Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Laws are in place to allow punishment if you are caught breaking them.  Those who do not wish to be punished, usually follow the law.  If you break the law by grinding off the serial number of your gun, and you are caught with it, expect to be punished.


And if you punish all the scofflaws, expect the prison population to grow by several orders of magnitude.

Because that's workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Why would normally law abiding gun owners need to be incarcerated?


Because, as noted in post 57 of this thread,
 

Quote

 

the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law.

...

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

...

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

 

But locking up scores of thousands of people in a state with a prison population under 20k is going to be a problem.

And dreaming that they're suddenly going to become cooperative and sign up for the confiscation program is going to continue to fail. They don't want to give up their assault weapons any more than badlat, jocal, or Maui do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Vermont is leeching guns into surrounding communities, big-time. Two adjoining states have formally complained.


Is that bad?

I ask because one of the ways Billy could legally dispose of his scary magazine would be to export it to another state. Do you support that part of the topic law or do you think the grabberz did something wrong here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2014 at 8:30 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 6/16/2014 at 8:24 AM, billy backstay said:

Where do I get a magazine like that for my Mini-14? Ooh-La-La; me likey!!

 

In a state where it's legal.

 

If you come to FL, I might buy one for you. Knowing that you plan to take it back to a place where it will be illegal would make the transaction legally dubious, but I'd call it civil disobedience. ;)

Billy, quit asking how you can commit a felony. It upsets Joe.

Share this post


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

Billy, quit asking how you can commit a felony. It upsets Joe.

That's real classy, Pooplius. Drag your friend in, then blame him. The only criminal intent was your own. The "civil dis-obedience " is you trying to have the stature of MLK. 

Share this post


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

The only criminal intent was your own.

Billy, would it be legal for you to get such a magazine or is the registry closed?

Share this post


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

Billy, would it be legal for you to get such a magazine or is the registry closed?

Need help defending your checkered intentions? Boldly expanding the conspiracy which you denied an hour ago?

Do they let you near junior sailors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

PeeweeJo, 

Do you need another seance with Pee Wee, or what? Do they have swamp gas in Arabia?

3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

supposedly purchasers can get around the background check since  its an online sale???  

A Sherlock Holmes FAIL> With the interwebs, after the first contact, a surreptitious sale excluding any FFL is one phone call away. 

Quote

 Glad you finally figured out that is not the case.  

Speak for yourself, Jefffie, while you whisper to the tampons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 1:05 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 11/26/2017 at 7:22 AM, jocal505 said:

Why is Diane not alone in using this word "transfer" in legislation? The word is used universally, I might add.

I told the wifee I plan to move on DiFi like a bitch. 

Share this post


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

Billy, would it be legal for you to get such a magazine or is the registry closed?

No, I got the Ranch Rifle the summer of whatever year they ended the right to license and/or own the 20 round clip on 12/31.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, billy backstay said:
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Billy, would it be legal for you to get such a magazine or is the registry closed?

No

Yeah, I know. But these things are nothing to joke about to Joe.

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The only criminal intent was your own.

No, the only criminal intent was conjured up in your addled head.

Billy clearly knows he was asking how to commit a crime and we all know he wasn't serious.

As for me, whenever I'm going to perpetrate a felony, I make sure to post about it first on the internet and use one of these: ;)

Share this post


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

Yeah, I know. But these things are nothing to joke about to Joe.

No, the only criminal intent was conjured up in your addled head.

Billy clearly knows he was asking how to commit a crime and we all know he wasn't serious.

As for me, whenever I'm going to perpetrate a felony, I make sure to post about it first on the internet and use one of these: ;)

IANAL. I'm an anarchist, just a member of a loose community.

So Tom, you knew it was against the law.

Quote

No, the only criminal intent was conjured up in your addled head.

Such muddled, dishonest propaganda. Criminal intent is when Pooplius suggests breaking a law, without prompting mind you. Then he shoots himself in the foot further, publicly, by consciously and recklessly obstructing justice: floating a rationale, or even a mutual talking point collaboration,  of high-tone civil disobedience.

For gunz. Against the constitution. Currently, you proceed to spin this directly into lies, and to jeopardize your buddy in your illegal folderol. 

Mr. Tom made his own bed, he is a known commodity who makes choices, and types his own words. We gotta consider the context, a prolonged pattern of proposed lawbreaking to others by Tom, in six states, and up the Iron Pipeline. But he's not a part of the problem. Carry on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

So Tom, you knew it was against the law.

When did it become illegal to buy standard capacity magazines in Florida?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

When did it become illegal to buy standard capacity magazines in Florida?

Collaborating to transport the battlefield mechanism into CT is a no no. Attaching a pre-ordained motive to the crime shows intent to obstruct. I understand it was said in jest, but it's part of a disturbing citizenry.

The civil disobedience angle shows TR claiming the poise of MLK and his elk. (MLK as redneck deodorant.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Attaching a pre-ordained motive to the crime shows intent to obstruct.

Can you translate that to english?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Can you translate that to english?

 

Quote

Attaching a pre-ordained motive to the crime shows intent to obstruct.

Tom presented the felony behavior as "civil disobedience," out loud, up front. (So he knew it was wrong beforehand. Pre-meditation.)  Next, painting arms smuggling as something noble shows intent to obstruct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Criminal intent is when Pooplius suggests breaking a law, without prompting mind you.

Yeah, I brought up the idea and there was no intent evident in what Billy said. Except, of course, the asking for a felony.

But it's not disturbing coming from him because he signed up to have his magazine confiscated. When Cooperative people show criminal intent, it's a joke. When Uncooperative people do it, it's not. The only difference is agreement or disagreement with gun bans and confiscation programs.

On 6/16/2014 at 8:30 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 6/16/2014 at 8:24 AM, billy backstay said:

Where do I get a magazine like that for my Mini-14? Ooh-La-La; me likey!!

 

In a state where it's legal.

 

If you come to FL, I might buy one for you. Knowing that you plan to take it back to a place where it will be illegal would make the transaction legally dubious, but I'd call it civil disobedience. ;)

 

Share this post


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

Yeah, I brought up the idea and there was no intent evident in what Billy said. Except, of course, the asking for a felony.

But it's not disturbing coming from him because he signed up to have his magazine confiscated. When Cooperative people show criminal intent, it's a joke. When Uncooperative people do it, it's not. The only difference is agreement or disagreement with gun bans and confiscation programs.

 

Oh geez Tom, I musta been wrong.

Let's continue. Would you say this other person was equally culpable, or more culpable (since this person's intent came first)?

Was the civil disobedience a mutual angle? A little collaboration of the two intents, perhaps?

Quote

(Pooplius,  on the stand) "...no intent evident in what Billy said. Except, of course, the asking for a felony."

What? Hold on. You were witness to some felony?...

 

 

 

Whoops, a rat bastard is what we have here. Tom, have a sit, since you're no stand-up guy.  You are the sort who would drag your buds into trouble?  My daddy said man enough to do the crime, be man enough to do the time. You want billy home for dinner, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Would you say this other person was equally culpable, or more culpable, since this persons intent came first?

I would say you're very confused and contradicting yourself.

 

23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Criminal intent is when Pooplius suggests breaking a law, without prompting mind you.

I was prompted by Billy's post in which he expressed the criminal intent to acquire a magazine that is banned in his state.

Share this post


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

I was prompted by Billy's post in which he expressed the criminal intent to acquire a magazine that is banned in his state.

Would that be your testimony? Are you fingering somebody else?  No worries there? This bit is worse than I thought.

Share this post


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

when caught with my hand in the cookie jar, hillary billy did it first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2018 at 2:18 AM, jocal505 said:

when caught with my hand in the cookie jar, hillary billy did it first

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dash34 said:

The fact that your politicians can't get it together to enact even modest restrictions on assault weapons like the AR-15 is pathetic. 


Hey Billy,

Just so you know, the fact that your magazine will be confiscated upon your death isn't even a modest restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 10:10 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
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.

Actually, what I said above might depend on what the meaning of "established" is.

The law DiFi proposed says this:

Quote

 

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or established range if—

 ‘‘(A) the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range; and

                                                        
 ‘‘(B) the transferee is not known to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

 

Like every background check law, it doesn't just cover sales. It covers transfers. And some transfers are exempt from the background check requirement.

Like handing a gun to someone at a range.

But what kind of range? Well, she says, "a licensed target facility or established range."

My back yard isn't a licensed target facility but might be an established range. If you start digging in an area and find lots of shell casings, does that area then qualify as an "established range" for purposes of background check exemption?

Any fans of "universal" background checks want to chime in?

If the answer is yes, we might just have some common ground. I'd like to continue to be able to let people shoot my wife's assault weapon in my back yard without having them head over to town for a background check. Is that an unreasonable request? If so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related question:

Assuming that a history of shooting activity makes my back yard an "established" range in DiFi's view, what about furriners?

I've let several Aussies shoot here. My brother has let several Japanese citizens shoot in his back yard (and man can they go through some ammo!)

Should a "universal" background check law continue to allow us to let people who are not US citizens shoot our guns if they are here legally? And, I hestitate to ask, what if they're not here legally but are "the People" anyway? I haven't let anyone who meets that description shoot here but I'm Uncooperative enough to do it. Does that endanger any children?

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."

In fairness, Feinstein's bill doesn't cover ALL Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifles.

The proposed law says:

Quote

 

‘‘(36)   The   term   ‘semiautomatic  assault  weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:


 ‘‘(A)  A  semiautomatic  rifle  that  has  the  capacity  to  accept  a  detachable  magazine and any 1 of the following:

   ‘‘(i) A pistol grip.

   ‘‘(ii) A forward grip.
                                                                                                               
   ‘‘(iii)  A  folding,  telescoping,  or  detachable stock.
   ‘‘(iv)  A  grenade  launcher  or  rocket  launcher.
   ‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
   ‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.

 ‘‘(B)  A  semiautomatic  rifle  that  has  a  fixed magazine  with  the  capacity  to  accept  more  than  10 rounds,  except  for  an  attached  tubular  device  designed  to  accept,  and  capable  of  operating  only  with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

 

That last bit exempts my assault weapon.

There is also a list of exemptions for various models of rimfire rifles. It says, in part:

Quote

‘‘Ruger  10/22  Autoloading  Carbine  (w/o folding stock)
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Compact
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Sporter
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Target

The bolded part is the problem. My wife put a telescoping stock on her gun, indicating her disdain for the lives of children.

The definitions section of the law makes it clear that she probably intends to conceal her rifle on her way to shoot up a school.

Quote

‘‘(41)  The  term  ‘folding,  telescoping,  or  detachable stock’  means  a  stock  that  folds,  telescopes,  detaches  or  otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension,  or  otherwise  enhances  the  concealability,  of  a  firearm.

She has the original furniture for her gun. It's smoother and would probably make the gun easier to conceal than the folding version that DiFi would ban from the market.

Feinstein put forth this proposal so that Americans would have something to rally around when they felt the need to DO SOMETHING about school shootings.

Maybe some of those who feel that way would like to discuss her bill? I doubt it. Trying to explain to me why the same exact .22 becomes an assault weapon with the addition of a telescoping stock would not be an enviable task. Because it's horseshit and I'll say so, even if people think that makes me a child killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooops. That post should have come with an apology to d'ranger, who for some reason thinks it's dishonest when I talk about the fact that politicians propose banning .22's like the ones my wife and I own.

Belated apologies, D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like wathcn

17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Ooops. That post should have come with an apology to d'ranger, who for some reason thinks it's dishonest when I talk about the fact that politicians propose banning .22's like the ones my wife and I own.

Belated apologies, D.

That's nice. Now apologize to us for all your silly, useless posts, and your timewaster links. SV got flicked for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 4:21 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 2/17/2018 at 12:46 PM, dash34 said:

The fact that your politicians can't get it together to enact even modest restrictions on assault weapons like the AR-15 is pathetic. 


Hey Billy,

Just so you know, the fact that your magazine will be confiscated upon your death isn't even a modest restriction.

In fact, nothing happened at all.

9 hours ago, bhyde said:

Don't worry Tom. Nothing happened after Sandy Hook, so rest assured, nothing will happen after Parkland. You'll be able to buy and shot your guns as much as you want. After all, that's what s really important. Cheers.

 

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."

Am I the only person here who actually read this bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Am I the only person here who actually read this bill?

You read Miller, but got the basics wrong. The search function shows five pages of your Miller disinformation Tom.

Miller takes no position on "the people' having gun rights. I hope you do better explaining DiFi.

 

When may we expect the appropriate retraction on Political Anarchy, the land of no bs?

Quote
  • POOPLIUS FALSEHOOD ALERT: OCD ON THE PEOPLE
  • Oct. 23 2016. JBSF and I are part of the people just like Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. If your last question were relevant to whether the second amendment applies to us, the Supreme Court never would have heard Miller's case. But they did. And then Lawrence Tribe admitted why. But keep clinging to that lie.
  • Nov. 5 2016. I only claim he (Miller) was part of "the people" from which the militia is drawn and the Supreme Court seems to have thought that was enough to make the second amendment cover him, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. 
  • Nov. 7, 2016. How could there be a Miller case if the 2A did not apply to Miller? You know he was not enrolled, right? Just part of "the people" whose rights are protected by the amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 1:21 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Hey Billy,

Just so you know, the fact that your magazine will be confiscated upon your death isn't even a modest restriction.

Hi Pooplius. Do you think land mines should be protected after their owners die? How about time bombs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 1:05 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 11/26/2017 at 7:49 AM, jocal505 said:

You can charge a small fee for this service, usually $15-$30. You provide a service while helping people in your area!

Yeah, no thanks. I don't want to contact a dealer and pay him a fee when I open our safe. I don't see how it helps anyone. It seems ridiculous to me.

This discussion is about the FFL and his 4473, which is the every day heart of background checks themselves and the safety they provide. Tom's silliness and confusion is over the key legal term "TRANSFER."

 Look at this quote combo,. You are sick IMO, Tom. And you typify the problem. You work hard to maintain the problem. What's the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2018 at 5:08 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The law DiFi proposed says this:

Quote

 

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or established range if—

 ‘‘(A) the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range; and

                                                        
 ‘‘(B) the transferee is not known to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

 

Like every background check law, it doesn't just cover sales. It covers transfers. And some transfers are exempt from the background check requirement.

Like handing a gun to someone at a range.

But what kind of range? Well, she says, "a licensed target facility or established range."

My back yard isn't a licensed target facility but might be an established range. If you start digging in an area and find lots of shell casings, does that area then qualify as an "established range" for purposes of background check exemption?

Any fans of "universal" background checks want to chime in?

If the answer is yes, we might just have some common ground. I'd like to continue to be able to let people shoot my wife's assault weapon in my back yard without having them head over to town for a background check. Is that an unreasonable request? If so, why?

OK

20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Tom's silliness and confusion is over the key legal term "TRANSFER."


Let's talk about transfers. Do you think it's reasonable to make me take visitors to town for a background check prior to letting them shoot my wife's assault weapon?

How about if she took the scary telescoping stock off and put the wood one back on? Transferring a Ruger 10-22 with non-moving furniture for target practice is specifically exempted. Do you think it's safe to let people fire such a powerful weapon without a background check, even if it has non-scary non-moving wood furniture?

Share this post


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

OK


Let's talk about transfers. Do you think it's reasonable to make me take visitors to town for a background check prior to letting them shoot my wife's assault weapon?

How about if she took the scary telescoping stock off and put the wood one back on? Transferring a Ruger 10-22 with non-moving furniture for target practice is specifically exempted. Do you think it's safe to let people fire such a powerful weapon without a background check, even if it has non-scary non-moving wood furniture?

We have a rooster nearby who goes on and on and on like you, saying nothing.

Tom, you are full of shit AND I HAVE DEBUNKED THIS THREE TIMES. The transfer word is a legal term which won't go away. It's here to stay.

The SAF's Gottlieb built a case all around the "transfer" gambit. He strutted around saying the law must be "fixed" before he would even discuss it. 

 

GETTING PRO-ACTIVE ABOUT "TRANSFERS," WITH ALAN GOTTLIEB

In court, the high-handed fellow was told he had no standing because he couldn't produce a victim. The judge placated him, and said it was an unfortunate idiosyncrasy of our system, bla blah. It was over in twenty minutes Tom.

Transfers are all good for grownups. Both the FBI and the State Patrol weighed in here.

Quote

But what exactly does “transfer” mean? In an email, Potter describes it as common jargon in gun legislation to refer to something akin to a sale but not involving money, like a trade or barter.

Potter cites an email he received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation saying that one person handing a gun to another does not constitute a gun transfer.

“The Gun Control Act of 1968 doesn’t specifically define what constitutes a transfer,” FBI spokesman Billy Estok wrote Aug. 25. “However, it can be clarified that simply handing a gun over to somebody else to try out does not qualify as a ‘transfer.’ ”

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024590815_594transfersxml.html

 

Share this post


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

Let's talk about transfers.

Not much to talk about, if one is on task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 6:30 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Am I the only person here who actually read this bill?

No.. (S.2095)

I'm sure that I've brought up the fact that Feinstein's latest masterpiece bans dangerous assault weapons like the Pardini SP/HP, Ruger 22/45 lite, etc..

Getting people like Joe to explain why is a lost cause, however.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

No.. (S.2095)

I'm sure that I've brought up the fact that Feinstein's latest masterpiece bans dangerous assault weapons like the Pardini SP/HP, Ruger 22/45 lite, etc..

Getting people like Joe to explain why is a lost cause, however.

Count me out, except that I like the pernicious angst factor in play. You get all wound up about this model or that model. It makes you rabid and unhappy and you begin to sound like MBL. Good times. Long live the Mini 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2018 at 5:39 AM, jocal505 said:

Hi Pooplius. Do you think land mines should be protected after their owners die? How about time bombs?

@Uncooperative Tom  Yoo hoo. Why should guns outlast their human owners?  Each gun is an open liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the beautiful thing about being wedded to the Libertarian Party for Tom is he never has to give an iota of thought to actual governance.


This is a riot to me.

Feinstein and the others went to all the trouble to DO SOMETHING and I appear to be the only person here who took the trouble to do something involved with actual governance: read the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Potter cites an email he received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation saying that one person handing a gun to another does not constitute a gun transfer.

“The Gun Control Act of 1968 doesn’t specifically define what constitutes a transfer,” FBI spokesman Billy Estok wrote Aug. 25. “However, it can be clarified that simply handing a gun over to somebody else to try out does not qualify as a ‘transfer.’ ”

We're not talking about a 1968 law, Joe. It's 2018 and this is a current proposal.

It defines a transfer and handing a gun to another person is a transfer. That's why there's an exemption for handing a gun to a person at an established range.

Do you think my back yard is an established range? More importantly, do you think DiFi would consider it one? I seriously doubt it.

Since it's not an established range and my wife is very Uncooperative about removing the bulky telescoping stock from her squirrel assault weapon, the law we're talking about would require me to take visitors to town for a background check prior to letting them shoot her .22 in my yard.

I don't think that makes anyone safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jocal505 said:

@Uncooperative Tom  Yoo hoo. Why should guns outlast their human owners?  Each gun is an open liability.

Physics and maintenance.

Your gun is an open liability and there's a good chance you'll self-murderize yourself if you don't hand it over to the state. Or just sell it to a friend like badlat did with his SCAR. Imposing a liability on your friends is a nice thing to do, right?

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.

Only about 20% of assault weapon owners were Cooperative enough to sign up to have their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

8 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

1. You never know who of the 100's of millions are sociopaths - so the only thing that CAN be done is put the killing machines OUT OF REACH of everyone.


So you'd better amend that to say that what CAN be done is to put the killing machines out of reach of the Cooperative minority of gun owners.

Should work just fine as long as mass murderers are Cooperative types.

Share this post


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

We're not talking about a 1968 law, Joe. It's 2018 and this is a current proposal.

It defines a transfer and handing a gun to another person is a transfer. That's why there's an exemption for handing a gun to a person at an established range.

Do you think my back yard is an established range? More importantly, do you think DiFi would consider it one? I seriously doubt it.

Since it's not an established range and my wife is very Uncooperative about removing the bulky telescoping stock from her squirrel assault weapon, the law we're talking about would require me to take visitors to town for a background check prior to letting them shoot her .22 in my yard.

I don't think that makes anyone safer.

You are a wanker, and the transfer problem falls under my signature line. Every moment you spend on the non-problem works for Emma Gonzales , DiFi, and Shannon Watts. Carry on, with being an irrelevant time waster.

Share this post


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

Only about 20% of assault weapon owners were Cooperative enough to sign up to have their guns confiscated upon their deaths.


So you'd better amend that to say that what CAN be done is to put the killing machines out of reach of the Cooperative minority of gun owners.

Should work just fine as long as mass murderers are Cooperative types.

What you are documentind is society progressing, while leaving the deplorables in their wake. Bon voyage Tom.

Share this post


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

Feinstein and the others went to all the trouble to DO SOMETHING and I appear to be the only person here who took the trouble to do something involved with actual governance: read the bill.

You always have a riot being the smug asshole who misses the point Tom.

Share this post


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

Physics and maintenance.

Your gun is an open liability and there's a good chance you'll self-murderize yourself if you don't hand it over to the state. Or just sell it to a friend like badlat did with his SCAR. Imposing a liability on your friends is a nice thing to do, right?

You bark out a lot of orders, not unlike King George III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You always have a riot being the smug asshole who misses the point Tom.

Tom is a gleeful sort, a prancing stallion type. Tom is very impressed with Tom. Tom is set up to be a factory of bitterness in this situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 3:22 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


How do you think that CT should deal with the scores of thousands of Uncooperative felons who didn't sign up for the confiscation program?

Let them be idiots, and just wait for the hidden guns to surface in common custody agreements, and as the blowback from DV incidents. Lease agreements play in. Logistics play in. This isn't a libertarian parade here Tom.


Tom, these tens of thousands of hidden guns which you are promoting are not hidden is safes. Kids find hidden long guns (which are difficult shapes to hide) when growups are occupied elsewhere. I know I did, half a dozen times.

What you are gaily proposing is a bunch of unsecured guns, eh? It will stress and endanger families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 11:54 AM, jocal505 said:

Count me out, except that I like the pernicious angst factor in play. You get all wound up about this model or that model. It makes you rabid and unhappy and you begin to sound like MBL. Good times. Long live the Mini 14.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Another normal answer from Joe. Everything semi is a dangerous assault weapon, except any that you own, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Another normal answer from Joe. Everything semi is a dangerous assault weapon, except any that you own, right?

That  gun is going to have a bad day, soon. I need Jeffie to spool up into full abuse pattern first. 

This is important to you, Deadeye. What will you offer to speed up the process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

how's that FL AWB working for you? Oh right it didn't.

Pooplius is your fearless leader. He lets you know just what to worry about. Be sure to follow Pooplius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

So not how you wanted? Boo-hoo

The Florida gun legislation is disturbing to you, eh? Pooplius got you all worked up. You like that. Pooplius stimulates your intellect. 

Share this post


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


This is a riot to me.

Feinstein and the others went to all the trouble to DO SOMETHING and I appear to be the only person here who took the trouble to do something involved with actual governance: read the bill.

You are a reader, eh? And superior  too, I see.

You show you haven't read the CDC 2013 report.  You don't grasp the basics of the Militia Act of 1792. You can't even defend the Scalia quotes you cherry pick from Heller, for an unsispecting @elle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

"They are coming for your guns"

No they aren't

"Are too"

<FL AWB gets voted down>

Told you so.

Go FL. You should jump the bones of Marion Hammer, because Dana L wouldn't have you.

I hate being right about gun violence. Seriously. But I once suggested FL would have problems worse than other states, because ALEC runs amok in the FL legislature. Florida is drawing national attention for gun violence, repeatedly. One guy flew into town to shoot up the baggage claim, 5 dead?  Go FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jocal505 said:
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We're not talking about a 1968 law, Joe. It's 2018 and this is a current proposal.

It defines a transfer and handing a gun to another person is a transfer. That's why there's an exemption for handing a gun to a person at an established range.

Do you think my back yard is an established range? More importantly, do you think DiFi would consider it one? I seriously doubt it.

Since it's not an established range and my wife is very Uncooperative about removing the bulky telescoping stock from her squirrel assault weapon, the law we're talking about would require me to take visitors to town for a background check prior to letting them shoot her .22 in my yard.

I don't think that makes anyone safer.

You are a wanker, and the transfer problem falls under my signature line.

I don't read signatures. Kind of like your policy on laws and court decisions.

If you were to read DiFi's law, you'd learn that handing a gun to someone is a transfer and doing it at an established range is an exempt transfer.

But doing it in my back yard is not an exempt transfer. It's a transfer requiring a trip to town for a background check.

Unsurprisingly, none of the fans of "universal" background checks wants to explain how that makes anyone safer. Because it obviously does not.

Share this post


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

But doing it in my back yard is not an exempt transfer. It's a transfer requiring a trip to town for a background check.

Unsurprisingly, none of the fans of "universal" background checks wants to explain how that makes anyone safer. Because it obviously does not.

The American hero here is the common FFL guy, hardy and true. He protects the general public from straw buyers and from the checkered deplorables. Form 4473 is worthy or your support in private sales, Tom. Be extra careful down there, to overpower the swamp gas factor.

  • 1.You and your wife are the unfortunate transfer victors whom Gottlieb lacked in court.
  • 2. True civil disobedience involves going public AND getting arrested as a statement. Great souce: Wiki
  • 3. Be like Thoreau in jail, and let the .22 crisis rest a bit.

Get arrested, contact the SAF, and have a go of it in court. It will improve your post content (and make you more like my bull elk, MLK).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
40 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But doing it in my back yard is not an exempt transfer. It's a transfer requiring a trip to town for a background check.

Unsurprisingly, none of the fans of "universal" background checks wants to explain how that makes anyone safer. Because it obviously does not.

The American hero here is the common FFL guy, hardy and true. He protects the general public from straw buyers and from the checkered deplorables. Form 4473 is worthy or your support in private sales, Tom.

But I'm not an assault weapon dealer like badlat.

I have no interest in selling my gun and my wife doesn't want to sell her assault weapon either.

Why do grabberz always want to bring up sales in a discussion of transfers? We're talking about a transfer at a shooting range. Nothing to do with a sale.

Share this post


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

But I'm not an assault weapon dealer like badlat.

I have no interest in selling my gun and my wife doesn't want to sell her assault weapon either.

Why do grabberz always want to bring up sales in a discussion of transfers? We're talking about a transfer at a shooting range. Nothing to do with a sale.

You have avoided your own transfer topic Tom. Your "civil disobednience" is hollow, and your "uncooperatives" are legally silent X 100K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2018 at 12:37 PM, d'ranger said:

I would not support restrictions of .22 unless in cases like where Unca Tom adds, "oh by the way there are some modifications......".  .22lr? can be deadly but not likely as not enough killing power.  .22 mag in a high capacity semi auto configuration, well that crosses the line.

d'ranger deceptively added quotes in that post but I talked about the one modification that makes my wife's .22lr an assault weapon in this thread. Nothing about a ".22 mag" because we don't own one.

It's just a .22 with a telescoping stock. If the ability to accept a detachable magazine means it's "in a high capacity semi auto configuration" then it's that too.

Naturally, he didn't quote what I said, so I will.

On 2/19/2018 at 7:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

There is also a list of exemptions for various models of rimfire rifles. It says, in part:

Quote

‘‘Ruger  10/22  Autoloading  Carbine  (w/o folding stock)
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Compact
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Sporter
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Target

The bolded part is the problem. My wife put a telescoping stock on her gun, indicating her disdain for the lives of children.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever Tom, it's waaaa waaaaaa they are trying to take away my .22, and then oh by the way it's because of a modification - MY POINT which you never get is how would one know if that is the only one?  Unlike you I don't keep a library of everything ever posted here, uh because I have stuff to do.

And that is a big part of why I normally avoid gun threads like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Whatever Tom, it's waaaa waaaaaa they are trying to take away my .22, and then oh by the way it's because of a modification - MY POINT which you never get is how would one know if that is the only one?  Unlike you I don't keep a library of everything ever posted here, uh because I have stuff to do.

And that is a big part of why I normally avoid gun threads like the plague.

You  said you didn't want to talk about the FL proposal to take away my gun so I talked about the US Senate proposal to classify my wife's gun as an assault weapon because of the one modification I noted.

How did you know it was modified if not by reading (and then mischaracterizing) my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mid said:

The killings of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida may be the massacre that finally gets federal and state governments to enact common-sense gun control laws. That should have happened after Columbine. It should have happened after Virginia Tech. It should have happened after Sandy Hook. But it didn’t.


Hey, look! Mid, billy, and I can actually agree on something.

Common sense gun control laws were not enacted. STOOPID ones were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 4:29 AM, d'ranger said:

Unlike you I don't keep a library of everything ever posted here, uh because I have stuff to do.

Tom pulls quotes from the database he denies having. Tom runs off the quality contributors in our genepool.

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.

Estimates vary between about 15 and 20% of gun owners who signed up to have their weapons confiscated upon their deaths.

8 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

Making guns illegal is not punishing anyone. But if guns were illegal, & the gun owners refuse to give up their guns then they have committed a punishable offence.


Yes, it can result in a felony conviction. And still 80% or more won't comply. Our friend Billy is part of the small, Cooperative minority.

Share this post


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

Estimates vary between about 15 and 20% of gun owners who signed up to have their weapons confiscated upon their deaths.


Yes, it can result in a felony conviction. And still 80% or more won't comply. Our friend Billy is part of the small, Cooperative minority.

Poor Tom. Poser poser poser.

For viable civil disobedience, you need to lead your 80% to jail. Did you read about the layers of civil disobedience in Wiki? The article shames us, decent citizens all.

You are teaching bullshit which is counter-productive to basic civics IMO.

  • Downvote 1

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."

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

a fictitious problem, and here I want to type the words, "assault weapons, our. 22's." LMFAO.


DiFi is not a fictitious person and her ban on (assault weapons, our .22's) is a real proposal.

It just sounds so fucking stupid that people don't believe she's actually proposing it, so they yell at me for talking about her stupidity.

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."

Feinstein Wasn't Stoopid Enough!

Quote

 

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

 

I think he misunderestimates the scale of the Uncooperative problem.

On 12/3/2017 at 7:55 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Because, as noted in post 57 of this thread,
 

Quote

 

the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law.

...

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

...

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

 

But locking up scores of thousands of people in a state with a prison population under 20k is going to be a problem.


And on a national scale, if 70-80% of people are Uncooperative as they are in CT, he's talking about locking up millions of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to be crooks, go for it. Pooplius fought the law, and the law won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2017 at 8:53 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:
21 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I don't read confused garbage about .22's very much.

You don't really have to any more, having destroyed your assault weapon.

We still own our assault weapons, so I have to read the confused garbage on Senator Feinstein's website to see how it will apply to me if passed.

Share this post


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

You don't really have to any more, having destroyed your assault weapon.

We still own our assault weapons, so I have to read the confused garbage on Senator Feinstein's website to see how it will apply to me if passed.

Tom, we've tossed ideas back and forth for six years now. I am projecting into the future, about our future content. Based on your present content, or lack of it, I'm perceiving an in-eligant, awkward future for where you can take this. You are abusing the airwaves with all this .22 content, which is not up to snuff at present. Hopefully you'll re-brand yourself with some more dignified presentation. Soon.

You have spent your days since Kolbe of March 2017 by trashing the very terms of Heller. You have occupied wide bandwidth to abuse the terms of Heller. You are demanding something better, like a brat, and yo I don't see any Super-Heller on the way.

During these years,  the (horrifying) assault weapon shootings in the schools and streets have now queered your dream.

  • You lost on the PR front in Sandy Hook. Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland, in the court of public pinion.
  • And IMO you lost again in the courts: the excessive guns you wanted didn't shoot Heller down, Heller imploded by its own context and vocabulary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feinstein Did Something

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

20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You are abusing the airwaves with all this .22 content, which is not up to snuff at present.

How could Senator Feinstein alter her (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban so it would be up to snuff and I could talk about it?

Share this post


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

Feinstein Did Something

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

How could Senator Feinstein alter her (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban so it would be up to snuff and I could talk about it?

Tom Ray is all in a snit, about the terms within Heller restricting battle guns. WTF? Until Kolbe, he said Heller was the shit. (But he declined to say if Joyce Malcolm was the shit, or  not.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Feinstein Did Something

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

How could Senator Feinstein alter her (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban so it would be up to snuff and I could talk about it?

Tom Ray is all in a snit, about the terms within Heller restricting battle guns. WTF? Until Kolbe, he said Heller was the shit. (But he declined to say if Joyce Malcolm was the shit, or  not.) 

OK, so if I write that to her in a letter, she'll know how to fix her (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban so it's up to snuff?

Share this post


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

OK, so if I write that to her in a letter, she'll know how to fix her (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban so it's up to snuff?

I can't get enough of the .22 wanking, as it slips into its seventeenth month. I sure hope you can hold out a few more years with this fascinating theme.

Maybe you could work it around a bit for a year or so, so that Judge Taney has a .22, but ex-slaves don't get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

about the terms within Heller restricting battle guns.

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 5:54 AM, jocal505 said:

I sure hope you can hold out a few more years with this fascinating theme.

As long as banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is a priority, I'll talk about it.

And here's a screen shot of DiFi's website from a few minutes ago...

DiFiScreenshot.jpg

Share this post


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

As long as banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is a priority, I'll talk about it.

And here's a screen shot of DiFi's website from a few minutes ago...

DiFiScreenshot.jpg

32087430_10155802667506051_7974903813607

Share this post


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

32087430_10155802667506051_7974903813607

Was Ollie in charge when you sold the SCAR?

I can't see how he'd have any control over private dealers in assault weapons like yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Good job, Tom. If you are sharp enough to sort this out ^^^^, like a real Libertarian whiz-bang, maybe you can also discern the difference between battle weaponry and acceptable .22's. :unsure:


This question really has nothing to do with Justice Kennedy. It's about TeamD's ban on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's). And my response is the same as before.

 

On 5/8/2018 at 12:35 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

As long as banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) is a priority, I'll talk about it.

And here's a screen shot of DiFi's website from a few minutes ago...

DiFiScreenshot.jpg

And yes, I can read her legislation and see that my wife's ordinary .22 is considered a battlefield weapon that must be banned by TeamD.

So I classify that under things that are Stoopid and borrowed Billy's thread on that subject.