Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG? - Page 39 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-22-2013, 11:48 AM   #761
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 113
Total Cats: -3
Default

I find it truly fascinating to watch how completely polar this country is on this issue (among many). Places like Colorado and states in the NorthEast are passing knee-jerk, extremely harsh "gun control" (more like citizen control, but I digress) laws while places like Texas, Lousiana, and some of the rural western states are passing what are basically State Level "Reservation of Rights" legislation to keep the Federal Gov out. It's a strange geographical polarity...fascinating.

Meanwhile, small gun manufacturers and parts makers are moving to Texas in droves. There is a large (really large) industrial development being constructed in NE Houston. Last I heard, no less than 4 small gun/component manufacturers have signed pre-construction leases there... all 4 moving from out of state. That's one industrial development, in one city, in one state. I think it's happening in droves.

This is all about control. Politicians don't give a **** about "the children" or your safety or my safety. Deep down, throughout global history, and especially at the Federal level, it's all just about control.

Last edited by Fathom55; 05-22-2013 at 11:49 AM. Reason: lrn 2 typ k thx
Fathom55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 07:59 PM   #762
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,582
Total Cats: 408
Default

Come on, guys. This is just silliness. Who really needs military-style assault weapons? They aren't interested in your hunting rifles, they just want to make sure that wackos don't have access to military firepower.




Australian gun control lobby begins attack on bolt-action rifles




Probably.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 09:29 AM   #763
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,231
Total Cats: 21
Default

Less than ideal carry law that is probably going to pass in Illinois. It was co-authored by Phelps (down state Dem who has been the CCW rep) and Michael Madigan... the godfather who runs the state. As Madigan is on board, this should get the votes needed in the House. It also allows Madigan to keep his daughter on the path to Governor, as it avoids her having to pursue a destined to fail legal battle against CCW.

SB2193ham001 98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Obvious issues are:
Exclusion list makes navigating the world a bit tricky, first violation is Class B misdemeanor (includes public transportation... so lower income or commuters are screwed... including people with kids because parks/zoos/museums are also on the list)
No reciprocity
and other crap

Pros:
Invalidates previous Chicago and other are firearm laws, no Pre-emption
CCW in Illinois, shocker in itself
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 10:28 AM   #764
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 113
Total Cats: -3
Default

I would be baffled if that legislation comes into fruition. If it does I bet selectively Chicago PD ignores it
Fathom55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 10:47 AM   #765
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,231
Total Cats: 21
Default

It has the backing of House speaker Michael Madigan now, that is a HUGE change. All of the counter fights/amendments put on the better CCW last offered were shills for him.

If the Chicago PD selectively ignores it, they'll be selectively sued and the taxpayers of Chicago will foot the bill.
Like the last one...
Attached Thumbnails
Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?-post-1699-0-77626700-1355417513.jpg  
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 10:56 AM   #766
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,913
Total Cats: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splitime View Post
Less than ideal carry law that is probably going to pass in Illinois. It was co-authored by Phelps (down state Dem who has been the CCW rep) and Michael Madigan... the godfather who runs the state. As Madigan is on board, this should get the votes needed in the House. It also allows Madigan to keep his daughter on the path to Governor, as it avoids her having to pursue a destined to fail legal battle against CCW.

SB2193ham001 98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Obvious issues are:
Exclusion list makes navigating the world a bit tricky, first violation is Class B misdemeanor (includes public transportation... so lower income or commuters are screwed... including people with kids because parks/zoos/museums are also on the list)
No reciprocity
and other crap

Pros:
Invalidates previous Chicago and other are firearm laws, no Pre-emption
CCW in Illinois, shocker in itself
I'm feeling you. Technically it's a "shall issue" law in the sense that if you are eligible for a FOID card, and haven't done anything really stupid in the last 10 years, and you wish to jump through the administration process, you can get CCW.

The "non-resident" license process is written so that only residents of a small number of other states are eligbile, and the cost is $300, and you have to jump through all of the hoops that IL residents have to do... which basically means nobody will ever apply for one.

There's a $55 fee for a new license if you change addresses.

Surprisingly, they've squeezed in "restaurant carry".

There is no "duty to inform", but a licence holder must disclose if they are carrying when asked by a LEO.

But the list of "prohibited places" is extensive... basically everywhere that the average person would really want to carry.

The denial process also leaves huge leeway to any agency in the state to object to a person receiving a license for (how it's written) basically any reason they think they can justify:

Any law enforcement agency may submit an objection to a
license applicant based upon a reasonable suspicion that the
applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a
threat to public safety.

Still, this is the first step. In a few years when the state is used to it, some of the harder parts of the bill can be repealed. Once it's out there, any attempt to make it more restrictive will lose votes. I can't wait to see the numbers of Cook County residents who apply.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 03:21 PM   #767
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,231
Total Cats: 21
Default

Let alone the number of new or expanding gun purchase checks from Chicago/Cook folks who can now actually own whatever they want (that is basically legal to the rest of Illinois).

It is a watered down DTI, I personally do not mind DTI even though it might be an invasion of privacy. I would just hope that the Office I deal with in that situation isn't one of the idiots I sadly feel are all to present on the police forces these days (always?). If I get treated as a criminal, for being the exact opposite... I will be PO'd. Especially since criminals have that 'right' over us to not answer that question as it is self-incrimination...

Denial process will be interesting, hopefully it is simply gets used for the cases of "that guy keeps threatening people but we don't arrest him" or "that guy is a known gang affiliate".

Costs/training time are extensive... but my wife and unborn child are worth it.

I also hope the public transit exclusion gets fought sooner than later... as that excludes SOOOO many people of mixed background/financial means/etc....
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 11:17 PM   #768
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,913
Total Cats: 158
Default

You live in a place where there the only thing the 911 operator can tell you is that nobody is coming to help because they laid off all the cops. Your answer is "well, if he breaks in, I'm done". Is there no option than to just sit on the other side of the door and wait to die?

911 Dispatcher Tells Woman About To Be Sexually Assaulted There Are No Cops To Help Her Due To Budget Cuts « CBS Seattle
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 12:37 PM   #769
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Default

That is pretty insane, Sam. Horrible story.


On an unrelated note, I read a pretty interesting opening to a story recently...
Perhaps you missed it, but the Florida Legislature recently launched an all-out assault on the Second Amendment.

As a result, many law-abiding Floridians may be prohibited from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

The citizens I'm talking about are the mentally ill.

And thanks to House Bill 1355 — regulating the "Purchase of Firearms by Mentally Ill Persons" — some of them may no longer be able arm themselves.

This is a clear infringement of our rights. The dangerously disturbed are being denied their constitutional right to roam the streets with pump-action shotguns and 9 mm Glocks

After all, the Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ..." There's no asterisk that says "except for the mentally ill."

Defenders of the Second Amendment should be marching in the streets to help the mentally ill get their guns back.
What is the response from the "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?" crowd with relation to something like that? How does that square, given that someone may be "mentally ill" but not be a criminal or have lost any of the rights of a law-abiding US citizen.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 01:36 PM   #770
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,365
Total Cats: 127
Default

I am not sure if that was an entirely serious post Scrappy but the argument there is that the mentally ill are not completely in control of themselves and represent a significantly increased risk to society when allowed to own a firearm. The idea is that it is in the public's best interest to strip them of certain individual rights because they are likely to lose control and infringe on someone else's rights. Basically being committed or diagnosed as clinically ill will give them a similar label to a felon in respect to their second amendment right.
Ryan_G is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 01:44 PM   #771
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In ur driveway, abusin' ur WPA
Posts: 9,048
Total Cats: 811
Default

This should be streaming online somewhere, I think via KUSP or something (see webcast link below.) Get you some leftcoast 2A action

The Panetta Institute for Public Policy

Quote:
May 27 Leon Panetta 2013 Lecture Series: ‘Gun Control: The Second Amendment — Are There Limits?’

Sarah Brady, chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Asa Hutchinson, former United States congressman and former task force director for the National Rifle Association, will be featured on Monday, May 27 at the third event in the Leon Panetta 2013 Lecture Series. Secretary Panetta will moderate the program, which begins at 7:00 p.m. at the Monterey Conference Center.

Ms. Brady is the wife of former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who sustained a disabling head wound during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981. Since then, she has been a prominent advocate for gun control, and campaigned for the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that was enacted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

Mr. Hutchinson served as leader of a National Rifle Association task force of security and law enforcement experts to review school security standards in select areas of the country. The goal of the task force was to come up with a comprehensive plan to address the safety of children in schools and to prevent such shootings in the future.

Standby tickets are available for this lecture. For information, call the Panetta Institute at 831-582-4200. For more information on how to watch the Lecture Series, click here.
Webcast Information | The Panetta Institute for Public Policy

Should be interesting as Panetta himself is moderating. I've been to several events where he spoke and met him on more than one occasion, helluva nice guy.
EO2K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 01:47 PM   #772
Elite Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Pen2_the_penguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 3,690
Total Cats: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samnavy View Post
You live in a place where there the only thing the 911 operator can tell you is that nobody is coming to help because they laid off all the cops. Your answer is "well, if he breaks in, I'm done". Is there no option than to just sit on the other side of the door and wait to die?

911 Dispatcher Tells Woman About To Be Sexually Assaulted There Are No Cops To Help Her Due To Budget Cuts « CBS Seattle
that is the most disturbing thing to read while I start my work day... im am so glad my woman is heavily armed in the home and knows how to access every single one of the weapons as well as use them... not to mention the only thing im thankful for about living in a small condo is the one point of entry, maybe two if they want to be an idiot and try to climb up to the balcony. Our home is a condo above the car port where I park my vehicles, but our front door is facing the main street as opposed to our sliding glass door is facing the inner complex.
Pen2_the_penguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 01:53 PM   #773
Miotta FTW!
iTrader: (24)
 
Splitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 4,231
Total Cats: 21
Default

Chicago House of Reps just passed the newer compromise bill with 85 votes. That is more than enough to override a Governor Quinn veto (71 or 75 for that I think?).

We'll see how it does in the Senate... but this it cleared the House with resounding success.
Splitime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 03:55 PM   #774
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
Basically being committed or diagnosed as clinically ill will give them a similar label to a felon in respect to their second amendment right.
I guess that begs a follow-up question... Paging Dr. Perez, Dr. Joe Perez (resident Constitutional law scholar/googler).

Is there anything in the Bill of Rights, or broader Constitution, that states that those rights do not apply to felons and/or the mentally ill?
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 04:18 PM   #775
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,365
Total Cats: 127
Default

A Louisiana judge just recently ruled that it is in fact unconstitutional to ban felons from owning guns. Even violent felons. There are 11 other states that agree. If the state has such a law the federal law does not apply apparently. Not sure how that works with the Supremacy clause but that is what I read.

Louisiana Judge Rules That Violent Felons Have Gun Rights Too | Mother Jones
Ryan_G is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 04:22 PM   #776
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In ur driveway, abusin' ur WPA
Posts: 9,048
Total Cats: 811
Default

I just told the guy with the petition outside the supermarket where I bought lunch that I couldn't sign because I was a convicted felon. He didn't get it.

Edit: I'm not actually a convicted felon.

Last edited by EO2K; 05-24-2013 at 04:30 PM. Reason: Felonious statement
EO2K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2013, 10:38 PM   #777
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,913
Total Cats: 158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
What is the response from the "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?" crowd with relation to something like that? How does that square, given that someone may be "mentally ill" but not be a criminal or have lost any of the rights of a law-abiding US citizen.
Those who are 100% "shall not be infringed" types are simply out of touch. We all know our first amendment right can be regulated to a degree, and our second amendment rights have been regulated damn near since it was written. I don't think there's any level of gun-rights supporter who will say that the truly mentally ill should have all the access to firearms they want, but those same supporters couldn't give you a straight answer as to how to do it given "shall not be infringed".

The reason most smart/in-touch gun-right supporters are hip-deep in everything surrounding mentall illness is because we really only have one chance to get it right.

When it comes to "mentally ill", the biggest problem the gun-rights community has is that the current medical establishment (as a whole) in this country has turned decidedly anti-gun. The conspiracy theory is that doctors must/will/shall report even the smallest little bit of mental problems to NICS to cover their asses, and the next time you go pick up your migraine meds, there's a little red note on the bottle saying "NOTE: the person who's name appears on this prescription labels is prohibited from operating heavy machinery for a period of 48hrs and is required by law to turn all personal firearms over to law enforcement before taking a dose"... yadda yadda.

The anti-gunners would love something like that and more... where getting a speeding ticket proves "you are a danger to others and only a crazy person would do 40 in a 35 because we need to keep our kids safe"... yadda yadda hand over your guns.

More conspiracy is that the insurance companies are starting to see the writing on the walls and want to get in on the action of gov't forcing firearms owners to carry mandatory insurance. Getting you to admit to your doctor that you own a gun, which immediately gets reported to the insurance company is one way big brother watches.

SO, the gun-rights side needs to make sure that every single piece of legislation that deals with "mentally ill" is written so that:

1. Only a doctor with specific medical expertise in diagnosing "mental illness" may classify a person.
2. That doctor has to "sign" his name on the line putting the weight of his professional reputation at risk (so they don't just throw everybody *****-nilly under the bus).
3. There must be a clearly defined path to restoration of rights and what types of people can get their guns back... ie, somebody with schizophrenia would be a lifetime prohibition, while somebody going through a period of depression after the death of a loved one would have to have a fast legal path through the State to restoration.
4. There must be a clearly defined route to "confiscation" to those who voluntarily commit themselves for treatment (most people), and those who are involuntarily committed. Ie, a voluntary commitment means you don't actually have to turn in your guns, but it would be a crime to be in possession or have access (ie, leave them with a friend) while in that status, while an involuntary status would mean the police would show up at your residence and confiscate your guns without you there, in which case you'd probably never get them back no matter if you were perfectly healthy forever.

Bottom line is that it's a damn tough issue. Consider the number of returning warriors who have PTSD and will refuse to get treatment. I promise that the first time the VA sends somebody to a soldiers house to take their guns against their will unleashes a ****-storm of backlash across the entire military. I'd say 4/5 people I know military-wide own guns and this would effect every single one to a certain degree, and it would absolutely polarize the military medical establishment.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 08:47 PM   #778
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In ur driveway, abusin' ur WPA
Posts: 9,048
Total Cats: 811
Default



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sac Bee
Capitol Alert: More gun regulations approved by California Senate

The California Senate today approved a package of bills that tighten the state's regulation of firearms by outlawing detachable and large capacity magazines, keeping track of people who buy ammunition and widening the category of offenders who are prohibited from owning guns for 10 years.

Senate Democrats drafted the bills in response to December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

"The package, if you look at the whole array of measures before this body today, are designed to close loopholes in existing regulations, keep the circulation of firearms and ammunition out of the hands of dangerous persons, and strengthen education on gun ownership," Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said to his colleagues as he argued in favor of the legislation.

"These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."

Republicans, who hold a minority in the state Senate, voted against the bills, arguing that they would make it harder for law-abiding citizens to access weapons, while doing little to combat crime. They said mass shootings are caused by mental illness, not a lack of gun regulations.

The seven gun bills the Senate approved today are:

SB 47 by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco: bans so-called "bullet buttons" used to get around existing laws banning detachable magazines

SB 53 by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles: creates new state permits that require background checks for buyers of ammunition

SB 374 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento: bans detachable magazines in rifles

SB 396 by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley: prohibits possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition

SB 567 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara: changes the definition of certain kinds of shotguns to make them assault weapons

SB 683 by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego: requires all gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate

SB 755 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis: increases the number of crimes - including drug addiction, chronic alcoholism and others - that result in a 10-year ban on being allowed to own a gun

The bills now move to the Assembly.

An eighth bill that is part of the package, SB 140, was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this month. It increases funding for a state program that confiscates guns from people prohibited from owning them because they have criminal pasts or are mentally ill.

Read more here: Capitol Alert: More gun regulations approved by California Senate
What the actual ****?
EO2K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 10:05 PM   #779
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 5,913
Total Cats: 158
Default

Cali is going to win the race to the bottom, we've all known this was coming... and don't believe this list is all we're going to see from that state this year. When these get passed, they'll be another stack of bills for the fall.

Feinstien basically said back in the 90's that she would go door-to-door herself and take them out peoples hands personally if she could get the votes. Well... she's basically got them. They know it's a very long-term fight, and these are what they think they can get away with today.

Their next step in 5-10 years will be mass-registration of all guns.

Then in another 5-10, they'll go after internal magazines in bolt-action's and limit every rifle to single-shot with no grandfather'ing. That's where the registration scheme shows that it was simply a means-to-an-end for eventual confiscation.

Combine all of that with some new bill for cancelling all grandfathering of everything, ammo purchase limits, manufacturers who simply can't make a CA-legal gun profitable, micro-stamping, new taxes, FFL fees, closing of gun-ranges, raising hunting fees, EPA mandated biodegradable ammo, yadda yadda... and you end up with the end of the 2nd Amendment. I don't even know why Democrats even pretend anymore that their party is anything but outright gun-grabbers.

I was born and raised in San Diego, in a gun-friendly home in the suburbs, went college there, was stationed there for 2 years recently, almost all of my family still lives there... what a joke.
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 10:29 PM   #780
A living god
iTrader: (23)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 5,970
Total Cats: 232
Default

So basically, I need to start the process of owning/purchasing a firearm a.s.a.p.?
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbo 1995 Miata Low mileage Clean Tekel Cars for sale/trade 29 02-05-2016 04:16 PM
IT Pros: HELP! Al Jazeera something something Brighthouse Account sixshooter Insert BS here 11 09-01-2015 10:51 AM
Who's Idea was it to give cops taser guns RicanmiataRacer Insert BS here 10 03-04-2007 02:07 PM
Is the SMT6 comparable to the Emanage Blue/Emu/MS? Mex Prefabbed Turbo Kits 1 09-28-2006 04:15 PM
FS: Turbo XS H34 BOV BrokeEnthusiast Miata parts for sale/trade 1 09-06-2006 10:16 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:06 AM.