Braineack

iTrader: (62)

liberals are why we cant have nice things:

The one about Chicago CCW









Armed Robber's Family Complains He Was Shot Too Many Times | The Daily Caller

czubaka

iTrader: (3)

Ok, a friend is moving to CA. Can he bring the guns he already owns? He has a pistol bought in VA (Walther PPX .40, not a CA compliant model), an AR-15, two 3-round semi-auto shotguns - Winchester Model 50 (12ga and 20ga), and two .22LR rifles (one pump, one semi).

The AR is a no go, but what about the rest? He has no intention of selling any of them over there. I imagine the pistol is the only real issue. Does he just need to get 10rd mags for it and leave the rest out of state?

z31maniac

In reply to Brain:

Halloween prank? Even so, as has been said before:

"Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes"

vehicular

iTrader: (3)

I actually had this happen to me one time. I was in the back of a gas station checking out the beer selection, and this dude slammed the front door open and yelled, "THIS IS A STICKUP! GIVE ME ALL THE MONEY!" I had drawn and was stuffing my white girl in the beer cave before he and the clerk busted out in hysterical laughter and slapped each other high five. Obviously I didn't shoot the guy, but if I had been closer to the front of the store I might have.

On the plus side, my white girl has never said, "Do you really need a gun to go to [...]" since.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Moving to California with firearms - Calguns Foundation Wiki

Firearms Information for New California Residents | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

Within 60 days, he needs to register all the guns as Cali classifies him as a "personal firearms importer". He must render the AR15 "Cali compliant" as long as it's not a by-name banned model. Non-roster handguns are fine to bring in, and he has to ditch all the +10 mags for all the guns.
Firearms Registration - Calguns Foundation Wiki

Assault Weapon Flow Chart (yes, this is a real thing):
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

czubaka

iTrader: (3)

Thanks, Sam! I knew you'd have the info on that.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I'm a Calguns member even though I haven't lived there in 15 years... pay my dues and stay informed is the best I can do. We dodged a bullet here in VA with the elections and maintain a firm conservative hold on the state legislature. It wouldn't even be "close" if it weren't for the strong liberal districts in the DC area. The overwhelming majority of VA counties are strongly conservative. In any case, VA continues to be a beacon of gun-rights on the East Coast, which pisses off Bloomberg to no end.

In any case, I support Cali as much as I can from afar.

czubaka

iTrader: (3)

I'll make sure my friend joins Calguns. I seem to remember you saying they're typically more effective than the NRA.

AlwaysBroken

It might interest you guys to know that the assault weapon ban case just got a third relist at SCOTUS. You can see the case here.

The way it generally works is that the supreme court will relist cases a few times before taking them. I know at least 2 of the justices are itching to take another 2nd amendment case (see dissent from denial of certiorari in Jackson) and the case getting repeatedly relisted is a sign that they might be trying to convince the Heller/McDonald 5 to saddle up again.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

for joe p:

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

^^^^

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Maryland spent millions on gun database that solved no crimes. - Baltimore Sun

Another one of our "common sense" programs is ending.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

^Canada scrapped a big portion of their gun registry a few years ago for the same reason... it didn't do anything they said it would.

The other big registration/ban states Cali/CT/NJ have virtually zero "evidence" that any of their paperwork burdens to gun owners result in any positive effect on crime. The biggest selling point to registration schemes is "they will help police trace guns used in crime"... except the general public has no clue what that actually means. "Tracing" a gun is useful if the person the gun is registered to (or originally bought it) was the one using it in a crime, which is never. Sure, you can use a serial number to backtrack who the original owner might have been years or decades ago, but how many black-market deals down the line was the person who used it. In other words, "tracing" a gun to the shooter via a paperwork trail, for all practicality doesn't exist like it does on CSI.

However, that's not really what registration schemes are designed for. The primary purpose of registration schemes is simply to make gun ownership "hard". More paperwork, more fees, more waiting, more limits, more restrictions, etc... What's the point? The point is to reach tripwires in certain demographics whereby a point is reached where "hard" becomes "too hard" and certain people who would otherwise wish to own a gun can't or won't. Mostly this involves poorer and less educated people who wish to do the right thing but can't or are afraid of the process. But it also has a serious effect on new gun owners who see the process for the first time and are put off. So what's the point again? People who really want to own a gun will still buy one.

Yes, but over time, those people will be limited to only a small demographic of middle-class prior gun-owners. IE, you and me. And then since the gov't has detailed records of all the gun owners and what guns they own... when they start to selectively ban certain guns, they know where to come to get them. Research "California SKS ban" for a textbook way for a state to do this.

Where does that leave us... with the end-goal of anti-gun groups... the complete ban on firearms ownership by the general public. It's not a secret that this is the ultimate goal of groups like The Brady Campaign.

Try this on...
There is a pretty large portion of gun-owners who at this point would consider an actual "compromise"... if it was an actual "compromise". What do gun owners get in exchange for actually using a system that is better than what we have now, which ACTUALLY helps the police with reducing gun-crime? I would entertain actually giving my name the Gov't as a gun owner if it worked like this...

I fill out one form that closely resembles a Form 4473... basically a current background check. From that form, I get a 1yr firearms purchase permit which is also a combination CCW permit. I get an actual hologram-style laminated card from the State that has my address/picture/expiration/etc... on it. It auto renews every year and a new card is sent every year with a new expiration date.

I can buy/sell personally owned firearms to anybody else who has a card because the NICS system is made available to the public. When I go to make a personal sale, I can use an APP on my phone to type in the ID card number of the buyer and get an instant "approved" or not. I don't have to fill out any paperwork or give any information about the gun other than to check a box for long-gun or handgun. Yes, the burden is on the seller to do this, and of course no criminals will bother... but law-abiding gun owners will. In fact, most law abiding gun owners detest that in order to determine if a person is legit or not, they have to pay an FFL $30 (or whatever) to do it... something that currently takes about 20 seconds on a computer. But heck, I would even consider a small "transaction" fee or yearly fee to the APP just to be secure that I'm selling to a legit person. I think most gun owners would too.

Also, these permits work just like drivers licenses... 50 state reciprocity for buying/selling AND FOR CCW. Each state is still going to have individual laws, but a national permitting/CCW system will solve a ton of issues currently plaguing both sides of the anti/pro gun issue. Yes, this means you would be able to buy and sell guns (specifically handguns) from sellers in other states which currently you can't do. Remember, we're compromising here.

There are pros and cons... first issue is States Rights. Second is that there are portions of the pro-side who won't like it because "shall not be infringed". Most of the anti-side will hate it because it actually makes it easier to buy/sell guns and streamlines a ton of currently burdensome red tape, despite the fact that it actually increases record-keeping within the secondary market and they get their magic list of gun-owners.

Personally, I'm tired of fighting over all of it even though I will continue to do so. I'm tired of the anti's bringing NOTHING to the table that will help, and I'm tired of the pro-side types who simply say "shall not be infringed" but have nothing else to offer. Rant complete.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yeah but if we make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy guns and excerise their inalienable rights, it will solve the problem with criminals killing people.

AlwaysBroken

One major problem is that the fedgov retains all 4473s going back to the 1960s. Every time an FFL expires, the ATF gets every 4473 from that business. Now, that doesn't tell you who actually has each gun (since they can move around over the years without 4473s and there are lots of FFLs that haven't gone out of business yet), but it tells you where most of them are. It's de facto registration.

Now technically, the ATF isn't allowed to make an owner-searchable registry out of these records, but if everything is in the database, it's only a few joins and suddenly it's searchable by owner. I'm not talking about something that would be hard to do or even require google levels of algorithmic cleverness, I'm talking about a few hundred million records with maybe a couple dozen text columns. This is the sort of **** you can fit in memory on a small sized workstation, let alone a fully speced DB box. And that's without even assuming they retain NICS, query against CCW databases, etc.

That being said, gun control is still political suicide, so I wouldn't start dipping guns in cosmoline and burying them. Not yet anyway.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

I am happy that one hurdle will be removed from handgun purchases in murderland. Buying handguns online was a joke. You had to make sure they supplied the fired shell casing or have it shipped to an ffl that was licensed to do so (at your cost).

I wish the HQL was struck down when it was fought in court. It does exactly as samnavy describes. Essentially a de facto ban on handguns. Those who are poor or on the fence wont be bothered with the process of getting an HQL. It is expensive and does nothing (ex baltimore).

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Laws like these that are simply hurdles for the law-abiding is the only thing the anti's have to work with. When you get down to the absolute bottom dollar, it's all about the dollars. Make guns so expensive and painful to buy that people give up. More fees, more paperwork, more fingerprints, more, more, more. All you have to do is claim that the law is for "the safety of our officers" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" and the spoon-fed slobbering left base lines up for their dose of propaganda.

The Cali microstamping law is exactly this. You want to read about how fucked up microstamping is, and how deep the layers of absurdity needs to be to convince a few lawmakers to stand by something like this:

Just How Practical is Microstamping? - The Truth About Guns

Now when you read this article, even the most die-hard anti-gun leftist should be left thinking that the juice isn't worth the squeeze and maybe should just admit that they hate guns rather than trying to swallow this load... but no. It's "technology that will revolutionize gun crime investigations and help put criminal perpetrators behind bars"... which is almost word-for-word what was said about that awesome system in MD. Seriously, people elected you to make good decisions on their behalf... and despite the mountain of evidence that it doesn't work (FOR ***** SAKE, EVEN UC-DAVIS SAID IT WAS A BAD IDEA!!!), you choke it down and smile for the cameras.

Because of this law, both Ruger and S&W publicly announced they will no longer sell new-model pistols in Cali... and to date, ZERO companies have introduced a new compliant pistol in Cali. Of course companies can keep currently approved guns "on-roster" and continue to sell them, but nothing new. And of course the LEO community threw a ****-fit when the original language of the law didn't exempt them from it.

Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Almost forgot... all 4 Glocks that I've bought came with a fired casing in a little envelope in the case.

xturner

I'm way late posting this - was in our local paper 2 years ago. Another reason to leave Corrupticut for Maine.Responsible Gun Use Is A Way Of Life - Lincoln County News - Newcastle, ME

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Dont bring a knife to a terrorist attack: