Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

Registered my high capacity mag w/state of CT- STOOPID LAW!

Recommended Posts

Maybe YOU are sharp enough to discuss this with me, Jeff.

At the heart of the matter would be an informed discussion of individual rights, not on the level of Trump's bumper sticker understanding.

The homework which CT did, and even my homework, is way ahead of you.

If you don't up your game you may fly into a ditch, one dug by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Connecticut's Individual Right to Arms - 190 Years Before Heller

Pasted from <http://www.dailykos....s-Before-Heller>

There is no ambiguity in Connecticut's constitutional right to armed self-defense. The right is explicitly stated as an individual right rather than a collective right. It has no connection to military service. Residents of The Nutmeg State have enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) long before the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment that way in DC v Heller (2008).

The Connecticut legislature began major gun law reform in 1993. It was the height of the crack cocaine epidemic when cities in the state had soaring crime and high murder rates. They passed a law similar to the Brady Act that limited ownership of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. They required a permit for handguns and background checks for all gun purchases. During the past 20 years, Connecticut's gun laws and regulations have been challenged and

upheld multiple times in state courts. Every time the legislature drafted or amended their gun laws they took their state constitutional right to keep and bear arms into consideration.

In recent years the Connecticut legislature has requested dozens of reports on various aspects of firearms law and policy. All of them are available online for free. For example, before they updated their law limiting high-capacity ammunition magazine they requested a review of other state laws that limit magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm from Florida and abide by our laws. We're allowed to own mean looking rifles, though I do not own one.

 

I said in that other thread that I understand why people don't want to sign up to have their guns confiscated upon their deaths, if not before. I also said that I understand why people like Billy don't want to get a felony conviction.

 

Billy is pragmatic. I understand that he supports a family, eh?

Do his sons need to go to college soon? Why be a fool for guns? Felony gun penalties are debilitative, I hear.

 

Billy has chosen the middle ground as we approach the uncertain future.

We can build a fine society on Billy's model of civic responsibility.

We need to figure out how to get the second amendment to work:

defying constitutional laws (in CT, NY, IL, CA or MA) is decadence. It is not a superior application of the constitution. Just sayin'.

 

 

The future of Billy's magazine is certain: he can't hand it down to his heirs. He signed up to have it confiscated upon his death if he does not get rid of it sooner.

 

Lots of people want their children to have the same freedom to own such a thing that they have enjoyed and did not sign up for the confiscation program.

 

Like I said, I understand both positions.

 

I'm glad I don't have to make such a choice. I can just buy a mean-looking rifle if I ever decide I want one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment really belongs in this thread, not the one in which it was posted, because it says what Democrats have to say to the offspring of gun owners:

 

 

Suck it, surviving family members!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

Life's a bitch ain't it?

 

You must really struggle with the requirements for driving a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

Life's a bitch ain't it?

 

You must really struggle with the requirements for driving a car.

 

 

That is a really poor analogy. The registration requirement was not for a gun, but for a gun part. It would be like having to get fingerprinted and register a single headlight, in addition to the car. Not only that, but upon your death, the headlight would need to be removed and turned over to the police, it could not be included with the inheritance. Failure to comply with turning over the headlight could carry criminal penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

Life's a bitch ain't it?

 

You must really struggle with the requirements for driving a car.

 

 

That is a really poor analogy. The registration requirement was not for a gun, but for a gun part. It would be like having to get fingerprinted and register a single headlight, in addition to the car. Not only that, but upon your death, the headlight would need to be removed and turned over to the police, it could not be included with the inheritance. Failure to comply with turning over the headlight could carry criminal penalties.

 

 

You missed a couple. The registry Billy signed up for is closed so no one can register any more. Also, cars are not constitutionally protected so how we treat them does not affect other constitutional rights.

 

The analogy would work better if we closed a car registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing the minority in Heller and a liberal, pro-gun control constitutional scholar CREDIBILITY ALERT is not waving a libertarian wand. I think all of those people would be shocked by your ignorance at calling them libertarians.

 

1937 was not 150 years ago. 1857 was a lot closer and we know what the Supreme Court thought of the second amendment at that time.

 

 

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

(...snipped: place Tom's undeveloped racial conclusion here)

 

Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

 

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

 

 

 

Saul Cornell has a doctorate. And he has creds.

He isn't "pro-gun" or "anti'gun" that I know of, since his discipline is history.

I'm not sure he has even written about guns as such, I've only found his history stuff.

Have any cites or Cornell dirt for us?

 

Tom, here's a GROUP of professors are ARE talking about guns. From your Prof. Adam Winkler, whom you have quoted several times. He is cut from slightly different cloth than Cornell, in a basic way. But Winkler and other historians recently signed two different consensus agreements, with two different groups, WRT how history has reflected on gun policy. You may find them interesting.

Statement of Law Professors on the Constitution and Executive Action to Reduce Gun Violence November 2015 (excerpted) The Court’s recognition that these types of laws are compatible with the Second Amendment reflects the historical understanding of the constitutional right: since the Colonial and Founding Eras, robust government regulation of the ownership and use of firearms has coexisted alongside, and been understood as consistent with, the Second Amendment.3 Taken from 2015 Statement of Law Professors on the Constitution and Executive Action to Reduce Gun Violence November 2015 http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Law%20Professor%20Statement%2011-12-15.pdf

 

 

2013 Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation In this sense, Justice Scalia recognized in Heller that, like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is not an absolute. ... The founding fathers who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment also had laws to keep guns out of the hands of people thought to be untrustworthy. Such laws were necessary to ensure that the citizen militia referenced in the Second Amendment was “well regulated.” ... . Laws such as these were routinely upheld by the courts, which recognized the legitimacy of legislative efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people. ... Universal background checks, especially those conducted instantaneously through the National Instant Background Check System, do not impose a significant burden on lawabiding citizens. ... Moreover, background checks imposed at the point of sale are typical of the “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller. Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons are also consistent with the Second Amendment. SIGNED BY (about 75 PROFESSORS) http://www.acslaw.org/Second%20Amendment%20Letter%20Final.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Deplorable Tom.

Tom has been barely active on the gun forums for a week or so.

Tom got beat up with his own words from several angles.

Then Tom STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

 

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much cranky as tenacious. You got out-studied, out-learned.

No comments on this documented, solid body of historical conclusion?

No more snappy rejoinders using Adam Winkler quotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Washington State gungrabbers,
...
(b ) A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

 

 

that means they think a tube-fed .22 rifle holding 14 rounds is an "assault weapon."

 

 

 

 

That gun was non-scary when my wife bought it, having plain wood furniture.

 

The gun grabbers in Washington want to call it an "assault weapon" along with my dad's old tube-fed .22 because once you have a scary catch-phrase like "assault weapon" the game becomes: how many different guns can we put that label on and ban them?

 

As usual, the "gun violence" statistics they trot out to justify this nonsense are mostly suicides.

 

Then gun nutz come along and say, "You want to call ordinary .22 rifles "assault weapons" and ban them because of suicides? How stupid is that?" This is an indication of our stubborn refusal to enact reasonable gun control.

 

 

HA! Sad but true.

 

 

...

Tom is correct that the tube feeder and an AW are not to be compared fairly.

...

 

And yet that's exactly what the proposed law in your state does. Are you doing anything to stop it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our topic was constitutional history. Your interaction was a petty distraction, and another effort to confuse assault weapon definition.

 

Did you open the links? The links to the two conventions of historians were presented by Adam Winkler himself, without explanation or comment, but he was among the signers of both documents.

 

Can you present pro-gun historians to challenge them? Can you debate their platform? Or does their work stand?

They agreed on what they agreed on, and it doesn't support second amendment absolutism.

It indicates that Larry Pratt is imagining insurrectionist motivations among the framers of the constitution.

 

You have no comment? Just a third grand female boogaloo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're up early

 

Gun%20Grabber%20Boogaloo_zps2ffbm56f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

 

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Bummer.

 

If he keeps it up I just may build a couple more.

 

Building an AR-15 from an 80% lower is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To Washington State gungrabbers,

Jocal505:

...

Tom is correct that the tube feeder and an AW are not to be compared fairly.

...

 

And yet that's exactly what the proposed law in your state does. Are you doing anything to stop it?

 

 

 

NOT exactly. In fact you just abused the words and intent of Washington State Law. Deplorably.

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet,

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

Let's continue, quoting lines 28-37:

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: 34 (a) …37 ( B) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Bummer.

 

If he keeps it up I just may build a couple more.

 

Building an AR-15 from an 80% lower is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :)

 

 

Pics or your competition gun is a water pistol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To Washington State gungrabbers,

 

"Assault weapon" means:

 

 

Jocal505:

...

Tom is correct that the tube feeder and an AW are not to be compared fairly.

...

And yet that's exactly what the proposed law in your state does. Are you doing anything to stop it?

 

NOT exactly. In fact you just abused the words and intent of Washington State Law. Deplorably.

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet,

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

 

Let's continue, quoting lines 28-37:

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: 34 (a) …37 ( B) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

 

 

I commented on this in the GA thread. This is what the law says:

 

No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section

 

 

What does "or" mean to you? It means either an assault weapon OR a large capacity magazine is banned. The tube fed .22 fits the definition of an assault weapon so it doesn't matter whether the magazine is defined not to be large. It's banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The .22 tube feeder is specifically excluded, eh? In black and white.

My rifle is not an AW for many other reasons, too.

No fake news boogaloo (in your undies) is gonna change that.

This problem has the same substance as your "transfer" problem; none at all.

You are simply lying at this point.

 

 

 

 

TR%20Crybaby%2011%20tube%20feeder_zps9l7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think I will order another ten pack of standard capacity magazines for my AR-15.

 

75 PROFESSORS and one cranky Joe disapprove.

Bummer.

If he keeps it up I just may build a couple more.

Building an AR-15 from an 80% lower is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :)

Pics or your competition gun is a water pistol

A water pistol?

 

Tell you what: we will take a video of it in action during next months annual pumpkin shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's compromise, how about pics of the receiver in progress.

I have an engraver, we can pick a serial number...

Greeves, you have serious (and rare) perspective to add to the Post Racial America thread. Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The .22 tube feeder is specifically excluded, eh? In black and white.

 

That's right. The law says that such a tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine.

 

You're ignoring what ELSE the law says. It says that a semiauto rimfire holding more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. There's no exception in that part for .22's.

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned.

 

I don't know how to make this more simple for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The .22 tube feeder is specifically excluded, eh? In black and white.

 

That's right. The law says that such a tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine.

 

You're ignoring what ELSE the law says. It says that a semiauto rimfire holding more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. There's no exception in that part cite the line then for .22's.

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned.

 

I don't know how to make this more simple for you. DOUBLE LACK OF CITATION ALERT.

1. No GA link to whatever disinformation you posted

2. No link to the words of the un identified "different" section of the law phrasing which you supposedly quote. Present both.

 

 

You are making it complicated.

 

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned. So be it. But a tube feeder is neither, according to the statute

 

The wording you quote is slightly different, and also uncited.

 

 

No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section Which section? The statue exempts tube feeders on line 37, see above. See below, too.

 

From the statute's definition of Assault Weapon, Line 25, p 5,

Once again Tom, "Large capacity magazine" was defined and qualified here. To insist my tube feeder .22 is an AW is a lie.

 

 

Let's continue, quoting lines 28-37:

"Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: 34 (a) …37 ( B) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saw my post in GA and replied to it.

 

(27) "Assault Weapon means:

 

...

 

(b ) A semiautomatic pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

 

My dad's old .22 is a semiauto rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition. That's an assault rifle.

 

Section 29 says that a .22 tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine, but there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition. So it's an assault rifle with a non-large magazine.

 

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No person in this state may manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine except as authorized in this section

 

 

There's no exemption for assault rifles with non-large magazines.

 

The only reason to include "rimfire" in the assault rifle definition is to ban rifles like my dad's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's compromise, how about pics of the receiver in progress.

I have an engraver, we can pick a serial number...

Greeves, you have serious (and rare) perspective to add to the Post Racial America thread. Check it out.

Since I have no intention

Let's compromise, how about pics of the receiver in progress.

I have an engraver, we can pick a serial number...

Greeves, you have serious (and rare) perspective to add to the Post Racial America thread. Check it out.

Since I have no intention of selling it, I do not have to put a serial number on it. If I do decide to sell it, I will put a serial number on it that is at least .003" deep as the law requires. I am after all, a law abiding citizen. Ain't America great?

 

In regards to your link, I may check it out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition.

 

Shortly following the assault weapon definition, section 27, are two qualifying sections specifying exemptions.

The statute offers outright that tube feeders "shall not be construed" as LCM's in 29.

 

You'd like the disclaimer under section 27 to be within 27. That;s nice, but this minor, over-worked detail sounds like sour grapes.

I'm trying to picture the legal brief you could manage around such a complaint.No victims would be presentable in your court case, including your father and I, the owners of the guns in question

It's like the way you David Kopel, and Alan Gottlieb mangle the legal need for "transfer" verbiage.

 

By the time you get worked up in another myopic outrage, there;s not enough standing for a court presentation.

The SAF sued WA over transfer verbiage. Theytried to save face after their dumbass confiscation scare tactics lost to background checks (by a 20 point voting margin).

Laughed out of court, Gottlieb drove away in a black Corvette paid for by an SAF pre-emption settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuuuge Increase in Gun Permit Fees

 

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

 

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

 

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governor’s budget estimates.

 

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

 

That increase, the governor’s budget estimates, would bring in another $2.6 million annually to the state’s coffers.

 

 

Well, after bringing in that 2.6 million, the deficit will be down to $3.6 billion. It did make a tiny dent in the 600 million part to the right of the decimal, but is that really the reason for the large increases?

 

Or perhaps the theory is that richer people are less violent or somehow otherwise more deserving of second amendment rights.

 

Or maybe they just want to punish the enemy gun owners in any way possible, regardless of whether they're rich or poor or whether it will really make any difference in the state budget deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition.

 

Shortly following the assault weapon definition, section 27, are two qualifying sections specifying exemptions.

The statute offers outright that tube feeders "shall not be construed" as LCM's in 29.

 

You'd like the disclaimer under section 27 to be within 27. That;s nice, but this minor, over-worked detail sounds like sour grapes.

 

 

An exemption to one definition is not an exemption to another. Someday, an honest liberal might appear and explain this to you and we can move on to the "oops we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making the exercise of protected rights unaffordable for the poor is bad. Sometimes.

 

It can disproportionately affect minorities. Also sometimes bad.

 

But the same people who think a few bucks for an ID to vote is a prohibitive barrier to a protected right have nothing to say about a few hundred bucks extracted from enemy gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor?

 

No, Pooplius is hiding behind poverty.

After hiding behind the ACLU.

And hiding behind the NAACP.

And hiding behind MLK.

And hiding behind Rosa Parks.

And hiding behind Rev. Mosteller and the SCLC.

And hiding behind the CDC 2013 report.

And hiding behind Adam Winkler..

While quoting Sol Rosenberg whenever possible.

 

Yet each of these parties holds fundamental differences to Tom Ray's actal beliefs and policies.

Each would dis-associate with Tom IMO.

 

This manipulation, this pattern of deception, shows that Tom recognizes the "higher road" elements of our culture.

It displays that he can't show such fine elements while flying the flag of his own brand.

His brand opposes most of what these parties stand for.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor.

 

Yes, we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

No fucklehead - its equating the 2nd Amendment to the 15th Amendment. How one right is treated affects how all other rights are treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never equate the two. Their very natures are dis-similar. Their respective karma will take them to separate spheres. Watch and learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor.

 

Yes, we are.

 

 

The Koch Brothers and CATO are champions of the poor. Have a cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. Libertarians oppose the high costs of gun permit stuff.

That's theirr contribution to balance poverty in the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering because on July 1, Californians are supposed to hand their scary standard capacity magazines over.

 

I think there will be quite a few uncooperative ones. I'm keeping this screen name at least until then in anticipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

I am pleading the Fifth on that one, Tom....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

I am pleading the Fifth on that one, Tom....

 

 

Well, that's an answer of sorts.

 

I think the Cali way of going about it is more honest in the long run.

 

Either way, you're leaving the next generation without a freedom you enjoyed. In Cali, you have to accept the consequences in your own life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, the gun fanatic era is passing.

In fact, it's passing both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Racists, Commies, and Atheists! Oh My!

 

 

Forty years ago, young college students were the most tolerant of controversial speech. That is no longer the case.

Most Americans still agree that we should allow people to say what they think.

 

Those who don't are, ironically, making their enemies more powerful by drawing attention to them. Guns.

 

And you are sure doing your bit for the anti gun lobby Tom.

 

Not sure why this reply ended up in a thread about intolerance so I decided it should go where my most recent gun posts have been.

 

Why is asking about the timing of gun confiscation such a terrible thing to do, Liferandom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

It's possible that a few of those "scores of thousands" were unaware they were becoming felons by failing to sign up to have their guns confiscated but I think most were deliberately Uncooperative because they did not want their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

On 9/25/2017 at 10:28 PM, Spatial Ed said:

Registration.  It will send a message to irresponsible gun toters that we are serious about guns.


What do you think, Ed? Was it the confiscation or something else that caused "scores of thousands" of people to become felons rather than cooperating with your plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 2/16/2014 at 5:57 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Quote

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

It's possible that a few of those "scores of thousands" were unaware they were becoming felons by failing to sign up to have their guns confiscated but I think most were deliberately Uncooperative because they did not want their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

On 9/26/2017 at 6:28 AM, Spatial Ed said:

Registration.  It will send a message to irresponsible gun toters that we are serious about guns.


What do you think, Ed? Was it the confiscation or something else that caused "scores of thousands" of people to become felons rather than cooperating with your plan?

I suspect there will be scores of thousands who, when the Po-leece shows up at their door to confiscate weapons and arrest them on a felony, will simply claim that they sold them to "some guy" a while back.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I suspect there will be scores of thousands who, when the Po-leece shows up at their door to confiscate weapons and arrest them on a felony, will simply claim that they sold them to "some guy" a while back.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

My high capacity magazine is state registered, but do I believe my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is still exempt, unless the law has been changed again, when I wasn't paying attention?

I wasn't paying attention in 1995, when my 100 Ton USCG license required renewing, and they did not send me a renewal form, as they had in the past.  Damn shame, as it's a royal PITA to try and renew it now, with TSA BS, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeff was talking about this:

Quote

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

I think your gun is still exempt, just the scary magazine must be exported to another state (something that's sometimes bad) or confiscated upon your death.

I don't know about you, but I react to grabbers saying "you can keep the gun, just not the (ammo, firing pin, magazine, whatever other crucial part) about the same way sailors would react to a mast ban. "You can keep your sailboat, just no masts" will not make sailors feel like nothing bad has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think Jeff was talking about this:

Quote

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

I think your gun is still exempt, just the scary magazine must be exported to another state (something that's sometimes bad) or confiscated upon your death.

Yes, you are correct sir.  That was exactly what I was referring to.

I'm curious though, the Op/ed piece talks about registering "assault weapons".  How is BBS's Mini-14 exempt from that?  Its more of an "assault rifle" than jocal's tube fed .22LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, Greever said:

Mini-14's fly under the grabbers radar every time.

it is just a "Ranch Rifle" after all...

Ah yes.  If course.  Because this rifle:

firearms-images-products-422l.jpg

Is SOOOO much less dangerous than this rifle:

5846.jpg

 

How do I know???  Because one of these makes jocal shit his pants and the other doesn't.  THAT is what differentiates an "assault rifle".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. And if you put a flush fitting 5 round mag in that one with the wooden stock, it looks just like a deer rifle, and we all know deer rifles are not dangerous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Greever said:

Mini-14's fly under the grabbers radar every time.

it is just a "Ranch Rifle" after all...

Not every time. We have remarkably thorough grabbers in Florida.

But on the federal level, Billy's gun did slip through the cracks the last time I checked.

On 10/14/2016 at 7:44 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

...

 

Text of HR 4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

 

A Mini 14 is only as dangerous as an AR-15 if it has a folding stock. Billy's is on the list of specific exemptions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Billy,

If I mail you a saw and a hinge, will you turn your gun into an assault weapon? You know, just to be Uncooperative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Hey Billy,

If I mail you a saw and a hinge, will you turn your gun into an assault weapon? You know, just to be Uncooperative?

No, folding stock makes it illegal and way more dangerous, than with full wood stock, right??

Kind of like a sawed off shotgun is way more dangerous than my Belgian Browning, or Sears Roebuck 12 gauge.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, billy backstay said:

No, folding stock makes it illegal and way more dangerous, than with full wood stock, right??

Kind of like a sawed off shotgun is way more dangerous than my Belgian Browning, or Sears Roebuck 12 gauge.........

Bah, just because the government calls it scary doesn't mean you have to adopt that opinion as your own. That's what Aussies do, and a useful tendency if you're going to have a prison island, so well done, Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

13 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I don't think so. People have really short memories and attention spans.

If one had gradual and grandfathered legislation..like..

all new guns must be registered...fee $25 (admin costs)

...all owned guns must be registered within 5 years say.july.2022

registered by july 2019 no fees

registered  by july 2020 fee $10 per

Reistered by July 2021 fee $30 per

get the idea?

Then..when most people have put their pocket before their principles (as most people do..eventually) and regestered their guns

You can start getting heavy on fines for the recalcitant..most people will not sympathise because it's human nature to forget all about principles you abandoned.

Evil I know :)

Here's the problem with your little plan. The linked article says:

Quote

Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.

You're not talking about a few Uncooperative people like you might see on an island that used to be a prison.

Scores of thousands. "Widespread" noncompliance.

There are lots of people who did not wish to sign up to have their guns confiscated and became felons as a result. You think a little money is going to change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er Tom..you do know that Australians are envious of those with a convict ancestor don't you.. :D

you couldn't be offering a better compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

Er Tom..you do know that Australians are envious of those with a convict ancestor don't you.. :D

you couldn't be offering a better compliment.

We admire more our ancestors who fought those nasty Brits than any who were disarmed and imprisoned by them.

Might explain why you think that we'd see a small and dwindling minority of people who don't cooperate with confiscation programs.

We don't. As Eva Dent. There were cooperative folks like Billy who signed up but noncompliance was (and remains) widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We admire more our ancestors who fought those nasty Brits than any who were disarmed and imprisoned by them.

Might explain why you think that we'd see a small and dwindling minority of people who don't cooperate with confiscation programs.

We don't. As Eva Dent. There were cooperative folks like Billy who signed up but noncompliance was (and remains) widespread.

And injuns..don't forget the injuns!!:rolleyes:

I think my little 5 year plan may have hit a nerve with tommy :D

The hip pocket nerve will beat a twitchy trigger finger every single time..all you'l have left are the bundys :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

The hip pocket nerve will beat a twitchy trigger finger every single time..all you'l have left are the bundys :D

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

Sigh..and that's why it failed miserably you idiot.

That's the trouble with you "tough guys", you don't ever understand subtle coercion.

Yes..threaten something draconian ..people will jack up..legislate something with a lot of carrot and small stick..you win..fark..and you call yourself a hunter. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 9:39 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Bah, just because the government calls it scary doesn't mean you have to adopt that opinion as your own. That's what Aussies do, and a useful tendency if you're going to have a prison island, so well done, Brits.

That's a super cunty way to talk.  I am not sure if you are this way, or talking about guns makes you this way, but it's an ugly look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That's a super cunty way to talk.  I am not sure if you are this way, or talking about guns makes you this way, but it's an ugly look.

All the Aussies who have visited here want to shoot my guns and I'm not that way toward them at all. The ones here in PA are treated about like they treat me.

BTW, we have a Tom Ray Thread for discussions about me.

This one is about CT's slow-motion registration/confiscation program. Any thoughts on the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Having skimmed your posts I thought it was about Airsoft rifles.

No, Billy started it because he registered his scary magazine for his Mini 14.

A registered magazine can be kept by the owner until death, at which time it becomes a crime for the family to continue to keep it.

It can be sold out of state or surrendered to the cops by the owner.

The goal is to rid the state of scary guns and magazines after one generation.

I don't really see the harm in allowing Billy's family to keep the whole gun. Do you feel safer knowing it's going away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No, Billy started it because he registered his scary magazine for his Mini 14.

A registered magazine can be kept by the owner until death, at which time it becomes a crime for the family to continue to keep it.

It can be sold out of state or surrendered to the cops by the owner.

The goal is to rid the state of scary guns and magazines after one generation.

I don't really see the harm in allowing Billy's family to keep the whole gun. Do you feel safer knowing it's going away?

Maybe they should bury the scary mag with Billy.  Seems like he might need it in the afterlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 6:34 AM, Spatial Ed said:

Maybe they should bury the scary mag with Billy.  Seems like he might need it in the afterlife.

Billy will want the thing is his coffin more than the millenium generation will want it in the closet.

Quote

The goal is to rid the state of scary guns and magazines after one generation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 6:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

What a bunch of self-serving crap.

Hi Tom. It's not for you to exonerate law-breaking in CT. These citizens need to follow the laws passed and applied by their state constitution...which includes an individual gun rights provision. Life is moving on in CT, with strict laws about LCM's and AW's. These folks need to keep up on Post-Heller individual gun rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

What a bunch of self-serving crap.

Hi Tom. It's not for you to exonerate law-breaking in CT. These citizens need to follow the laws passed and applied by their state constitution...which includes an individual gun rights provision. Life is moving on in CT, with strict laws about LCM's and AW's. These folks need to keep up on Post-Heller individual gun rights.

That's true. If I could pardon them all, I would, but it's not for me to do.

They'll continue to be Uncooperative and the confiscation program will fail in its goal of eliminating scary guns like Billy's within one generation.

As a gun control supporter, you must be used to such failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

Life must seem so simple to prohibitionists.

6 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Pass a law that all guns must be registered.  If you don’t register them, you go to jail because you have illegal weapons.  


Umm. Yeah. Lock up "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

I looked up the prison capacity in that state. http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2967&q=487584

They have recently had 18k locked up. The number is lower now but that indicates capacity.

Let's assume that "scores of thousands" means merely two score, or 40,000 people who need to be locked up (the actual number is higher).

I'm not sure how prohibitionists get through the day with a distorted view of reality that makes this seem like a feasible idea, let alone a good one.

It's a stooooopid idea, which is why I brought it to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Stoopid...

Feinstein Did Something

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Her new assault weapons ban exempts your gun, Billy. It does, however, ban my wife's Ruger 10-22. Because a 10-22 is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

I know, I know, it's stoooopid to actually look at details or respond to a gun ban with anything other than a simple "yes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2017 at 8:53 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Speaking of Stoopid...

Feinstein Did Something

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Her new assault weapons ban exempts your gun, Billy. It does, however, ban my wife's Ruger 10-22. Because a 10-22 is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

I know, I know, it's stoooopid to actually look at details or respond to a gun ban with anything other than a simple "yes."

The part on transfers is stooopid too.

My wife could let someone engage in target practice with her scary gun at a licensed range, but not here in our yard where we actually use it.

If someone wanted to buy it, that person could hold it here in our yard, but it's not clear whether or not he could actually fire it.

If she took the scary telescoping stock off and put the original wood furniture back on, she could let someone shoot it here on our property. But if they want to shoot it with the scary plastic stock, there has to be a background check, the gun has to be transferred to a dealer, then it can be brought back here and that person could shoot it. Of course, he couldn't then hand it back to her. That would be a transfer. It would have to go back to the dealer to be handed back to her, then brought back here.

I know, I know, examining details of how gungrabbers actually affect our lives is tedious crap and we should just agree to these stoooooooooooopid ideas without examination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Greever said:

The Mini-14 flies under the radar yet again! (I just wish it wasn't so hard on brass)

Never would have thought that my Ranch Rifle might be an appreciating asset! LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Never would have thought that my Ranch Rifle might be an appreciating asset! LOL!

Is it the rifle or the mag that gets surrendered when you die?

WTF did you comply and register it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, billy backstay said:
13 hours ago, Greever said:

The Mini-14 flies under the radar yet again! (I just wish it wasn't so hard on brass)

Never would have thought that my Ranch Rifle might be an appreciating asset! LOL!

You'd have to export it to a state where the magazine isn't banned to see any serious appreciation. And resist the temptation to put any scary furniture on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites