• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

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

Recommended Posts

On 9/29/2017 at 5:39 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 9/28/2017 at 2:45 PM, 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.

:lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really should have restricted that comment to the Aussies here in PA.

Anyway, getting back to DiFi's stoooopid bill,

Quote

(C)  Any  part,  combination  of  parts,  component,  device,  attachment,  or  accessory  that  is  designed  or  functions  to accelerate  the  rate  of  fire  of a  semiautomatic  rifle  but  not  convert  the  semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

She's trying to ban bump stocks because of that epidemic of one dead guy.

I hate to bring this up, but this also covers binary triggers, trigger cranks, lightweight bolt carriers, match trigger kits, and maybe some other scary things that grabbers would want to ban if they heard about them. Oops.

Share this post


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

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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?

Cutesy pie Tom Ray, presenting gun felonies again.  These citizens have called their own shots, for guns. Divorce courts and custody hearings (and both are pretty common) will regularly air out such lawbreaking, eh?  The secret battle guns are difficult to hide; this will all sort out in the natural course of things, within a few generations.

I hear that gun penalties (felonies in this case) are life changers. And I hear the millennium generation is not impressed with having guns around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 3:47 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

that epidemic of one dead guy.

Fifty eight humans lost their lives, shithead...and a new benchmark for mass shootings was set.  What part of bloodbath do you not understand?

Share this post


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

Cutesy pie Hartford Courant, presenting gun felonies again. 

How irresponsible of that pre$$ corporation to talk about "scores of thousands" of new felons.

Oh, wait, it's only bad if I do it.

Share this post


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

How irresponsible of that pre$$ corporation to talk about "scores of thousands" of new felons.

Oh, wait, it's only bad if I do it.

You want to bring up the "bad"? Really? Society and families pay the costs of pariahs such as you and your elk. You have burdened us, while giddy.

Share this post


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

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.

The section of law in question:
 

Quote

 

(1)  Beginning  on  the  date  that  is  90  days  after the  date  of  enactment  of  the  Assault  Weapons  Ban  of 2017,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  who  is  not  licensed  under  this  chapter  to  transfer  a  grandfathered semiautomatic  assault  weapon  to  any  other  person  who  is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed  manufacturer,  or  licensed  dealer  has  first  taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

(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.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—

(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and

(B)  does  not  include  temporary  custody  of  the grandfathered   semiautomatic   assault   weapon   for  purposes  of  examination  or  evaluation  by  a  prospective transferee.

 

The noted exemptions imply that "transfer" includes temporary transfers of possession, which is why the NRA made her use that term in her bill. Or something.

Paragraph 2 suggests to me that "a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting" here in my back yard would not be exempt and would therefore require a background check because this is not a licensed range.

Paragraph 3 (B) is interesting because intent matters when you hold a gun under that law. "Prospective transferee" in that context means "prospective purchaser" not "prospective person who just wants to hold it while looking at it."

So that would mean that if JBSF came to visit me, I could hand him a gun and say, "You want to buy this?" but not just "Check this out." And he could only take it if he wants to buy it.

The existence of that exemption suggests to me that a temporary transfer of possession in any other context isn't exempt or it would have its own exemption.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on what the word possession means.

Quote

However, where a spouse, significant other, or child has the combination to the safe, or otherwise can exercise dominion and control over the NFA firearm, the prosecution can charge that individual with constructive possession. In US v. Turnbough, when the police searched the defendant’s home pursuant to a valid search warrant and found a handgun, that did not have a serial number, in the master bedroom, the defendant argued that he could not be found guilty of constructive possession if his live in girlfriend and her child were not charged. While his argument was frivolous, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared, “[In] viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, at the least, a reasonable jury could conclude that all three parties exercised dominion and control over the gun. Possession may be either sole or joint.” Id. at *7. Thus, although the prosecutor did not bring a charge of constructive possession against the girlfriend and her child, the Court was amenable to the prosecutor bringing such charges.

So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them.

People who own NFA guns form gun trusts to share ownership so that more than one person can access or touch the NFA weapon for exactly this reason.

Access and/or touching a weapon is constructive posssession. If you didn't buy it first, that means a transfer has occurred. And that's why we have never had, nor will we ever have, a "universal" background check law covering transfers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

More on what the word possession means.

So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them.

People who own NFA guns form gun trusts to share ownership so that more than one person can access or touch the NFA weapon for exactly this reason.

Access and/or touching a weapon is constructive posssession. If you didn't buy it first, that means a transfer has occurred. And that's why we have never had, nor will we ever have, a "universal" background check law covering transfers.

More confusion and obfuscation fro Tom Ray. G  The only way out of this major dilemma it to eliminate background checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think Diane Feinstein gave in to the NRA obfuscation plan and used the word "transfer" in her stooooopid bill, Jocal?

I thought she was pretty much free of their influence. Is she a secret agent of the libertarian army?

Share this post


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

Why do you think Diane Feinstein gave in to the NRA obfuscation plan and used the word "transfer" in her stooooopid bill, Jocal?

I thought she was pretty much free of their influence. Is she a secret agent of the libertarian army?

I haven't followed the silliness of your post ^^^, and have no reason to bother. Not sure what you're saying. It sounds giddy, like unworthy post content, rather like diddling in public.

But tell me something (since you are such a superior elk). Why is Diane not alone in using this word "transfer" in legislation? The word is used universally, I might add.

Share this post


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

More on what the word possession means.

So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them.

People who own NFA guns form gun trusts to share ownership so that more than one person can access or touch the NFA weapon for exactly this reason.

Access and/or touching a weapon is constructive posssession. If you didn't buy it first, that means a transfer has occurred. And that's why we have never had, nor will we ever have, a "universal" background check law covering transfers.

Whew. This is a pure generation of confusion. It masks a shitty attitude about how to, well, transfer guns.

One single,  brief, common server  search effort presents what appears to be a moderate FFL website, with a healthier attitude. Here's the straight scoop on transfers from an FFL paid to do them. They can be part of the solutions we gunowners need. Proper respect for gun transfers can be the heart of an effective background check system.

Quote

Firearms transfer?

This is a question we get asked frequently and a term we can sometimes take for granted. A transfer, in a nutshell, is a physical hand-over of a firearm. For a FFL dealer, it means that your customer fills out the ATF Form 4473, you run the NICS background check, and upon a “proceed” decision, can then give the firearm to the customer. This is going to be what the ATF is referring to when asking you how many transfers you’ve done.

The act of doing a transfer is something that many FFL dealers build their business model off of because it can be so useful in today’s market. For example, many people purchase firearms from GunBroker, an online gun auction website. When one of those purchases takes place, the seller cannot just ship the firearm directly to the buyer. It will need to be shipped to a FFL dealer in the state where the buyer resides. If you advertise your services as an FFL dealer willing to do transfers, GunBroker members in your area can contact you for aid in the transfer process. You can charge a small fee for this service, usually $15-$30. You provide a service while helping people in your area!

Another important note to mention in regards to transfers is that they can only take place in one of two locations. The first is your licensed business premises, i.e. the physical address listed on your FFL. The other location is a gun show, which the ATF views as an extension of your license.

Transfers performed by a FFL dealer are an important part of the firearms business. They are what help to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and the streets of America safe. Join FFL123.com Today!

https://www.ffl123.com/what-is-a-firearms-transfer/

 

Share this post


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

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

Because possession, not ownership, is what matters when someone is holding a gun. The word is used universally, but you somehow want to blame it on the NRA because you don't understand this stuff. Copying and pasting without reading doesn't lead to understanding.

 

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

A transfer, in a nutshell, is a physical hand-over of a firearm.

Yes, and constructive possession is basically access and/or holding a weapon. And I can access and pick up and move my wife's weapons. And whenever I do, a transfer has occurred.

 

17 hours ago, 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.

Share this post


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

Because possession, not ownership, is what matters when someone is holding a gun. The word is used universally, but you somehow want to blame it on the NRA because you don't understand this stuff. Copying and pasting without reading doesn't lead to understanding.

 

Yes, and constructive possession is basically access and/or holding a weapon. And I can access and pick up and move my wife's weapons. And whenever I do, a transfer has occurred.

 

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.

Horse shit and fear mongering, daily. You have found your niche. 

Quote

And I can access and pick up and move my wife's weapons. And whenever I do, a transfer has occurred.

Silliness on parade. Nothing better to do with your time, eh? You and David Kopel and the SAF keep making this laughable claim. Let's see some examples of the Great Transfer Crisis in real life.  Can you present any such prosecutions? 

 

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE GALORE: HOW THE SAF SHOWED THEM, 2014

In Washington State we approved solid background checks with a whopping 20% voting margin. The SAF called all extremists to our state capital, to flaunt mass transferring. The State Patrol yawned and publicly said "no worries" about "transfers.". The spectacle of 5000 gun nuts was 10% of that. Many young, armed protesters, some photographed with fingers inside trigger guards, glibly partied in the spectator section of the Capital. Within two weeks, guns were banned forever in the spectator gallery.  And all the SAF's huffing and puffing about transfers was hot air.

 

Share this post


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

Let's see some examples of the Great Transfer Crisis in real life.  Can you present any such prosecutions? 

I don't have to in order to know that...
 

Quote

 

although the prosecutor did not bring a charge of constructive possession against the girlfriend and her child, the Court was amenable to the prosecutor bringing such charges.

While there aren’t any cases of a spouse, significant other, or child being charged with constructive possession, those familiar with the Olofson case (BATFE successfully prosecuted an individual for a malfunctioning firearm in direct contravention to precedent) should recognize that the tide is changing. The absence of such a case does not mean that the BATFE or a zealous prosecutor cannot charge constructive possession and convict based on it. Moreover, the absence of such a case does not mean that a zealous prosecutor hasn’t already threatened charging such an individual unless that person testifies against the individual that the prosecutor really wants behind bars.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this