with a $1000 open source 3d printer.
Not quite yet.
What I would like to see are plans for a lower made from layered sheet metal. Last I looked, most anybody can handle a hacksaw, file and drill.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg405.imageshack.us%2Fimg405%2F5767%2Fdrugcartels.jpg&hash=37ae570fe9cd4acae1104f306048e66ac8cc21f8) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/drugcartels.jpg/)
Good one. Saved and forwarded.
-
There were hundreds of thousands of people in CA who didn't register their EBR's and who didn't turn them in. I think we'll see millions do the same if the Feds try it.
-
There were hundreds of thousands of people in CA who didn't register their EBR's and who didn't turn them in. I think we'll see millions do the same if the Feds try it.
Indeed. It was an incredibly small minority that "obeyed the law" and once everyone else saw what Lockyear pulled, that was it for any chance of any of us following a law like that ever again.
-
There were hundreds of thousands of people in CA who didn't register their EBR's and who didn't turn them in. I think we'll see millions do the same if the Feds try it.
I think that is the point at which the ATF will start collecting 4473's from FFL's and finding out who owns what.
-
I think that is the point at which the ATF will start collecting 4473's from FFL's and finding out who owns what.
And that's when things go rodeo.
-
>There is no legal or constitutional barrier to them doing this apart from Heller.<
Not entirely correct.
Reread Miller. The argument that was used to bust him, and which was upheld, is that a short barreled shotgun "wasn't found listed in the TOE of any military unit". If push comes to shove, we lean HARD on that.
Would it protect ARs? No. BUt it could be used to force open the FA registry, which the antis do NOT want to happen. Consider it a sort of "Gun Law MAD"
-
Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons. I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.
The way I see it:
-there may be political will for a ban on possession. They won't confiscate, what they'll do is just throw the book at people for not destroying or turning in EBRs and high cap mags as they find them. If. They're really nice they might let people weld their guns into inoperability. There is no legal or constitutional barrier to them doing this apart from Heller. Ex post facto only works for acts done in the past. Criminalising future possession of an existing item is 100 percent in the clear.
-I'm sure someone will raise a 5th amendment takings argument if this happens. I'm equally sure it won't stop the program or amount to much payment. This has been done in the states, and no one's been paid for restrictions or bans.
-the level of scrutiny that comes with Heller potentially has a big impact. The higher the scrutiny, the more focused the rules need to be on outcomes. It's more difficult for the most restrictive elements of a law to survive constitutional challenge.
-then there's politics. But that doesn't look great at the moment.
The CA law had grandfathered weapons if ownership was established Pre-ban.
Even when they outright banned the 50BMG, you could still possess it, just not buy or sell it (in the state).
With the exception of the thing KGB cited, where post ban registration was revoked, they did NOT confiscate weapons purchased and registered before the ban.
I still have yet to see an example of possession of Pre-ban firearms was ruled illegal and they were confiscated.
You state CA and NY have outright bans on possession and imply there was no grandfathering. You are a lawyer, cite the relevant statute.
-
Birdman, the California assault weapons bans grandfathered because that was the policy decision of the legislature. They have not grandfathered other weapons, like machine guns and ninja starts.
Here's a cite:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=22001-23000&file=22410-22490 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=22001-23000&file=22410-22490) for shurikens.
Machine guns: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=32001-33000&file=32625 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=32001-33000&file=32625)
As you can see, these statutes ban mere possession. "Ownership before the law was passed" isn't a defense or a reason to grant a permit.
Here's New York: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3TPA265+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=10429422+&TARGET=VIEW (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3TPA265+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=10429422+&TARGET=VIEW)
Have a look at the exemptions - owning before the law is not one of them.
-
Birdman, the California assault weapons bans grandfathered because that was the policy decision of the legislature. They have not grandfathered other weapons, like machine guns and ninja starts.
Here's a cite:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=22001-23000&file=22410-22490 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=22001-23000&file=22410-22490) for shurikens.
Machine guns: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=32001-33000&file=32625 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=32001-33000&file=32625)
As you can see, these statutes ban mere possession. "Ownership before the law was passed" isn't a defense or a reason to grant a permit.
Here's New York: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3TPA265+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=10429422+&TARGET=VIEW (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3TPA265+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=10429422+&TARGET=VIEW)
Have a look at the exemptions - owning before the law is not one of them.
Thanks! Yet one more reason why CA and NY suck. Of course, since NFA was constitutional, banning those specific weapons didn't cause a problem. I doubt it would be as easy for "regular" firearms...but caveat emptor
Thanks for the citations...now I'm even more pissed (not at you :) )
-
Thanks! Yet one more reason why CA and NY suck. Of course, since NFA was constitutional, banning those specific weapons didn't cause a problem. I doubt it would be as easy for "regular" firearms...but caveat emptor
Thanks for the citations...now I'm even more pissed (not at you :) )
Hahaha, no need to thank me for making CA and NY look more crappy - they did all the hard part for me.
There's one upside to new legislation: it will almost certainly force a new decision that spells out what Heller means for individual ownership and carry. And in this court, that may not be the worst thing for gun owners.
-
Well when Remington and Ruger are making/selling AR-15 rifles as sporting weapons, I don't know how much fire there will be for a AWB after a week or two.
Some other Kardashian/Lohan/Snooki/David Bowie event will dominate the news soon.
Good point. Prior to CT., support for gun control was at the lowest point in the last 40 years.
-
Birdman, CA and NY both have outright bans on possession in place - "I owned it before the ban" isn't a defense for many weapons. I can dig up the statutes if you like but I feel the focus in this matter is political, with Heller being the next best area to concentrate on.
When Connecticut enacted their AWB they required registration of already-owned firearms that fell within their definition of "assault weapon." I don't remember what the window was (six months, perhaps?), but even if you owned all nice and legal-like before -- if you didn't register within the window period, your toy became contraband.
-
Any buzz on what might be labeled an "assault weapon" this time? AR-15's seem to be the new media talking point, as opposed to AK's last time. But I'm hearing and reading the Glock name a whole lot this time around...with the Arizona shootings, the Va. Tech shootings, and now the Sandy Hook guy packing one. Kind of worried "assault weapon" ay include handguns this time...
-
Any buzz on what might be labeled an "assault weapon" this time? AR-15's seem to be the new media talking point, as opposed to AK's last time.
Possibly AK-15s, since that's what O'Reilly was talking about tonight with Alan Gottlieb.*
* To his credit, after Alan corrected him he apologized and said he looked like an idiot.
-
"AK-15" could easily just be the brain processing faster than the mouth can speak. A sorta mismash comes out: I've had that happen before
-
Consider the lead ammo ban in CA. I don't recall if it passed. But it banned poessession after a grace period.
-
Good point. Prior to CT., support for gun control was at the lowest point in the last 40 years.
If we weather this without any significant legislation, save maybe some band-aid tightening of NICS reporting or whatever, the tiny silver lining is if we win this one, then we really, really, really have won the RKBA argument, stick a fork in it.
BIG 'if's' I fully and readily admit, but yet it's there.
The inaction after Columbine and VT were serious blows to the antis, who in terms of funding and membership already were on the ropes, but the inaction and their inability to pass anything after such high profile events it let everyone else know it. Granted, the kids weren't as young, but it established a pattern and a benchmark for us to win.
And in terms of the "political climate" being against us, I'm not sure by how much it really is. Obama won with a fair number of blue-collar types who fell for the class-warfare/class-envy stuff, but folks who otherwise love their guns every bit as much as the rest of us do. And aside from Fast and Furious, they were willing to vote for him again based on his relative inaction on anything gun-related.
And that's when things go rodeo.
If it comes to that, I feel bad for my kids... and the kids of the people doing the confiscating.
-
"AK-15" could easily just be the brain processing faster than the mouth can speak. A sorta mismash comes out: I've had that happen before
Don't defend him, O'Reilly is just a peterhead like the rest of the pundits, they will say anything for ratings.
-
I agree that SCOTUS "takings" analysis under the 1st and 14th amendments is limited to real property, and does not extend to personal property. (But I get the passion around the idea that stealing is stealing). After Kelo v. City of New London, many states beefed up their private property laws, but, again, no enhanced protections were extended to personalty.
I also agree that in theory congress may be able to ban and require destruction of certain firearms, which would be deemed contraband and subject to confiscation without compensation. That seems to be how the California attorney general tried to roll 20 years ago. I view the risk of that kind of legislation being adopted as remote, even under the high pressure of the current digital media storm.
But we don't know what we don't know, as they say. Beware the unk unk.
-
If we weather this without any significant legislation, save maybe some band-aid tightening of NICS reporting or whatever, the tiny silver lining is if we win this one, then we really, really, really have won the RKBA argument, stick a fork in it.
BIG 'if's' I fully and readily admit, but yet it's there.
The inaction after Columbine and VT were serious blows to the antis, who in terms of funding and membership already were on the ropes, but the inaction and their inability to pass anything after such high profile events it let everyone else know it. Granted, the kids weren't as young, but it established a pattern and a benchmark for us to win.
And in terms of the "political climate" being against us, I'm not sure by how much it really is. Obama won with a fair number of blue-collar types who fell for the class-warfare/class-envy stuff, but folks who otherwise love their guns every bit as much as the rest of us do. And aside from Fast and Furious, they were willing to vote for him again based on his relative inaction on anything gun-related.
If it comes to that, I feel bad for my kids... and the kids of the people doing the confiscating.
Another thing to consider is that AR type rifles are way more popular now. I am also hearing that they are selling out everywhere. Hopefully, these people are thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, I am not crazy..."
-
Any buzz on what might be labeled an "assault weapon" this time? AR-15's seem to be the new media talking point, as opposed to AK's last time. But I'm hearing and reading the Glock name a whole lot this time around...with the Arizona shootings, the Va. Tech shootings, and now the Sandy Hook guy packing one. Kind of worried "assault weapon" ay include handguns this time...
Ed Schultz: "...a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation
-
If Ed Shultz says it, it has to be true. :D
The semi-automatic pistol catagory is certainly getting some attention this time (again). I think it very unlikely that your run of the mill semi-auto (aka bottom feeder) will be banned, but a magazine capacity limit is another issue. Sen. Lattenberg (D-NJ) is re-introducing a bill specifically to limit magazine capacity to 10-rounds again. My guess is that he feels it better to take little steps than a big one such as Feinstein is trying to take on the gun issue.
A political discussion on gun control or as Bloomberg says, "gun regulation", is a consequence of the Sandy Hook event. But I did find it offensive that the gun control issue was already being tossed about by the media before the bodies were even taken out of the school.
-
At least they recognize it's not going to be that simple.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15977143-gun-control-offers-no-cure-all-in-america?lite (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15977143-gun-control-offers-no-cure-all-in-america?lite)
-
But I did find it offensive that the gun control issue was already being tossed about by the media before the bodies were even taken out of the school.
They can't let a crisis go to waste, now can they?
Keep in mind the leftist version of solving the problem involves mass graves and disappearing people. They are the kind that think that Communism is a great thing and that the reason the Soviet Union failed is A) The Right People weren't in charge and B) Not enough Enemies of the State were killed.
Think I'm crazy? Look at how many people are calling for gun owners to be shot.
-
The Left's vision is all of us living in a unified socialist state under their rules and operating with our industry and treasure. They have won the culture war and they have won the demographics war, and they are hard on the march to repeal what is left of our inalienable rights. There is no way to co-exist with them as free people because our vision of freedom means nothing to them, is in fact repulsive to them. Maybe we will figure that out before it's too late and do what's necessary. Or maybe not.
It is dispiriting to see even people on the Right, allegedly, wobbling on gun rights in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. We have way too many soft-headed people who are opionating solely on emotion--but that is exactly the culture that we have permitted to be created in the last half-century. A society where the tragic death of children, however horrific, makes us irrational, impulsive, and either mute or hysterical is not one where liberty can exist much less flourish. Don't think the Left, ruthless as they are, toxic as they are, does not understand our passions, manias, and, yes, radical weaknesses.
-
On the whole ex post facto conversation, maybe it was already mentioned but what about full-autos? While not outright banned, back when it started they had to be registered and if not registered in time it became illegal to own. ???
-
On the whole ex post facto conversation, maybe it was already mentioned but what about full-autos? While not outright banned, back when it started they had to be registered and if not registered in time it became illegal to own. ???
That's always how confiscations go.
You have a time window to register. Beyond that you are a criminal
Fast forward a certain amount of time
You have a window to turn them in. Beyond that you are a criminal. PS we already know who you are.
-
Do you need to inform the ATF if the NFA item s destroyed/lost?
-
I am all for meaningful discussions about gun rights, such as:
1. Nationwide constitutional carry
2. No gun free zones, except secure facilities like jails.
:P
-
Do you need to inform the ATF if the NFA item s destroyed/lost?
I believe notification of ATF after an NFA item is destroyed is customary, but I don't know if it required. If it is stolen, again ATF is notified and presumably local police as well. I have no idea about if one is lost but theft is not suspected.
-
"AK-15" could easily just be the brain processing faster than the mouth can speak. A sorta mismash comes out: I've had that happen before
O'Reilly is a moron. I remember him ranting on years ago about how we need to get all the machine guns and bazookas off our streets. ;/
I believe notification of ATF after an NFA item is destroyed is customary, but I don't know if it required. If it is stolen, again ATF is notified and presumably local police as well. I have no idea about if one is lost but theft is not suspected.
Damn boating accidents.
-
O'Reilly is a moron. I remember him ranting on years ago about how we need to get all the machine guns and bazookas off our streets. ;/
Damn boating accidents.
He does like the bazooka example. But hey, Ahnold used one in a movie once, so they must be available at gun shows, right? ;/
-
I am all for meaningful discussions about gun rights, such as:
1. Nationwide constitutional carry
2. No gun free zones, except secure facilities like jails.
:P
Me too.
And they can begin with dealing with gangstas and ghettos, which generate Sandy Hook massacres every weekend. Then they can move on to the systematic dismantling of the culture of self-reliance and reason and responsibility that were always the palladium of RKBA in traditional America.
Will this happen? No way. Because we are irreversibly two nations, two cultures now. All of this is just the anteroom of that momentous realization and what it will imply about our future and liberty.
-
Nothing makes me more assured about the future of US gun ownership then knowing its most prominent enemy is Dianne Feinstein.
-
Yeah, but Feinstein isn't the problem, it's the army of Feinstein epigones behind her. I'm not saying her views prevail, just that we have a big problem on our hands given the powerful wave of anti-RKBA propaganda.
-
He does like the bazooka example. But hey, Ahnold used one in a movie once, so they must be available at gun shows, right? ;/
God I get tired of correcting this...bazookas are not available at gunshows...you have to go to the Army-Navy surplus store. They keep them in the hidden backroom along with the GPMGs and grenades and claymores. For chrissakes...
-
God I get tired of correcting this...bazookas are not available at gunshows...you have to go to the Army-Navy surplus store. They keep them in the hidden backroom along with the GPMGs and grenades and claymores. For chrissakes...
That's where Bert Gummer gets all his....
-
God I get tired of correcting this...bazookas are not available at gunshows...you have to go to the Army-Navy surplus store. They keep them in the hidden backroom along with the GPMGs and grenades and claymores. For chrissakes...
Dude WTF?!?
You weren't supposed to tell.
-
I know, WTH now everybody is going to want one....Can you imagine the price increase...
-
http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/ (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)
Argument against Pro RKBA rationalizations.
-
http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/ (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)
Argument against Pro RKBA rationalizations.
When we come to full-on making law and modifying behavior on the basis of sociological metrics, stop the bus, cause I'll want off.
-
http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/ (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)
Argument against Pro RKBA rationalizations.
The graph is stupid and shows the author's bias. If you invert it (i'm probably misusing a technical term), it becomes obvious -- Graph the number of non-firearm homicides vs. the lack of availability of firearms. I bet you have a lot of knife deaths in the UK, for instance.
An interesting graph might show number of guns per 100 by country vs. the total homicide rate.
-
US is 26th in the world for per capita gun deaths. All of the countries above us have significantly more restrictive firearm laws.
And, of course, all sociology is complete and utter bullshit.
-
http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/ (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)
Argument against Pro RKBA rationalizations.
Maybe...dare I say it?...there are worse things than the occasional massacre...? Maybe even worse is an entire society and culture living in oppressive conformity or in outright servitude? You pay a price for everything, you choose your poison.
But there's this in that article:
"Rationalization #3: It’s because of diversity. All these other countries have much more racial and ethnic homogeneity than the United States.
Note that no evidence is ever offered of that claim. But let’s accept it for the sake of argument. The majority of homicides in the US are committed within racial and ethnic groups, not across racial and ethnic lines. If diversity was the issue, we would be discussing epidemics of cross-racial / cross-ethnic violence. That is just not the case. And in the vast majority of the killings under discussion, it is usually white killers / white victims. Diversity has nothing to do with it. Illegal immigration has nothing to do with it. When was the last time such killings were committed by undocumented immigrants?
As a general rule, when people invoke “diversity” as the independent variable (never operationalized as a variable, but amorphously invoked nonetheless), it is the PC way of making a racist argument (it’s because of the non-white people that other European countries don’t have) without being called racist. And it’s wrong every single time."
This author is flat-out wrong about cross-racial and cross-ethnic violence when it comes to ordinary, plain-wrap criminal homicide, as opposed to the headline-grabbing Big Event massacre.
-
Balog, do you have a source for that? I'd like to be able to cite it authoritatively.
-
Balog, do you have a source for that? I'd like to be able to cite it authoritatively.
I posted the link on FB yesterday, wait one while I track it down again.
-
Balog, do you have a source for that? I'd like to be able to cite it authoritatively.
Here we go, from that bastion of deranged bitter clingers BBC News... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139
-
O'Reilly is a moron. I remember him ranting on years ago about how we need to get all the machine guns and bazookas off our streets. ;/
He thinks there are a lot of machine guns and bazookas out there? Maybe that's why he's always talking about heavy weapons.
-
The abject ignorance about firearms technology in the professional chatter community is staggering. But it doesn't stop the loudmouths from voicing their opinions about Glocks as mini-Gatling guns.
-
My biggest objection to the great Bill O'Reilly is his use of the term "heavy weapons" when referring to small arms like the civilian versions of the AR, AK, etc. In addition, if he wants to assert a strong opinion and he almost always has one, he blows his guest away. This is a guest typically that is very uncomfortable on TV and certainly is not likely to stand up toe to to with BO. The guy from the Second Amendment foundation is a good example yesterday. Bill's opinion is always the most important.
-
He's a blowhard who thinks he is far smarter than he is. No doubt a couple of best sellers written by a "collaborator" have done nothing to shrink his ego.
-
My biggest objection to the great Bill O'Reilly is his use of the term "heavy weapons" when referring to small arms like the civilian versions of the AR, AK, etc. In addition, if he wants to assert a strong opinion and he almost always has one, he blows his guest away. This is a guest typically that is very uncomfortable on TV and certainly is not likely to stand up toe to to with BO. The guy from the Second Amendment foundation is a good example yesterday. Bill's opinion is always the most important.
I generally like Bill O'Reilly but those "heavy weaponry" remarks irritate me as well.
He stated tonight he wants owners of AR-15s to be registered with the FBI.
:facepalm: [tinfoil]
This isn't going to help anything.....
Later he stated that if someone was shown to be dangerously psycho, the authorities could check with the FBI and see if he owned a heavy weapon er, AR-15.
Uh, Billy-boy:NEWSFLASH: when someone is adjudicated nutz and commited a warrant is issued to the police to confiscate ALL the person's firearms, both heavy and light. Oh, and those pesky omnipresent bazookas as well. :-*
-
The first honest opinion piece I've seen on the Sandy Hook Massacre; it's in the San Francisco paper of all places: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/navarrette/article/Gun-debate-needs-a-waiting-period-4129691.php (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/navarrette/article/Gun-debate-needs-a-waiting-period-4129691.php)
-
In addition, if he wants to assert a strong opinion and he almost always has one, he blows his guest away. This is a guest typically that is very uncomfortable on TV and certainly is not likely to stand up toe to to with BO.
There are a bunch of youtube videos of him doing just that. From what little I've watched of him, I don't really care for him.
-
http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/ (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)
Argument against Pro RKBA rationalizations.
This article is fantastic BS from the get-go.
Yes, obviously, nations with more guns will have more murders with guns.
Surely if I had made the decision to murder someone and a gun was available, I'd use that.
...but if I were a murder victim, it'd be cold comfort if I were killed with a knife.
Once the total homicide rate is invoked, his neat little graph falls apart.
-
Is there yet any clear headed account of the shooting? Not the political circus or the reporting on the funerals, but just timeline, what shots fired with what weapons? Things I want to confirm is that the AR was left in the car, that meshes with getting into the school, probably buzzed in a locked door. So why are we going after assault rifles? I saw a teacher's aide state that the shooting went on for 20 minutes. So much for hero cops eh? If that time is correct that is a lot of time for someone to respond, additionally the pace suggests the POS could have done this with 2 1858s and some spare cylinders.
-
Is there yet any clear headed account of the shooting? Not the political circus or the reporting on the funerals, but just timeline, what shots fired with what weapons? Things I want to confirm is that the AR was left in the car, that meshes with getting into the school, probably buzzed in a locked door. So why are we going after assault rifles? I saw a teacher's aide state that the shooting went on for 20 minutes. So much for hero cops eh? If that time is correct that is a lot of time for someone to respond, additionally the pace suggests the POS could have done this with 2 1858s and some spare cylinders.
I wasn't aware they were attacking assault rifles. I thought it was semi-automatic rifles, carbines and pistols, their associated standard size magazines and the non-item "assault weapons" they wanted to ban.
-
At least they recognize it's not going to be that simple.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15977143-gun-control-offers-no-cure-all-in-america?lite (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15977143-gun-control-offers-no-cure-all-in-america?lite)
Still slanted.
How does the number of murders committed with firearms compare to the number of suicides committed with firearms?
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2011 there were 19,766 suicides committed with firearms and 11,101 homicides committed with firearms.
The question asked how many "murders." The statistic was "homicides." A police officer shooting an armed felon is a "homicide." So is a shooting in self defense. We have no way of knowing how many of the homicides in their statistic were justified homicides, as opposed to murders.
At risk of being morbid, I'll just point out that the Petit home invasion in Cheshire, CT, a few years ago resulted in the "homicides" of the mother and two teen-aged daughters. No guns involved. The bad guys beat the father with a baseball bat, raped and then strangled the mother, and killed the two daughters by dousing the house with gasoline and dropping a match on their way out.
Where's the rush to ban or register baseball bats and gasoline cans?
On May 18,1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, 45 people (mostly students) were killed and 58 were wounded when a former member of the school board detonated three (3) bombs. The shooters at Columbine in 1999 had set two 20-pound propane bombs. Their original plan had been to blow up the building, then to shoot anyone who survived the bombs. Mercifully, the bombs failed to explode. But we can't forget that the bombs were the primary intended weapon and, if they had gone off as planned, the death toll would likely have been in the hundreds.
How do we harden our schools against bombs? It can't happen when the "We have to do something" crowd is maniacally focused on guns.
-
How do we harden our schools against bombs? It can't happen when the "We have to do something" crowd is maniacally focused on guns.
The 'banning guns' position is the position of idiot collective.
Idiots who don't realize that with a bit of knowledge, an individual can create something far more destructive and deadly from materials sold at the local hardware store.
-
Here's a survivor interview that shows us the crux of the issue: http://video.foxnews.com/v/2044270701001/
So the school had a "security" plan. Front doors locked at 9:30 -- gunman shoots out GLASS sidelight and opens door. So much for that.
Stage 2: Lock down the classrooms. Oops -- the teachers don't have the keys to lock their own doors. That's a point I have been making to school boards and architects for at least ten years, but they haven't yet listened. These "security" plans are just a microcosmic version of our entire TSA and Homeland Security system. It's all about providing the appearance of security, without having any real understanding that the show-and-tell stuff they're doing has essentially zero chance of accomplishing anything in a real world situation.
How the hell can you set up a lock-down plan that doesn't include giving the teachers the keys to the doors? :facepalm:
-
The President was on the TeeVee while I was at the gym.
They are plainly planning to go after private sales, all sales of "military style assault weapons", and all sales of high cap mags.
-
The good news is that he put Biden in charge....
-
With the track record of the President 'going after the sales of military assault weapons' in his own cabinet, I'm not too worried yet.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googlepixel.com%2Fimages%2Ftruthhurts.jpg&hash=cdf35baf1f113edc3b7304295a7c89aebd366c79)
-
When there were three dozen homicides in Chicago not that long ago over one weekend we didn't hear anything. But this causes national hysteria.
***
Will anybody in the media ask why so many middle-class people are buying AR-15s? Who exactly are they afraid of? And are they all crazy?
***
There are now two classes of Americans: the bodyguard class and the rest of us.
-
When there were three dozen homicides in Chicago not that long ago over one weekend we didn't hear anything. But this causes national hysteria.
***
Will anybody in the media ask why so many middle-class people are buying AR-15s? Who exactly are they afraid of? And are they all crazy?
***
There are now two classes of Americans: the bodyguard class and the rest of us.
One could question the 30,000 or so innocents that were killed through abortions in the last week also...
If the left want to be intellectually honest <insert laugh track> they would need to address that first.
-
First, let's keep our eyes on target...RKBA, and not get caught up in a broad spectrum political debate...
Second, I didn't see the speech (darn it). Did it sound like he was speaking of going after the future sales of such items, or a ban on current possession/confiscation? Not that I like the first option, but it would be a lot easier poison pill to swallow than the second...
-
First, let's keep our eyes on target...RKBA, and not get caught up in a broad spectrum political debate...
Second, I didn't see the speech (darn it). Did it sound like he was speaking of going after the future sales of such items, or a ban on current possession/confiscation? Not that I like the first option, but it would be a lot easier poison pill to swallow than the second...
He said he supported an AWB and a ban on "high capacity clips." He didn't go into any specifics. Presumably, this is what Biden is supposed to deliver in January.
-
"Biden will handle it" sounds an awful lot like "let's forget all about it."
-
"Biden will handle it" sounds an awful lot like "let's forget all about it."
Uh no. This is Biden's wet dream.
Remember that before he was Veep, he was one of the more outspoken gun grabbers.
-
I don't recall, but he's Vice President Joe Biden. He's a running joke. What better way for Obama to signal he's not serious, than to kick it over to Biden?
-
I don't recall, but he's Vice President Joe Biden. He's a running joke. What better way for Obama to signal he's not serious, than to kick it over to Biden?
If DiFi were VP, Obama would kick it over to her too.
Why?
Because He would get the double benefit of handing the lightning rod over to his in-house gun control expert.
-
If DiFi were VP, Obama would kick it over to her too.
Why?
Because He would get the double benefit of handing the lightning rod over to his in-house gun control expert.
But it's the very notion of Biden having any "expertise" that strains credulity. Fervor? Passion? OK. But how does one become a legitimate expert in a field (gun control) where the prime requisites are emotion and capacity to bend truth to the breaking point?
-
But how does one become a legitimate expert in a field (gun control) where the prime requisites are emotion and capacity to bend truth to the breaking point?
You just answered your own qestion.
-
You just answered your own qestion.
If politician equals expert, the world's even more effed up than I thought.
-
First, let's keep our eyes on target...RKBA, and not get caught up in a broad spectrum political debate...
The reason why Conservatives lose arguments where they have all logic in their corner is because they are arguing within the same framework that their enemy created.
Reframing the argument to put things into perspective is a far better approach.
Americans, well people in general, lack perspective, and are easily swayed by bogus arguments, especially if they are emotional arguments.
I would like to see a national debate about something as equally absurd as banning guns such as banning airplanes since we all witnessed thousands of Americans killed in one day due to 'airplane violence.'
We won't though. Nationally, our gutless republicans are losing a national debate on spending and taxes- two items that they should never lose on, simply because they are working within the frame Obama set for them. I fully expect them to knuckle under over gun control as well.
-
If DiFi were VP, Obama would kick it over to her too.
Why?
Because He would get the double benefit of handing the lightning rod over to his in-house gun control expert.
You're talking about this as if anyone cares what Biden wants. That seems doubtful. Biden can be as gung-ho on gun control as he likes. That doesn't mean Democrats will get behind him. And actually, if Biden's anti-gun credentials make this bill more extreme, wouldn't that just make it less likely to pass?
-
He said he supported an AWB and a ban on "high capacity clips." He didn't go into any specifics. Presumably, this is what Biden is supposed to deliver in January.
Would it be too much to hope for that these morons would include this kind of ignorance/mislabeling in the law they craft? All my "clips" (en bloc, moon, stripper, etc.) are already 10rd's or less. My magazines on the other hand...
-
Would it be too much to hope for that these morons would include this kind of ignorance/mislabeling in the law they craft?
When they don't know the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, or between a Glock and a Kimber, how can they be expected to know the proper names of the parts, or even what the parts do ("the thing that goes up")?
-
When they don't know the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, or between a Glock and a Kimber, how can they be expected to know the proper names of the parts, or even what the parts do ("the thing that goes up")?
"Have you turned in or registered all your high capacity clips?"
"Yup."
"Then what's that there in your hand!?"
"A standard capacity magazine."
-
Oh just something I'd toss out there.. During a conversation a fellow tried to bring up the race argument (guess he much be one of those folks who suffers from man excess of white-guilt) about how all the mass shooters were white.
My very even toned (best "reasonable discussion" voice) reply:
"Not really. For example the belt-way snipers were African, Cho, the VA tech shooter is Asian and Nidal Hassan is Palestinian."
*a look for dawning on his face short only the lightbulb over the head* "Oh, I guess you're right."
And thus quickly ended the race side of the discussion.
Those were just the three I could pull off the top of my head on the spot during the conversation. Thought some others might find that useful for their own personal discussions.
-
Would it be too much to hope for that these morons would include this kind of ignorance/mislabeling in the law they craft? All my "clips" (en bloc, moon, stripper, etc.) are already 10rd's or less. My magazines on the other hand...
Yes, they'll use broad enough language to cover everything. There will be a part of the bill that says "high capacity clip means any device that stores, feeds, or supplies any firearm with with ammunition in excess of 2 rounds"
-
For all you need on this saucy topic refer to the following:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/jezebel-have-you-noticed-that-white-dudes-keep-mass-murdering-people-no-weve-noticed-you-promo
-
Oh just something I'd toss out there.. During a conversation a fellow tried to bring up the race argument (guess he much be one of those folks who suffers from man excess of white-guilt) about how all the mass shooters were white.
My very even toned (best "reasonable discussion" voice) reply:
"Not really. For example the belt-way snipers were African, Cho, the VA tech shooter is Asian and Nidal Hassan is Palestinian."
*a look for dawning on his face short only the lightbulb over the head* "Oh, I guess you're right."
And thus quickly ended the race side of the discussion.
Those were just the three I could pull off the top of my head on the spot during the conversation. Thought some others might find that useful for their own personal discussions.
My God, you've just uncovered the answer to mass shootings, and maybe even mass murder in general. It's men! Ban men, and the world will be safe for everyone!
-
My God, you've just uncovered the answer to mass shootings, and maybe even mass murder in general. It's men! Ban men, and the world will be safe for everyone!
As my ex-wife used to say: if it has tires or testicles, it is going to cause problems.
-
Yes, they'll use broad enough language to cover everything. There will be a part of the bill that says "high capacity clip means any device that stores, feeds, or supplies any firearm with with ammunition in excess of 2 rounds"
Well that would exclude my bolt action rifles that I use primarily for hunting.
So much for my pump and semi auto shotguns.
-
I was being a bit facetious on the round count but it wouldn't surprise me either if they went for it.
-
The reason why Conservatives lose arguments where they have all logic in their corner is because they are arguing within the same framework that their enemy created.
Reframing the argument to put things into perspective is a far better approach.
Americans, well people in general, lack perspective, and are easily swayed by bogus arguments, especially if they are emotional arguments.
QFT.
Never forget this. By even debating "gun violence" we are allowing the grabbers to shape the discussion around guns, rather than around violence. We should be constantly reframing this debate to be about "school security" rather than about "gun violence."
And be aware of how consistently and subtly the media are spinning this. They are working every possible angle for all it's worth, and all on an emotional level. I saw at least one article about the first funerals for the kids. The article was a typical tear-jerker, and there's no question that the incident was a genuine tragedy. But ... the articles made references to "tiny" coffins. Not "small" ... "tiny." These were kids 6 thought 7 or 8 years old. They were young, and undoubtedly smaller than adults, but I would expect the adjective "tiny" to be used in the context of a coffin for an infant.
But calling them "tiny" just makes them sound OH so much more innocent and vulnerable.
-
Yahoo News (funny that) informs me that gun deaths are projected to exceed automobile deaths by 2015.
-
Yahoo News (funny that) informs me that gun deaths are projected to exceed automobile deaths by 2015.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
-
QFT.
Never forget this. By even debating "gun violence" we are allowing the grabbers to shape the discussion around guns, rather than around violence. We should be constantly reframing this debate to be about "school security" rather than about "gun violence."
I think it's much more significant that the negative side of guns is constantly in focus, with the positive side virtually ignored. It's never x number of people killed vs x number of lives saved by guns; it's always x number of people killed vs some theory or tradition that says we have a right to own guns.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
Keep in mind that the CDC statistics include police shootings and legitimate self defense shootings in their count of "gun homicides." I don't know what the break-down is, but those aren't all murders.
-
Keep in mind that the CDC statistics include police shootings and legitimate self defense shootings in their count of "gun homicides." I don't know what the break-down is, but those aren't all murders.
And suicides, perchance?
-
But calling them "tiny" just makes them sound OH so much more innocent and vulnerable.
Like fetuses. Oh, wait... it's OK to kill those.
-
When they talk about "getting weapons of war off the street," should we remind them that the "weapons of war" "on the street" are mainly police dept. ARs, grenade launchers, etc?
-
OK folks, seriously: do you HAVE to dilute things by constantly bringing up abortion?
You're passionate about the issue. Good for you. But doing that constantly, especially in this discussion (and discussions with antis/fence sitters) just makes getting your point across that much harder
-
OK folks, seriously: do you HAVE to dilute things by constantly bringing up abortion?
Yes we do, when it fits. Who better fits the description "tiny, innocent, and vulnerable"?
-
*sigh*
No, it doesn't fit. It dilutes the discussion at the very least.
I would make the same statement to you if you were arguing banning abortion, and suddenly interjected gun control into it.
You're not even talking "apples to oranges" here. You're talking "apples to potassium metabisulphate"
-
Much as I hate to do this, I agree with Strings. :P
-
*sigh*
You're talking "apples to potassium metabisulphate"
Oddly enough, I use potassium metabisulphite* to treat apple slices when drying them. :)
*there's a bisulphate, but I don't think metabisulphate exists
-
If the fetus had the means of self-defense, abortion would quickly become a non-issue.
Give Obama his head and we will all be in the position of the fetus.
-
*shrug*
Which invalidates my point... how, again?
I'm not saying "Don't be pro-life". Nor am I saying "Don't push for a pro-life agenda". I'm saying "Don't mix it into the current debate".
It dilutes the message of "Guns don't kill, they're just a tool". It also makes it harder to reach out to folks who are fencesitters on RKBA, but have a pro-choice stance.
Let's finish THIS fight, which is currently in play, before moving on to another (which really isn't)
-
It's pretty obvious the thread veer here is going to lead to the topic being locked. Abortion threads never last.
-
And suicides, perchance?
Any count of firearms-related deaths over about 12K includes suicides, these days. So yes. Suicide is not a problem, unless it's performed with a firearm. ;/
Much as I hate to do this, I agree with Strings. :P
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" :lol:
Either that or it's a glitch in the Matrix. Woah.
-
Any count of firearms-related deaths over about 12K includes suicides, these days. So yes. Suicide is not a problem, unless it's performed with a firearm. ;/
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" :lol:
Either that or it's a glitch in the Matrix. Woah.
Also, if you compare suicide rates vs gun ownership in multiple countries or regions, while there IS a positive correlation in firearm suicides (duh) there is little to no correlation with total suicides.
-
It's pretty obvious the thread veer here is going to lead to the topic being locked. Abortion threads never last.
(https://forums.playfire.com/_proxy/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starcraftmazter.net%2F4chan%2Ffor_forums%2Fin_before_lock.gif&hmac=53d533915153b6d0368cafcabe9c5d3c)
-
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/post-newtown-witch-hunt-nra-president-and-members-bombarded-with-death-threats/
-
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/post-newtown-witch-hunt-nra-president-and-members-bombarded-with-death-threats/
So, if owning guns is supposed to be what makes people psychotically violent.... what's their excuse?
-
So, if owning guns is supposed to make people psychotically violent.... what's the Left's excuse?
I could make the case that most of the mass murderers and assassins in this country,with the noted exception of McVeigh, over the last 50 years had very left leaning points of view.
-
Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on gun control...
Read it, its full of win.
Also read the comments by various apparatchiks in Milwaukee government for contrast.
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_22228079/milwaukee-sheriff-calls-armed-school-guards-condemns-gun
-
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/post-newtown-witch-hunt-nra-president-and-members-bombarded-with-death-threats/
So I'm not paranoid. They really are out to get me :angel:
-
Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on gun control...
Read it, its full of win.
Also read the comments by various apparatchiks in Milwaukee government for contrast.
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_22228079/milwaukee-sheriff-calls-armed-school-guards-condemns-gun
Statism masquerading under a Tea Party cloak.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. called for placing armed tactical officers or security officers "in every school and public place in America," in a commentary piece posted on a tea party website.
[barf]
Just what I want. A swat ninja giving everyone the stinkeye at the mall, at the schools, on main street, et cetera.
Seeing a swattie out in LBE, plates, carbine and such is going to raise my hackles and make me start giving everyone the stinkeye in return, which is going to raise the swattie's hackles, and he's going to pay more attention to me because I'm behaving differently than everyone else, and he's going to look my body over real close and determine I'm carrying at 9 o'clock on the hip. Then the hassles begin. No thank you.
A thousand unseen pistols in unknown locations trumps a couple dozen "tactical operators" spread out onesy-twosy all over the place in an empty feel-good effort to make things look safe with more security theater (and more embedded authoritarianism).
-
Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on gun control...
Read it, its full of win.
Also read the comments by various apparatchiks in Milwaukee government for contrast.
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_22228079/milwaukee-sheriff-calls-armed-school-guards-condemns-gun
From the article:
"I don't think anything is served by reacting to it and dividing people as if they were the enemy," Abele said. "Especially when there's public officials, the bar for public comment should be a little higher."
Briiing. Briiiing. Hello pot? Kettle here.
-
Statism masquerading under a Tea Party cloak.
Actually take some time and google his name and some of the correspondences he's had with various functions of Milwaukee government.
It is both extremely entertaining and will open your eyes. He's one of the good guys.
Most of his public statements are hyperbole aimed at poking at the eyes of libtards that he is vastly outnumbered and surrounded by.
-
He advocated additional security as a SUPPLEMENT to the "thousands of unseen pistols". I'm against government encroachment, too, but that's a bit hyperbolic.
-
she is a hypocrite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1EObqM9Z0s
enjoy
-
So, if owning guns is supposed to be what makes people psychotically violent.... what's their excuse?
"It's for the chilllllddddrrrennnn!
-
Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke on gun control...
Read it, its full of win.
Also read the comments by various apparatchiks in Milwaukee government for contrast.
http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_22228079/milwaukee-sheriff-calls-armed-school-guards-condemns-gun
From the article:
Milwaukee Mayor Barrett took issue with Clarke's assertion that placing armed tactical officers or security officers in schools and other public places would stop violent acts. He noted the 2009 rampage at Fort Hood in Texas that killed 13 and left more than two dozen others wounded.
"That was a place where they had many guns," Barrett said.
Disinformation. Yes, an Army post has many guns. Locked up where the soldiers can't get at them. The victims of Major Hassan's carnage were unarmed.
-
I suspect the prices of firearms and magazines under consideration wil rise sharply, as they did in late '94. I have found no online retailer that shows 9mm Gockazines in stock. Botach doesn't count. (They lie) I ordered anyway. I will report the outcome.
Well, will wonders never cease? Just got notified by email that they're shipping all 18 magses. I think I will have enough. Oh yes.
-
Also, if you compare suicide rates vs gun ownership in multiple countries or regions, while there IS a positive correlation in firearm suicides (duh) there is little to no correlation with total suicides.
Yup - never seems to matter, those determined to kill themselves (those who often use firearms here in the US) seem to find some other way if they can't get guns.
Almost like it's not about the guns...
-
People forget that Columbine they had two Propane bombs that failed. Had they worked there would have been a ban on Gas Grills.
-
People forget that Columbine they had two Propane bombs that failed. Had they worked there would have been a ban on Gas Grills.
No, they still would have gone for an assault weapons ban, because you need an assault weapon to steal a gas grill.
-
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
-
Assault is an action, not a weapon.
The irony is we the free have been under assault for at least fifty years.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freebiespot.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Freynolds.jpg&hash=970840d0ddeb3c7e12f4e574c3e5e9a4b8b99cdf)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freebiespot.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Freynolds.jpg&hash=970840d0ddeb3c7e12f4e574c3e5e9a4b8b99cdf)
Wear it proudly.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freebiespot.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Freynolds.jpg&hash=970840d0ddeb3c7e12f4e574c3e5e9a4b8b99cdf)
Confused. Who is wearing tin foil?
-
knee-jerk reaction to something you don't want to hear. [popcorn]
=D :angel:
-
This is the funniest thing. :lol: Do watch all the way to the end.
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-12-18/who-is-funding-the-u-dot-s-dot-gun-market
-
This is the funniest thing. :lol: Do watch all the way to the end.
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-12-18/who-is-funding-the-u-dot-s-dot-gun-market
I have to wonder if bow-tie has ever left NYC?
-
I have to wonder if bow-tie has ever left NYC?
Or perhaps you mean Upper Manhattan, since he appears to think New York City is pretty crime free.
-
Both my dumbass senators cosponsored the Feinstein bill this week. I was pretty sure Klobuchar would (she's a nanny-statist if there ever was one), but I hoped at least Franken would vote against it -- or at least not vote for it.
I've sent them both stern emails (again), this time just saying that I will be actively supporting whomever the Republicans run against them in 2018 and 2014, respectively, and why. Doesn't matter that this bill has very little chance of passing, or that the country is facing much bigger problems than gun control. It's a line-in-the-sand issue and they've voluntarily stepped over it big-time.
-
This is the funniest thing. :lol: Do watch all the way to the end.
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-12-18/who-is-funding-the-u-dot-s-dot-gun-market
Cerberus is getting out of guns? When did this happen? They're private equity and have no storefront. They're practically untouchable by mobs of nagging sign carriers, and divorced from the actual firearms companies by about 2 levels of separation.
-
Cerberus is getting out of guns? When did this happen? They're private equity and have no storefront. They're practically untouchable by mobs of nagging sign carriers, and divorced from the actual firearms companies by about 2 levels of separation.
That Illusive Man is mighty cunning!
-
Cerberus is getting out of guns? When did this happen? They're private equity and have no storefront. They're practically untouchable by mobs of nagging sign carriers, and divorced from the actual firearms companies by about 2 levels of separation.
They announced it just a few days after the Newtown incident.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/cerberus-to-sell-gunmaker-freedom-group/
There are indications that Taurus is looking into buying Freedom Group:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/gun-ban-no-obstacle-to-taurus-bid-for-freedom-corporate-brazil.html
-
Taurus owning Remington and Marlin and Bushmaster?
Wow. That'll make Savage rifles that much more desirable. Who would want a Taurus-produced Remington 700?
-
There are indications that Taurus is looking into buying Freedom Group:
Oh God no...and you thought Rem/Marlin has been falling down on quality lately...prepare for a whole new level of suck.
-
That would pretty much kill the levergun, wouldn't it?
USRAC ("Winchester") folded 5-6 years ago. I understand there are Japanese Winchester leverguns... the CASS western fetishists who like case hardening and octagon barrels and such buy these for four digits.
Marlin's the next big one. I wouldn't buy a Taurus-Marlin.
Rossi, Puma... niche and small. Do any of the Cimarron/Uberti spaghetti cowboy gun firms make lever guns? Niche and small also, but something.
That USRAC plant needs to move its gear out to a right to work state and start cranking out sub-$500 Winchester 94's again. They were $250-$300 before they folded, but Obama and Bush have been hard at work devaluing that dollar since then.
-
Production had already resumed by Miroku circa 2010.
I've handled new Model 94s at the local Cabelas.
The prices are high, but the fit and finish blows away anything ever made in Connecticut.
http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/index.asp
If Taurus buys Remington, I see no change in production methods and quality.
Folks will go home on Friday night as Cerberus employees, and come back Monday morning as Taurus employees...
(Winchester Model 70s were built under FN ownership for how many years?)
-
. . . Folks will go home on Friday night as Cerberus employees, and come back Monday morning as Taurus employees...
You do know what they say about products made on Friday afternoon or Monday morning, don't you? :O
-
You do know what they say about products made on Friday afternoon or Monday morning, don't you? :O
Nice post. For a Friday. :lol:
-
I'm not so concerned about Taurus ruining these companies. It will be an acquisition of a brand, and production will not likely move to Brazil. Moreover, the new leadership at Taurus has been putting more resources into improving their QC, so this could potentially be a good acquisition of institutional knowledge for them. In addition, Taurus has shown that they are with us in the RKBA fight, which is more than can be said for Cerberus.
My short list of "must get" firearms includes a Miroku-made '73. :cool:
-
Is Cerberus expecting sweeping gun restrictions that will ruin business?
-
Is Cerberus expecting sweeping gun restrictions that will ruin business?
Doubtful. The last 94 AWB only made things better for the gun market, waking it up, making people realize it might not "be there tomorrow" even in neutered ban forms.
The surge in the AR market is directly related to the ban, and it's expiration. Not in lieu of it. Pretty much a decade and a half-long lower grade version of the '08 and '12/'13 panics.
I'd guess that Cerberus figured that as a total of their holdings it's a pittance, and the suddenly un-PC nature of the holding wasn't worth the trouble. Also, depending on how well the brands were being run higher sales may not necessarily meant higher profits.
-
Oh they were holding the evil Bushmaster company.
-
the California school teachers retirement fund was heavy on cerbrus
-
Production had already resumed by Miroku circa 2010.
I've handled new Model 94s at the local Cabelas.
The prices are high, but the fit and finish blows away anything ever made in Connecticut.
Man says that on a gun forum; people know he's not afraid of anything.
-
Cerberus gets much of its capital to invest from pension funds and the like. A lot of that money is from State employee / Teacher funds. These groups are mostly headed by very liberal management.
They are the ones pressuring for Cerberus to get out of the weapons industries.
That USRAC plant needs to move its gear out to a right to work state and start cranking out sub-$500 Winchester 94's again. They were $250-$300 before they folded, but Obama and Bush have been hard at work devaluing that dollar since then.
USRAC is owned by Browning who contacts the manufacturing of Win rifles to Japan (and has for quite a while.) Browning kept the US Mfg. operation open only making 70's and 94's until it was no longer cost effective. I think it is gone for good. The Winchester trademark is owned by Olin who licences the name to Browning. They also make the Win. ammo.
-
theres a fantasy out there that Bloomberg & Soros should buy the controlling interest and force any schemes required to end bad guns
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/benevolent-billionaires-should-buy-out-bushmaster.html
-
Seems like all the chatter I hear is that this is pretty much DOA and the hard core anti's are very grumpy.
-
Seems like all the chatter I hear is that this is pretty much DOA and the hard core anti's are very grumpy.
Likewise for the "occupy the NRA" idea that was briefly floated around.
-
theres a fantasy out there that Bloomberg & Soros should buy the controlling interest and force any schemes required to end bad guns
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/benevolent-billionaires-should-buy-out-bushmaster.html
Maybe I should RTFA, but do these people not realize there are 80 hundred AR manufacturers, and probably 40 hundred more would move in to replace any companies they "reformed"?
-
Seems like all the chatter I hear is that this is pretty much DOA and the hard core anti's are very grumpy.
They should be grumpy. If it's DOA, their entire claim to fame will be putting a couple million more ARs "on the street". =D
-
I still maintain that any politician, lobbyist or other such slime who tries to restrict the right of ordinary folks to own effective weapons for sport, defense, hunting, collecting or "just because, bitch" (my favorite reason/answer), should be legally barred from having any sort of security detail, armed or unarmed. They can, however, be issued with a free baseball bat, which is probably more than they deserve considering they would probably like to ban anything that is even remotely useable as a weapon, but, I'm feeling kind and generous at the moment...
-
I'm beginning to SERIOUSLY wonder if Di Fi owns stock in Bushmaster, or something.
Every time they float one of these ideas, people go on a buying spree. I know if *I* had stock in the company, I would try everything I could to get people to buy the product...
-
I'm beginning to SERIOUSLY wonder if Di Fi owns stock in Bushmaster, or something.
Every time they float one of these ideas, people go on a buying spree. I know if *I* had stock in the company, I would try everything I could to get people to buy the product...
Rather Atlas Shrugged-esque huh? Bunch of worthless self-important politicians sitting around bitching about capitalists while simultaneously makings oodles of money off those same capitalists. The fact that congress specifically exempted themselves from insider trading laws really makes me wish someone would pull a D'Anconia style event on them.
-
I still maintain that any politician, lobbyist or other such slime who tries to restrict the right of ordinary folks to own effective weapons for sport, defense, hunting, collecting or "just because, bitch" (my favorite reason/answer), should be legally barred from having any sort of security detail, armed or unarmed. They can, however, be issued with a free baseball bat, which is probably more than they deserve considering they would probably like to ban anything that is even remotely useable as a weapon, but, I'm feeling kind and generous at the moment...
Nah, just give 'em an Obama phone so they can call 911.
-
Give them a phone to call Obama, and Obama will come over with his skeet gun to scare off the bad guys.
-
Give them a phone to call Obama, and Obama will come over with his skeet gun to scare off the bad guys.
(NSFW linky)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeet
Obama is not shooting the skeet you are looking for.
-
"Pull!!!'
-
(NSFW linky)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeet
Obama is not shooting the skeet you are looking for.
I love a good well written Urban Dictionary entry.
-
I'm beginning to SERIOUSLY wonder if Di Fi owns stock in Bushmaster, or something.
Every time they float one of these ideas, people go on a buying spree. I know if *I* had stock in the company, I would try everything I could to get people to buy the product...
Just proves the consistent link between irrational/emotional progressive ideology and unintended consequences in the real world.
"I want it, therefore I should have it, regardless of what comes next."
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwQDYD7k.jpg&hash=fccb4c155836fb236ea7272a574a049343f9263a) (http://mashable.com/2013/02/02/obama-shoots-white-house/)
-
Massa say no photoshoppy on that one.
What exactly is 0 being made to appear to shoot in that pic?
-
Apparently there is a tradional competition between the Marine guards at Camp David and the POTUS. Those who attended stated that Obama was there and gone in under 5 minutes. (Didn't even shoot a full round.) Like he could not get out of there fast enough.
Yeah...."all the time." ;/ ;/
-
Note the wristwatch.... =|
-
Note the wristwatch.... =|
???
-
where's the mom jeans? [tinfoil]
-
I think he really is one of us.
It looks to me like he's carrying concealed. Isn't that a fanny pack over his belly under his shirt?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwQDYD7k.jpg&hash=fccb4c155836fb236ea7272a574a049343f9263a) (http://mashable.com/2013/02/02/obama-shoots-white-house/)
-
I think he really is one of us.
It looks to me like he's carrying concealed. Isn't that a fanny pack over his belly under his shirt?
Nah. Alien baby bump.
-
Isn't that buttstock high on his shoulder?
-
:Shrug. Yeah but the shotgun's in recoil, and he's not a very good shooter.
It was probably about half an inch in front of his shoulder 1/4 sec before that pic.
-
His form matters not. Even if he shoots every weekend at camp David, it's simple pandering and is an idiotic assertion that skeet shooting and "sporting purpose" have anything to do with the 2nd amendment. He's a tool and his handlers are idiots.
-
Isn't that buttstock high on his shoulder?
Yes.
:Shrug. Yeah but the shotgun's in recoil, and he's not a very good shooter.
It was probably about half an inch in front of his shoulder 1/4 sec before that pic.
He's got a lot more practice shooting his mouth off . . . . . [tinfoil]
-
His form matters not. Even if he shoots every weekend at camp David, it's simple pandering and is an idiotic assertion that skeet shooting and "sporting purpose" have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.
Obvioushly.
-
Note the wristwatch.... =|
I saw that right away
-
I saw that right away
What's wrong with the wristwatch? ???
-
What's wrong with the wristwatch? ???
Theoretically it's on the wrong wrist for a leftie.
-
Theoretically it's on the wrong wrist for a leftie.
I'm very left-handed and wear my watch on the left. *identity crisis*
-
Why is smoke coming from only one side of the ported barrel?
-
I'm very left-handed and wear my watch on the left. *identity crisis*
Then you must not be the man you think you are.....
-
Why is smoke coming from only one side of the ported barrel?
Same question I have. Also why is only one tube choked?
-
Is he a true lefty, or just shooting left handed (left eye dominant)?
-
What's wrong with the wristwatch? ???
also rubs on the stock scratching the wood
-
Is he a true lefty, or just shooting left handed (left eye dominant)?
That's what I was thinking. Or some people just wear their watch on the dominant hand anyway, because they find the watch hangs up on stuff like car doors, or whatever all day long otherwise. It's not significant to me.
Someone's already claimed that by going through the EXIF data, and error level analysis that the image the White House released was shopped.
However, that could just mean color balance, contrast, white levels etc. and nothing material to the "reality" of the image itself.
-
The second puff of smoke to the right of the barrel is actually coming from a hidden shooter in the woods. The hidden shooter is the one who actually hits the clays, making Obama look like a better skeet shooter than he is. Nobody has told Obama, though, so he thinks he's really good.
-
Someone's already claimed that by going through the EXIF data, and error level analysis that the image the White House released was shopped.
However, that could just mean color balance, contrast, white levels etc. and nothing material to the "reality" of the image itself.
Seems more likely than a conspiracy theory. Seems like most everyone at the very least runs "autocorrect" or "autobalance" or whatever these days.
-
If I ever become POTUS, there will be lots of pictures showing me firing off everything from a P-226 to a M-4 to a Browning H-2, to turning the launch key of a practice Trident. Why would I not take advantage of free ammo paid for by the Government?
-
Seems more likely than a conspiracy theory. Seems like most everyone at the very least runs "autocorrect" or "autobalance" or whatever these days.
Not to mention just cropping the image and such.
-
Same question I have. Also why is only one tube choked?
If he is shooting trap, then only one barrel is needed.
-
The second puff of smoke to the right of the barrel is actually coming from a hidden shooter in the woods. The hidden shooter is the one who actually hits the clays, making Obama look like a better skeet shooter than he is. Nobody has told Obama, though, so he thinks he's really good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jdQqjcsfC8
I am right handed and I have always warn a watch on my right hand, same thing with my class ring when I wore it.
-
I'm very left-handed and wear my watch on the left.
Same here. I shoot left handed too, and...
also rubs on the stock scratching the wood
...I've never had that problem. But then, I don't wear metal watch straps; if I wear a watch at all (which isn't very often), I usually stick to leather. The metal ones pull my arm hair and generally annoy me.
The one that Obama is wearing appears to have a rubber strap, though I suppose it could be a dark colored metal band.
-
If he is shooting trap, then only one barrel is needed.
His statement to the New Republic was the he shoots skeet.
-
Someone's already claimed that by going through the EXIF data, and error level analysis that the image the White House released was shopped.
"Stand here, hole it like this. We'll add a puff of smoke later."
We already know they have people with Photoshop skills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories).
-
His statement to the New Republic was the he shoots skeet.
He doesn't know the difference.
Heck, I don't know the difference, not ever having been into "sporting clays".
-
Skeet has the high house and the low house that launch the clays.
The clays are launched from in front of you (down range) with trap.
Sporting clays is a whole different sport that is meant to emulate different birds and field critters.
-
Same here. I shoot left handed too, and...
...I've never had that problem. But then, I don't wear metal watch straps; if I wear a watch at all (which isn't very often), I usually stick to leather. The metal ones pull my arm hair and generally annoy me.
The one that Obama is wearing appears to have a rubber strap, though I suppose it could be a dark colored metal band.
Not sure why we're analyzing the watch, but a leather/rubber strap would probably still have a metal buckle.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soopermexican.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fobama-skeet-photoshop1.jpg&hash=26f3b150271a14a7625bbb370a8a2cc31fa01423)
-
I'll bet JJ likes those shoes. ;)
-
I'll bet JJ likes those shoes. ;)
This!
-
http://patterico.com/2013/02/03/some-obama-photoshops-the-white-house-warned-us-not-to-make-or-publish/
Too many to link and re-image here, but some good 'Shops! =D
-
Lots more Photoshop goodness here:
http://co-ironwill.blogspot.com/2013/02/rules-for-radicals-rule-5.html
-
more here (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/02/hahahahaha-white-house-actually.html)
-
Lots more Photoshop goodness here:
http://co-ironwill.blogspot.com/2013/02/rules-for-radicals-rule-5.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-XcDsFkdDO7M%2FUQ31fQzx2UI%2FAAAAAAAAEOw%2FgZ5G9u39958%2Fs400%2FObama%2BPhotoshop%2BNo.jpg&hash=2378b74421ae8cbbb76d93bc30a0c7b76fecdd49)
-
OK, this one wins.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F539632_535912153109787_1182793615_n.jpg&hash=7957feebc6ad9ddc28e6ecae85b2e3ae20eb82b4)
-
I like the one where he's on the standing on the wing.
-
ZOMG! CNN is calling it as a no go.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politics/obama-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
-
They still gonna go after "universal bg checks"? What about magazine sizes?
-
"Universal background checks, with database" is a euphemism for "national gun registry" which is the precursor to "selective seizures" which is then followed by "national disarmament."
Seriously, guys, it is more important to spike this "universal background check" thing than to prevent arbitrary banning of selected arms.
They'll throw up a big "ban everything" bill, and then "reluctantly" offer a "compromise" of national gun registration under the rubric of "background checks."
This needs to be killed with fire.
-
"Universal background checks, with database" is a euphemism for "national gun registry" which is the precursor to "selective seizures" which is then followed by "national disarmament."
Seriously, guys, it is more important to spike this "universal background check" thing than to prevent arbitrary banning of selected arms.
They'll throw up a big "ban everything" bill, and then "reluctantly" offer a "compromise" of national gun registration under the rubric of "background checks."
This needs to be killed with fire.
+∞ This is the real devil in the details....
-
One of the best, well reasoned articles about why universal background checks are a bad idea.
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/why-i-am-opposed-to-background-checks/
-
"Universal background checks, with database" is a euphemism for "national gun registry" which is the precursor to "selective seizures" which is then followed by "national disarmament."
Seriously, guys, it is more important to spike this "universal background check" thing than to prevent arbitrary banning of selected arms.
They'll throw up a big "ban everything" bill, and then "reluctantly" offer a "compromise" of national gun registration under the rubric of "background checks."
This needs to be killed with fire.
This in its entirity.
-
Universal background checks with out a registry would be ok with me. I would love to have a 1-800# to call anonymously to verify that a person is legal to purchase/own firearms. No questions about the firearm, just simple yes or no. If the answer is no then the local police are nofied by the system to investigate why this person tried to buy a firearm.
To me registration doesn't mean confiscation but future taxation.
-
Universal background checks with out a registry would be ok with me. I would love to have a 1-800# to call anonymously to verify that a person is legal to purchase/own firearms. No questions about the firearm, just simple yes or no. If the answer is no then the local police are nofied by the system to investigate why this person tried to buy a firearm.
To me registration doesn't mean confiscation but future taxation.
=D Yeah, but that is most definitely NOT what "they" mean by Background check :rofl:
You see, that would empower YOU, but what they want is POWER OVER YOU.
And taxation? "Well yes, thank you very much!" says the Government. In the mean while they'll tax you for it, and in the end they'll take it away. Registration at is core is about the ability to confiscate if deemed necessary..
-
Universal background checks with out a registry would be ok with me. I would love to have a 1-800# to call anonymously to verify that a person is legal to purchase/own firearms. No questions about the firearm, just simple yes or no. If the answer is no then the local police are nofied by the system to investigate why this person tried to buy a firearm.
To me registration doesn't mean confiscation but future taxation.
"That GD Charby screwed me over at work. I'll fix his wagon. I'll call this 1-800 number anonymously and have the ATF pay him a visit."
Yeah, that will work. ;/
If you have any doubt that the person you are selling to MIGHT be prohibited, then don't.
-
"That GD Charby screwed me over at work. I'll fix his wagon. I'll call this 1-800 number anonymously and have the ATF pay him a visit."
Yeah, that will work. ;/
If you have any doubt that the person you are selling to MIGHT be prohibited, then don't.
The number is for a NICS check, not to report someone. (202) 324-3000 is the number to report someone.
-
Wife falsely accuses husband of abuse during a divorce, Lautenberg kicks in and he's a prohibited person. She then call 1-800-GUN-CHECK and says he's trying to buy a gun from her (anonymously of course). Cops are notified and he's now a felon. Sounds like a great system.
-
Universal background checks with out a registry would be ok with me. I would love to have a 1-800# to call anonymously to verify that a person is legal to purchase/own firearms. No questions about the firearm, just simple yes or no. If the answer is no then the local police are nofied by the system to investigate why this person tried to buy a firearm.
To me registration doesn't mean confiscation but future taxation.
Not one more step back. I demand we go forward. "Universal background checks" is not a step in the correct direction.
-
Not one more step back. I demand we go forward. "Universal background checks" is not a step in the correct direction.
Agreed.
-
how about felons get a special edition Drivers License with a scarlet F emblazoned across it?
-
how about felons get a special edition Drivers License with a scarlet F emblazoned across it?
Thus creating yet another black market in phake IDs.
How about we quit punishing people after we let them out?
If you're out, you're a free man.
If you can't be trusted with firearms, why are you out?
This pretext of "corrections" and "rehabilitation" within the prison system, and "paying your debt to society" crap needs to be completely tossed.
Make up your [cultural] mind already. If he's a bad man, a violent man, a man beyond redemption, why the hell would you ever let him out? If, on the other hand, correction and rehab can actually work, then make it effing work and let a free man be a free man.
Repeat offenders? Pretended redemption? Commits another violent crime? Warehouse the miscreant, either in a prison or a cemetery.
I don't want people running around with a "scarlet letter," and I really, really don't want a system [such as we have now] where I continually have to prove I'm not one of the bad guys every time I want to exercise a right. I mean, REALLY?
When you're done punishing or rehabilitating a man, then BE DONE already! Seriously. It is cruel and unusual to tell a man, "you're free now . . . but we own you forever, and you may not do this list of things."
Gah!
-
And, while we're at it, can we PLEASE abolish the FFL?
In 1965 I could mail order a rifle or pistol from Sears. I could buy either one at the local hardware store, or at the Raley's supermarket out at the edge of town. The gas stations sold ammo and cheap .22 rifles. The Army surplus store had barrels of old military rifles. Pawn shops? Sure, drop in, pick up that old 1911 in the window.
Anyone could have a gun and most families did.
Prohibited person? What's that?
And school shootings? Anyone? Bueller?
I want my freedoms back. Stop saving me from your bogeymen.
-
^THIS. ALL of this!^
-
Speaking of registration=confiscation, if this article is an indication, confiscation will be a rather expensive endeavor. I have to wonder how many of these people got on the "can't own a gun" felony list while going through a nasty divorce.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/?test=latestnews
-
Speaking of registration=confiscation, if this article is an indication, confiscation will be a rather expensive endeavor. I have to wonder how many of these people got on the "can't own a gun" felony list while going through a nasty divorce.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/?test=latestnews
I read this, and missed how long this registry has been in effect. Does in indicate, or does anyone know?
It smacks of: "Ooh, we put this shiny new law on the books, but didn't bother with enforcement until the issue got public scrutiny." Not a unique situation, surely, but suggests the stereotypical knee-jerk reaction.
-
I read this, and missed how long this registry has been in effect. Does in indicate, or does anyone know?
It smacks of: "Ooh, we put this shiny new law on the books, but didn't bother with enforcement until the issue got public scrutiny." Not a unique situation, surely, but suggests the stereotypical knee-jerk reaction.
It's a bit murky with all our laws, plus the article just says "guns". "Assault weapons" confiscations began with the Roberti-Roosi SB23 debacle around 1999. We've had to register handguns at least that long (can't remember when exactly that started, but I think around 1990). A few years later everyone bringing a handgun into CA had to register it. Long guns are not due for mandatory registration until 2014, due to a crappy bill that passed last year. Also the confiscation thing might have been enacted some years after handgun registration. I've actually not heard of it till now, but if it was something recent, there should have been a big stink about it on CalGuns, and I haven't seen anything there.
-
Was there not an older series of events involving registration "just so we know" in CA, which later led to "okay, turn them in?"
This would have been quite a while back, and involved such things as WWII bring-backs.
Or am I distorting something else?
-
Speaking of registration=confiscation, if this article is an indication, confiscation will be a rather expensive endeavor. ..........
One of the arguments I hear about why the govt. will never confiscate is it will be too expensive.
Obamacare is too expensive and THAT DIDN'T STOP THE GOV FROM STUFFING THAT DOWN OUR THROATS.
-
One of the arguments I hear about why the govt. will never confiscate is it will be too expensive.
Obamacare is too expensive and THAT DIDN'T STOP THE GOV FROM STUFFING THAT DOWN OUR THROATS.
While that is correct, I would note that they didn't have to go door-to-door to stuff that down our throats.
When it becomes door-to-door, then perhaps the expense can be billed to the Gulag Archipelago.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
-
Was there not an older series of events involving registration "just so we know" in CA, which later led to "okay, turn them in?"
I think you're thinking of SB23 fallout, mentioned above. A small percentage of Californians obeyed the law and registered their "assault weapons", then a different AG sent out confiscation letters. I believe the hullabaloo started over an SKS that somebody had registered. The firearm type was "reclassified" at a later date, opening it to confiscation.
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html
-
I think you're thinking of SB23 fallout, mentioned above. A small percentage of Californians obeyed the law and registered their "assault weapons", then a different AG sent out confiscation letters. I believe the hullabaloo started over an SKS that somebody had registered. The firearm type was "reclassified" at a later date, opening it to confiscation.
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html
No, I'm thinking of a pre-nineties (and pre-eighties, I believe) event.
Gawd. I do wish the memory fragment had more data in it.
I just remember standing in a dining room several years ago, before we left Vegas (meaning "before 2000") and hearing this discussion. The tenor of the discussion was that you couldn't trust the government with registration, because look what happened way back then.
I just don't remember when "way back then" was.
-
Besides what else has been said about "universal" background checks, they'll also cause more of a logistical hassle when buying or selling - both parties will have to meet up at a prearranged date/time/place to have the check & paperwork completed. "Can you get next Thursday off to meet at the LGS"? "Nope, can we make it Weds instead"?
And which FFL is going to do the check & paperwork for free?
Quote from: Jamisjockey on Today at 10:02:38 AM
Not one more step back. I demand we go forward. "Universal background checks" is not a step in the correct direction.
Hell yeah.
-
And which FFL is going to do the check & paperwork for free?
None, and I can't blame them for not doing it for free. Though some here in CA make a racket out of it. The local rate is around $90 now for a private to private transfer. Up where my folks are, some FFLs still do it in the $50 range. I'm not sure it's worth more than $10-15.
Actually I guess I could argue that it's worth zero dollars because all the paperwork shouldn't be a requirement. A quick NICS call should be the end of it.
-
I wouldn't blame them for charging a fee; man's in business, not running a charity.
But $90 to do a transfer??? The last private to private sale I went through an FFL for in CA cost ~$10. That was a few decades ago though. Even with inflation it shouldn't cost more than ~$20.
-
If our betters in Washington really wanted to keep guns out of the wrong hands, you'd think they would implement some way that a potential buyer could allow a potential (private) seller to run a background check on them. On the honor system, of course, because criminals will just break the law anyway.
-
I wouldn't blame them for charging a fee; man's in business, not running a charity.
But $90 to do a transfer??? The last private to private sale I went through an FFL for in CA cost ~$10. That was a few decades ago though. Even with inflation it shouldn't cost more than ~$20.
Once you hold control of an essential commodity (in this case artificially created by law) you can begin with the price gouging, specially if there is little to no competition. Just think of those areas that have one FFL. He is going to make a killing.
-
Haven't there been charges brought against people, such as gas station owners, for price gouging?
-
Once you hold control of an essential commodity (in this case artificially created by law) you can begin with the price gouging, specially if there is little to no competition. Just think of those areas that have one FFL. He is going to make a killing.
I'd agree that's part of it.
However, losing your entire livelihood or business over a single spelling mistake or an abbreviation in the 4473 and other paperwork (I'm sure there's tons extra for a state like CA) for that FFL transfer, I think the risks involved could also reflect that in the price.
The kitchen table FFL guy, if he loses his FFL over a bad 4473 or some other picayune issue, more often than not, it's not his main job. And aside from not having any overhead in terms of retail space, insurance, or employees, his lower risks are reflected in his transfer prices as well.
-
Because I know the state (CA) gets a good portion of the fees (another reason for them to do it, to get some revenue) I just went online to see what the state portion of the fees are here. As shown in the quoted section below, my reading of it is that dealers are not supposed to charge more than $45 total for the transfer, but they can add "dealer fees" if they spell them out. The below link to a CalGuns thread that lists dealers and fees though (from 2007) has a very wide range, including someone charging $5. Not sure how that works if the state is supposed to get $25 off the top.
Very confusing, and just another reason to fight the "gun show loophole".
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=63050
How much is the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) fee?
The State's DROS fee is $19.00 which covers the costs of the background checks and transfer registry. There is also a required $1.00 Firearms Safety Testing fee and a $5.00 Safety and Enforcement fee. If the transaction being processed is a dealer sale, consignment return, or return from pawn, the dealer may impose other charges as long as this amount is clearly shown as a "dealer fee" and not misrepresented as a state fee. In the event of a private party transfer, the firearms dealer may additionally charge a fee of $10 per firearm transferred.
When settling on the purchase price of a firearm and before completing the transaction, you may want to ask the dealer to disclose and identify any and all fees he/she is charging to complete the transaction.
(PC Sections 12076, 12082, and 12806)
Back To Top
I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?
Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.
Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.
(PC section 12072(d))
-
However, losing your entire livelihood or business over a single spelling mistake or an abbreviation in the 4473 and other paperwork (I'm sure there's tons extra for a state like CA) for that FFL transfer, I think the risks involved could also reflect that in the price.
It doesn't seem to me that the additional $55 in charges would make up for loosing ones' business.
On the other hand, the possibility of loosing ones' business might make one want to increase their fees to the point where folks wouldn't want to pay the (excessive) amount and thus not bring their firearms in for "processing".
What happens then? No sale? Or off-the-record sale?
-
No sale? Or off-the-record sale?
Yes...... ;)