Yet Another Gun Thread
01-25-2013, 10:41 PM
#3383
I don't believe any "ban" will pass, but then again, no man has ever died as a result of being well prepared. Expect the best, prepare for the worst. The only "bans" with any momentum whatsoever are soely on magazines...unless you live in a fucktard state of course.
Reply
0
0
01-25-2013, 11:48 PM
#3385
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
I don't think any ban will pass... But I also didn't think SCOTUS would uphold an unconstitutional bill like Obama care or that Obama would win reelection...... So far I'm 0 for 2 though.
Reply
0
0
01-26-2013, 09:34 PM
#3386
^All of that shiz takes time... and the "time" it takes is all based on how much uproar is caused. It's anyone's guess as to what sort of action is going to be taken in the various court systems as it pertains to the recent NYS laws... but it's certain that there is going to be some lawsuits.
I'm still of the opinion that there will be no federal AWB/mag-limits passed this year... but that doesn't mean next year is a given. Rest assured that I'll be stocking up on lower receivers and PMAGs as soon as they're back in stock for reasonable prices... shouldn't take long.
And don't have such a low opinion of Cali. Despite the national furor, California has done a damned good job of fending off legislation such as it is, and actually gets better year by year as more and more counties embrace "shall-issue" CCW. You'll notice that when it comes to federally sponsored legislation, NONE OF IT COMES from "shall issue" state representatives. You'll notice that Feinstein can't even get an AWB ban in her own state that's famous for Democrat asshattery... much let get something rolling on a national scale.
I'm still of the opinion that there will be no federal AWB/mag-limits passed this year... but that doesn't mean next year is a given. Rest assured that I'll be stocking up on lower receivers and PMAGs as soon as they're back in stock for reasonable prices... shouldn't take long.
And don't have such a low opinion of Cali. Despite the national furor, California has done a damned good job of fending off legislation such as it is, and actually gets better year by year as more and more counties embrace "shall-issue" CCW. You'll notice that when it comes to federally sponsored legislation, NONE OF IT COMES from "shall issue" state representatives. You'll notice that Feinstein can't even get an AWB ban in her own state that's famous for Democrat asshattery... much let get something rolling on a national scale.
Reply
0
0
01-27-2013, 09:07 AM
#3388
Elite Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 2,101
Total Cats: 180
What weapons? B/C boat accident of course... invest in some 6" PVC and post hole digger.
Got email saying my CAA mags are on the way... ain't magul, but I'll give them a try.
Got email saying my CAA mags are on the way... ain't magul, but I'll give them a try.
Reply
0
0
01-27-2013, 09:38 AM
#3389
For example: "As of Dec 31 2013, no person in the State of California may be in possession of a XYZ gun for any reason. Current owners have until that date to sell their guns out of state or turn them into their local police dept. Any individual found in possession after such date is committing a felony punishable by blah blah."
So the gun is basically useless. You can't take it anywhere, and you can't use it in your residence in a defensive capacity because a DA will charge you with negligent homicide even in a righteous shooting for using a banned weapon.
Same thing would apply on a national scale. So no, the gubmint will not be sending people door-to-door searching houses for guns because the gubmint doesn't know you own any, or the data-mining process to backtrack information needed to find out what Americans do own what types of guns would be logistically and financially impossible. It's just that any gun you owned on the list would be a ticket to jail if you were ever caught with it. This scenario is exactly what happened in Australia and the UK, although those countries had decades of mandatory full-registration for all firearms, so the police did know exactly what guns people had and where they stored them... so if somebody didn't turn their guns in, the police did come to their house to get them.
But I wouldn't worry about that kind of thing happening at the federal level anytime soon. Just stand by for prices to come back down mid-late summer and then start stocking up on everything you can so you can make some bank during the next crisis.
Reply
0
0
01-28-2013, 03:33 PM
#3390
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Media Matters Calls for Gun Control, Carries Illegal Guns to Protect Its Founder
A staffer at left-wing Media Matters for America committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm to defend the organization’s founder, David Brock, The Daily Caller has learned.
According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.
Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.
TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.
According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.
Between Price-Morris’ early 2009 arrival and late 2010 departure from Media Matters, he also acquired a shotgun for Brock’s protection.
Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.
According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.
Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.
TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.
According to an internal email exchange obtained by TheDC, the gun was purchased with cash in Maryland, likely to diminish the chances such a purchase would appear on the tax-exempt group’s books.
Between Price-Morris’ early 2009 arrival and late 2010 departure from Media Matters, he also acquired a shotgun for Brock’s protection.
Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 07:34 AM
#3394
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Sorry; I misread that. I thought it said the actual guy, David Brock, had purchased firearms in face-to-face transactions as well as arming his assistant. The "gunshow loophole" (aka non-dealer transactions) would encompass a potentially mentally unstable person who had been hospitalized multiple times being able to purchase a firearm without triggering any kind of current background check.
That's not the case, according to the article, though. Effectively, there was no difference between whether the staffer had purchased the firearm at a dealer or a private transaction.
That's not the case, according to the article, though. Effectively, there was no difference between whether the staffer had purchased the firearm at a dealer or a private transaction.
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 08:43 AM
#3395
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
I actually know people who believe this alleged "gun show loophole" means you can slip an extra fifty to some dealer and buy a firearm without a 4473 background check.. Of course, the first person that comes to mind continuously talks about the "m14" he's building.. lol
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 09:52 AM
#3396
Every study I've ever seen that I believe I can trust shows that guncrimes committed with guns purchased at gunshows during legit FTF sales account for very low single-digits... like 1-2%. The number climbs to 3-4% if you count straw-purchases.
I've actually witnessed this with my very own two eyes:
3 black teenagers walking around with Grandmaw walk up to a table, teens all pick up guns and start waving them around. Kids all say "I want this one". FFL is standing there watching. Grandmaw says "How much for dem guns?" You can imagine the rest of the converstation.
I've actually witnessed this with my very own two eyes:
3 black teenagers walking around with Grandmaw walk up to a table, teens all pick up guns and start waving them around. Kids all say "I want this one". FFL is standing there watching. Grandmaw says "How much for dem guns?" You can imagine the rest of the converstation.
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 10:20 AM
#3398
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I actually know people who believe this alleged "gun show loophole" means you can slip an extra fifty to some dealer and buy a firearm without a 4473 background check.. Of course, the first person that comes to mind continuously talks about the "m14" he's building.. lol
Reply
0
0
01-29-2013, 11:02 AM
#3400
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Actually the last time I checked it's perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift, so long as the recipient is legally able to possess said firearm. States like CA require FFL for transfers though I believe.
Yeah I get it, that term just makes me want to punch a Liberal on general principals.. 
I also read a study by the FBI once that placed "assault weapons" as less than 2% of firearm related crime.
Understand that I am using "gunshow loophole" somewhat sarcastically to refer to face-to-face transactions that do not require background checks. I would guess there are probably more politicians than we give credit for using it with the same meaning, but with a different intent.
Every study I've ever seen that I believe I can trust shows that guncrimes committed with guns purchased at gunshows during legit FTF sales account for very low single-digits... like 1-2%. The number climbs to 3-4% if you count straw-purchases.
I've actually witnessed this with my very own two eyes:
3 black teenagers walking around with Grandmaw walk up to a table, teens all pick up guns and start waving them around. Kids all say "I want this one". FFL is standing there watching. Grandmaw says "How much for dem guns?" You can imagine the rest of the converstation.
I've actually witnessed this with my very own two eyes:
3 black teenagers walking around with Grandmaw walk up to a table, teens all pick up guns and start waving them around. Kids all say "I want this one". FFL is standing there watching. Grandmaw says "How much for dem guns?" You can imagine the rest of the converstation.
Reply
0
0
