Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
02-27-2013, 03:12 PM
#541
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
These posts represent a symbol of my individuality
and my belief in personal freedom, yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh
I have a spring loaded 3" gerber and a backjack. come at me brah.
and my belief in personal freedom, yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh
I have a spring loaded 3" gerber and a backjack. come at me brah.
Reply
0
0
02-27-2013, 04:49 PM
#542
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
I can understand that an officer would want to check an AR to see if it's automatic, gives them a reasonable excuse at least. In that second video, his comments on YT still suggests he believes that was illegal.
But yeah, I wouldn't want to give up my firearm if it's 100% legal to own/carry them. That's like an officier asking to test drive your car, if he just happens to be walking by and is into gay little cars just to see if it can potentially go faster than the speed limit.
But yeah, I wouldn't want to give up my firearm if it's 100% legal to own/carry them. That's like an officier asking to test drive your car, if he just happens to be walking by and is into gay little cars just to see if it can potentially go faster than the speed limit.
Can't watch the videos because I uninstalled crappy flash player on my office laptop... But what was his probable cause to search the fire control group of the firearm? Absolutely not an expert on law, but that sounds like a search to me and I can't believe a visible firearm would be PC for a search..
Reply
0
0
02-27-2013, 05:01 PM
#543
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
He suggests it looked exactly like an army issue M15 or whatever, and owning a fully-auto is a federal crime, yada yada, eventually, he examines the gun and trigger determines it's a semi-, gives it back and he's free to go on his way.
Reply
0
0
02-27-2013, 05:32 PM
#544
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
So if he sees someone dressed like a prostitute does that give him PC to make an arrest for prostitution? Yeah, an AR-15 looks just like an M16/M4 from the outside with the exception of an "AUTO" roll mark and a third pin at 12 O'Clock position above the word "SEMI" on the fire selector switch:
A caveat to that; Colt actually pressed a pin into that position on civilian receivers to stop (slow) people from illegally converting them to automatics. No other visible indication on the outside of an AR pattern rifle would lead anyone to believe it's anything but a 100% legal semi-automatic loading firearm. What you see inside is a whole different ballgame though. I know, Cops lie. It's a fact.
No it's not. It's only a federal crime to own an automatic firearm if it was manufactured after 1986, isn't registered, has no tax stamp, or is illegally converted to an automatic and you're not a Type 7 FFL/SOT for example.
Honestly makes me wonder if the douche even knew what he was looking at? Not trying to argue with you, just pisses me off that cops lie and it's just okay..
A caveat to that; Colt actually pressed a pin into that position on civilian receivers to stop (slow) people from illegally converting them to automatics. No other visible indication on the outside of an AR pattern rifle would lead anyone to believe it's anything but a 100% legal semi-automatic loading firearm. What you see inside is a whole different ballgame though. I know, Cops lie. It's a fact.
No it's not. It's only a federal crime to own an automatic firearm if it was manufactured after 1986, isn't registered, has no tax stamp, or is illegally converted to an automatic and you're not a Type 7 FFL/SOT for example.
Honestly makes me wonder if the douche even knew what he was looking at? Not trying to argue with you, just pisses me off that cops lie and it's just okay..
Reply
0
0
02-27-2013, 09:59 PM
#545
Juanito is correct. I will add that no state I'm aware of makes a distinction for OPEN or CONCEALED carry with respect to automatic weapons. You can absolutely carry a full-auto for CCW or OC if you legally own it in a state that allows it.
The process for legally owning a fully automatic weapon (ie, machine gun) is pretty simple, requires a bit of paperwork, $200, and a 6-8mo wait for the ATF. It is the exact same process for owning a suppressor, or any other "regulated" firearms.
FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS ARE NOT ILLEGAL unless the state prohibits their ownership. California is one state where you cannot own a machine gun/suppressor/short-barrel-rifle or shotgun, or any other CLASS-3 firearm... but it's a STATE regulation.
A police officer in a non-CLASS-3 state justifying a stop&search for a "Class3 check" is still assuming a person is committing a crime. "The man wasn't breaking any law that I know of and wasn't acting suspicious except for the fact that he was open carrying, which isn't illegal... so, I stopped him, disarmed him, frisked him, and just wanted to inspect to see if his firearm was fully automatic or illegally owned so I could charge him with a crime" could be beat by even the lowliest of public defenders. Terry vs. Ohio was 1968 for ***** sake. Like I said a few posts back... the police know the law. They violate it at the direction of their chain of command and have the support of their local political leadership, District Attorney, and local court system.
Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on Terry:
Justice White:
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."
Justice Douglas:
"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again."
"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."
The process for legally owning a fully automatic weapon (ie, machine gun) is pretty simple, requires a bit of paperwork, $200, and a 6-8mo wait for the ATF. It is the exact same process for owning a suppressor, or any other "regulated" firearms.
FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS ARE NOT ILLEGAL unless the state prohibits their ownership. California is one state where you cannot own a machine gun/suppressor/short-barrel-rifle or shotgun, or any other CLASS-3 firearm... but it's a STATE regulation.
A police officer in a non-CLASS-3 state justifying a stop&search for a "Class3 check" is still assuming a person is committing a crime. "The man wasn't breaking any law that I know of and wasn't acting suspicious except for the fact that he was open carrying, which isn't illegal... so, I stopped him, disarmed him, frisked him, and just wanted to inspect to see if his firearm was fully automatic or illegally owned so I could charge him with a crime" could be beat by even the lowliest of public defenders. Terry vs. Ohio was 1968 for ***** sake. Like I said a few posts back... the police know the law. They violate it at the direction of their chain of command and have the support of their local political leadership, District Attorney, and local court system.
Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on Terry:
Justice White:
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."
Justice Douglas:
"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again."
"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."
Reply
0
0
02-27-2013, 10:22 PM
#546
ENORMOUS GOOD NEWS:
I've been following this pretty closely, but today in New York State, a lawsuit has been filed against the states SAFE ACT, asking for an injunction against the law.
The injunction is scheduled to take place on 29April. The state has until that date to demonstrate that the SAFE ACT in it's entirety is constitutional.
If the state can't demonstrate that the ACT is in accordance with the constitution, then it will become null, and is unlikely that it will be able to be resurrected in any form.
This case has both short-term and long-term impacts... if won, and the injunction is granted and upheld, it's basically the end of what we now know as an AWB. Of course that won't stop the usual states from inventing other ways to keep people from possessing them, which takes us closer to yet another Supreme Court case... which can really only be goodness.
I've been following this pretty closely, but today in New York State, a lawsuit has been filed against the states SAFE ACT, asking for an injunction against the law.
The injunction is scheduled to take place on 29April. The state has until that date to demonstrate that the SAFE ACT in it's entirety is constitutional.
If the state can't demonstrate that the ACT is in accordance with the constitution, then it will become null, and is unlikely that it will be able to be resurrected in any form.
This case has both short-term and long-term impacts... if won, and the injunction is granted and upheld, it's basically the end of what we now know as an AWB. Of course that won't stop the usual states from inventing other ways to keep people from possessing them, which takes us closer to yet another Supreme Court case... which can really only be goodness.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2013, 11:02 AM
#547
ENORMOUS GOOD NEWS:
I've been following this pretty closely, but today in New York State, a lawsuit has been filed against the states SAFE ACT, asking for an injunction against the law.
The injunction is scheduled to take place on 29April. The state has until that date to demonstrate that the SAFE ACT in it's entirety is constitutional.
If the state can't demonstrate that the ACT is in accordance with the constitution, then it will become null, and is unlikely that it will be able to be resurrected in any form.
This case has both short-term and long-term impacts... if won, and the injunction is granted and upheld, it's basically the end of what we now know as an AWB. Of course that won't stop the usual states from inventing other ways to keep people from possessing them, which takes us closer to yet another Supreme Court case... which can really only be goodness.
I've been following this pretty closely, but today in New York State, a lawsuit has been filed against the states SAFE ACT, asking for an injunction against the law.
The injunction is scheduled to take place on 29April. The state has until that date to demonstrate that the SAFE ACT in it's entirety is constitutional.
If the state can't demonstrate that the ACT is in accordance with the constitution, then it will become null, and is unlikely that it will be able to be resurrected in any form.
This case has both short-term and long-term impacts... if won, and the injunction is granted and upheld, it's basically the end of what we now know as an AWB. Of course that won't stop the usual states from inventing other ways to keep people from possessing them, which takes us closer to yet another Supreme Court case... which can really only be goodness.
Reply
0
0
02-28-2013, 11:46 AM
#548
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Actually related to thread title:
These Vehicles Are Tons of Fun, and Good for Thwarting Road Rage - WSJ.com
These Vehicles Are Tons of Fun, and Good for Thwarting Road Rage - WSJ.com
Reply
0
0
02-28-2013, 03:19 PM
#550
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
I know this video is a little old but....
In 2011 2.5% of homicides were committed with a rifle of some kind. That pretty well matches a statistic I read on the FBI's website once and can't find again... Why are they screaming to ban so called "assault weapons" again?
In 2011 2.5% of homicides were committed with a rifle of some kind. That pretty well matches a statistic I read on the FBI's website once and can't find again... Why are they screaming to ban so called "assault weapons" again?
Reply
0
0
03-03-2013, 02:33 PM
#553
Let me start this off with, I own guns, including an AR-15 etc. I'm not anti 2nd etc. I'm not pro or against police.
I do believe they (the popo) have a incredibly difficult job and like most people, some of them take shortcuts here and there to make their life easier. It's called "normalization of deviance" you may have heard of it. In short, it's when a person or persons deviate from an expected/required course of action, and nothing bad happens. So it's repeated with the same outcome, over and over again. Then the deviated course now becomes the normal routine. Then everyone is shocked as hell when something goes wrong with the "new routine".
This is what happened with the space shuttle Challenger accident. Procedures were ignored due to cost, and nothing bad happened, at least not for a few years. I believe this also happens to cops. I am not one, but I work along side them quite often. On an almost daily basis, I see EVERYONE lie to them, some of them are absurd lies that make you laugh. Others are very well thought out lies that are quite convincing. Everyone from the crack head mother trying to keep her kids, the gangbanger went for a walk and got stabbed by two guys for no reason, the guys who swear that they are not armed but arms are found during search, the surgeon that swears that he has only had two drinks as the grandma he ran into is taken away in an ambulance, to the city counsel member that swears that his neighbors keep calling 911 to report the sounds of domestic violence coming from his house are motivated by his political enemies. I have witnessed all of these and many more. No one likes a cop when being questioned, everyone lies to them, they are usually the last one to know they are in a gun fight.
Back to "normalization of deviance". Not that it is right, but it's understandable how police can, and do take shortcuts, to make their life easier/safer. They get ID on everyone they talk to, and no one complains. If they see, or get a report of a guy stuffing what looks to be a body in the trunk of his car. They're gonna ask to see it. If they ask him "whats in the trunk?" All he's gonna do is LIE to them, just like everyone else does, even if it is just a movie prop. So they get used to doing what they feel they need to do and they seldom get called on it. It is now the way things are done.
This is why I admire those crazy open carry guys. They are taking the time and risk to teach/remind the cops of the laws regarding the second amendment. Yes they are being dicks, but its needed.
Cops are also dicks, but its also needed. I'm not sure how many of you see how the lowlife, crooks, and gangbangers will do whatever they want without any thought or consideration to any affect on law abiding citizens. They use the loop holes in the law to their advantage, it's absurd. The cops are just trying to cope.
I don't know the answer, I don't like it when our rights are steeped on. But I also don't like it when lowlifes use their "rights" to abuse our rights. And I believe that they (the criminals) are much more of a threat to me and my family than an occasional cop thats a little edgy.
Flame away.
Ps: I wrote this quickly, with the wife wanting my attention. Forgive any ramblings or poorly worded sections.
I do believe they (the popo) have a incredibly difficult job and like most people, some of them take shortcuts here and there to make their life easier. It's called "normalization of deviance" you may have heard of it. In short, it's when a person or persons deviate from an expected/required course of action, and nothing bad happens. So it's repeated with the same outcome, over and over again. Then the deviated course now becomes the normal routine. Then everyone is shocked as hell when something goes wrong with the "new routine".
This is what happened with the space shuttle Challenger accident. Procedures were ignored due to cost, and nothing bad happened, at least not for a few years. I believe this also happens to cops. I am not one, but I work along side them quite often. On an almost daily basis, I see EVERYONE lie to them, some of them are absurd lies that make you laugh. Others are very well thought out lies that are quite convincing. Everyone from the crack head mother trying to keep her kids, the gangbanger went for a walk and got stabbed by two guys for no reason, the guys who swear that they are not armed but arms are found during search, the surgeon that swears that he has only had two drinks as the grandma he ran into is taken away in an ambulance, to the city counsel member that swears that his neighbors keep calling 911 to report the sounds of domestic violence coming from his house are motivated by his political enemies. I have witnessed all of these and many more. No one likes a cop when being questioned, everyone lies to them, they are usually the last one to know they are in a gun fight.
Back to "normalization of deviance". Not that it is right, but it's understandable how police can, and do take shortcuts, to make their life easier/safer. They get ID on everyone they talk to, and no one complains. If they see, or get a report of a guy stuffing what looks to be a body in the trunk of his car. They're gonna ask to see it. If they ask him "whats in the trunk?" All he's gonna do is LIE to them, just like everyone else does, even if it is just a movie prop. So they get used to doing what they feel they need to do and they seldom get called on it. It is now the way things are done.
This is why I admire those crazy open carry guys. They are taking the time and risk to teach/remind the cops of the laws regarding the second amendment. Yes they are being dicks, but its needed.
Cops are also dicks, but its also needed. I'm not sure how many of you see how the lowlife, crooks, and gangbangers will do whatever they want without any thought or consideration to any affect on law abiding citizens. They use the loop holes in the law to their advantage, it's absurd. The cops are just trying to cope.
I don't know the answer, I don't like it when our rights are steeped on. But I also don't like it when lowlifes use their "rights" to abuse our rights. And I believe that they (the criminals) are much more of a threat to me and my family than an occasional cop thats a little edgy.
Flame away.
Ps: I wrote this quickly, with the wife wanting my attention. Forgive any ramblings or poorly worded sections.
Reply
1
1
03-04-2013, 11:26 PM
#556
Newb
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9
Total Cats: -17
Seems Billy Bob and Bubba Bush have been pissing over their boots again.
Hell, why don't we have weapons training in elementary schools? God dash it my rights to an effective education have been trampled on.
Meanwhile a million US citizens firmly believe they have been abducted by extraterrestrials. More guns are needed to comfort those poor souls. .
Hell, why don't we have weapons training in elementary schools? God dash it my rights to an effective education have been trampled on.
Meanwhile a million US citizens firmly believe they have been abducted by extraterrestrials. More guns are needed to comfort those poor souls. .
Reply
-10
-10
03-11-2013, 05:22 PM
#560
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Well, it doesn't look like ammo prices are going to come down any time soon...
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes
I tried finding some verification other than "tin foil hat" type sites and did find this article from National Review that I thought helped put some of the purchases in perspective by breaking them down per armed employee.
That second article also points out some other issues that should be part of that national conversation. For example, should the Department of Education have armed enforcement agents rather than coordinating with the FBI or other traditional law enforcement groups? Why are there so many damn overlapping beauracracies?
What justification is there for having domestic law enforcement agencies having mine-resistant armored personnel carriers?
Reply
0
0
