Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Yup. Until you go trolling the forum with nonstop .270 references.  Then it’s back to dogballs

 

Sounds mildly entertaining.

Hey Billy, what does your assault weapon shoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HR8 Background Checks Are Stoopid

The rhetoric is always about background checks on "gun sales."

And then Uncooperative people read what is really covered and it's a lot more than sales.
 

Quote

 

Farming and Ranching

HR8 has a limited exemption for "hunting, trapping, or fishing"—but not for ranching or farming.

Firearms transfers at farms and ranches are part of routine operations. Some transfers might last a few hours, while others last for several weeks—as when a ranch hand takes a gun to guard a flock night and day during calving season. Under HR8, the transfer is allowed only when the farmer or rancher stays in the hand's "presence." This is impractical; often the hand needs to do work in one location, and the farmer or rancher in another.

Under HR8, for a farmer or rancher to lend a firearm to an employee, they both must travel to a gun store to process the transfer. When the employee returns the firearm, everyone must return again to the gun store.

Because few farms and ranches are located near gun stores, the process typically requires hours of travel for the loan, and hours more for the return. This takes the farmer, the rancher, and their hands away from the farm or ranch during what may be the busiest period of the year, when everyone needs to work from sunup to sundown.

Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

Outlawing gun sharing on public and private property

There is an exemption for sharing guns "(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting".

Not everyone has access to a "designated" target range. In rural areas with low population density, the nearest designated range may be far away. In urban areas, the waiting lists for membership in a gun club may stretch out for years. Designated public ranges exist, but in many areas, there are few or none. Those that do exist may be a long ways away, or may be crowded, with long waiting times.

 

Is loaning a gun to a hired ranch hand a gun sale?

How about loaning it to a cousin or in-law, both of which I have done without a background check (no one was killed).

I've designated an area of my property for shooting. Will that satisfy the "designated" target range requirement? Of course not. Letting people like me plink with squirrel shooters in our yards is THE BIG PROBLEM that must be addressed.

Share this post


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

HR8 Background Checks Are Stoopid

The rhetoric is always about background checks on "gun sales."

And then Uncooperative people read what is really covered and it's a lot more than sales.
 

Is loaning a gun to a hired ranch hand a gun sale?

How about loaning it to a cousin or in-law, both of which I have done without a background check (no one was killed).

I've designated an area of my property for shooting. Will that satisfy the "designated" target range requirement? Of course not. Letting people like me plink with squirrel shooters in our yards is THE BIG PROBLEM that must be addressed.

 

So, if you can't give a gun to an 'in-law', how do they deal with me handing a gun to my wife?  Oh... that's exempt?

So if I hand the gun to her, and she hands it to her sister, and her sister hands it to her husband, is it then legal?

Stupid law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 7:49 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Sounds mildly entertaining.

Hey Billy, what does your assault weapon shoot?

 

Ruger Mini 14, Ranch Rifle takes NATO rounds; .556 maybe, not sure?  And because it has a lovely wood stock, it is NOT a Scary Black Gun, like the evil AR-15!!  All my guns have been in storage, since selling our home in 2015.  Buying another house in 3 weeks, so will have the gun case back home again, in the den.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested a SOLution elsewhere:

On 10/21/2018 at 7:58 PM, dogballs Tom said:

There are options to solve this problem that don't involve background checks for people doing target practice on private property.

For example, the exemption for licensed ranges in the law I linked could say "or private property where shooting is legal."

But that wouldn't punish gun owners for being on the wrong team, so we'll just pretend there's no simple fix.

But the requirement for "designated" or "licensed" shooting ranges, like every other form of gun control, is common sense.

Therefore, eliminating the requirement defies common sense.

This is the trap of the current taboo against saying anything bad about any gun control policy or advocate: reasonable people can't even come out in favor of plinking with squirrel shooters on private property because that's actually transferring scary assault weapons!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feinstein is DOING SOMETHING again

Lots of Tweets and such but

Quote

Although the official bill text hasn't been released, here's what Feinstein's office says the bill would accomplish, if passed

Basically the same stuff as last time, plus a new section on bump stocka since she shares my opinion that Trump has usurped power in that area.

But who needs the bill text and such details? It's gun control, which only comes in the "common sense" flavor, so a list of TeamD Senators are supporting whatever it might eventually say.

Quote

The bill's co-sponsors include Chuck Schumer (NY), Dick Durbin (IL), Patty Murray (WA.), Jack Reed (RI), Tom Carper (DE), Bob Menendez (NJ.), Ben Cardin (MD), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY.), Brian Schatz (HI), Mazie Hirono (HI), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Ed Markey (MA), Cory Booker (NJ), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Kamala Harris (CA), Bob Casey (PA), Bernie Sanders (VT), Tina Smith (MN), Ron Wyden (OR.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Mark Warner (VA).

DiFiScreenshotTruth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 5:54 AM, billy backstay said:

 

Ruger Mini 14, Ranch Rifle takes NATO rounds; .556 maybe, not sure?  And because it has a lovely wood stock, it is NOT a Scary Black Gun, like the evil AR-15!!  All my guns have been in storage, since selling our home in 2015.  Buying another house in 3 weeks, so will have the gun case back home again, in the den.

That wooden stock doesn't fool everyone...

Quote

To illustrate this point, compare the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with the AR-15. One looks like a hunting rifle and the other looks like a military weapon. Although the rifles have different manufacturers and lineages, for all practical purposes they are identical. They fire at the same rate, they can fire the same caliber of ammunition, and because they have similar barrel lengths, the ballistics are almost identical. But only one is an "assault weapon."

Heh. You've been thrown under the bus by evil Koch's. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear that the small CCW, Glock 26 or 27 is a good choice?  3.45"  barrel; might go shopping soon~!

Share this post


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

I hear that the small CCW, Glock 26 or 27 is a good choice?  3.45"  barrel; might go shopping soon~!

Better off with the G43 (9mm) or G42 (.380) for concealed carry.  Both single stack so they're slimmer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking in on this tiresome gun thread with quick reminder that all guns are assault weapons. All must be stringently controlled.

That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person who thinks they need a gun should ask themselves how they have gone wrong in their life.

Share this post


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

I hear that the small CCW, Glock 26 or 27 is a good choice?  3.45"  barrel; might go shopping soon~!

I have a Glock 27, at least for now.

It's a semiauto version of a fully automatic handgun, so subject to DiFi's proposed ban. So you can buy one, at least for now.

5 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Just checking in on this tiresome gun thread with quick reminder that all guns are assault weapons. All must be stringently controlled.

That is all.

That's not all. "Stringently controlled" means "banned." That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should probably mention that my Glock is routinely stored on the side deck of my fishing boat. Gravity holds it there pretty well. I guess there could be an accident one day, depending on legislative happenings...

Share this post


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

I should probably mention that my Glock is routinely stored on the side deck of my fishing boat. Gravity holds it there pretty well. I guess there could be an accident one day, depending on legislative happenings...

Too funny, I'm guessing a lot of them might get swimming lessons if....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Left Shift said:
22 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I am talking about taking it away. When possession of something is a felony, it's normal to talk about taking it away.

There's a whole thread about my assault weapon, and the desire of legislators in my state to ban and confiscate it.

I'm not afraid of acknowledging that I own it, but like the majority of gun owners in places where bans closed registries are passed, I would never sign up to have my property confiscated.

"We" are not talking about the fact that making possession a felony is talking about taking it away only because you are not willing to talk about it. That doesn't mean the facts escape gun owners, which is why such a small percentage signed up for the confiscation program in Billy's thread.

Wouldn't the best place to start be just to confiscate all guns


No, that's an end goal and actually stating it is considered to be in poor taste and kinda stoopid.

It's better to talk only about the registration part, not the confiscation that is the reason for the registration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

There was no "echo" in the chamber before Tom. There isn't any other "echoes" but Tom either. So no, guns in this thread doesn't have anything to do with it being an echo chamber. No matter how much you'd rather talk about that than the young Democratic politician that has you tilting at windmills.


The fun's over here now, Bent.

Share this post


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

The fun's over here now, Bent.

Long may it reside in this echo chamber. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2013 at 11:41 AM, billy backstay said:

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????

22 hours ago, Mid said:

keep killing the kids .

On 11/25/2018 at 12:38 PM, Raz'r said:

your kid-killer

On 3/26/2018 at 11:08 AM, badlatitude said:

has the very calculated capability of being a full-fledged weapon of mass destruction, and you know it. You come here with a mad pursuit to convince people of your victimhood, you should be ashamed. 


Sorry, billy, just having a bit of fun seeing what the forum would look like if gun ownership, not team affiliation, were a major issue around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Not guilty said:

When did you claim to be a victim? or is this just more made up gun dealer lies?

It's accurate.

For example, in this thread I'm griping about plans to take my property

As to the thread topic, I've noted that I don't feel any safer knowing billy's scary magazine must be confiscated upon his death. So that would be griping about the victimhood of others, but related.

Share this post


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


Sorry, billy, just having a bit of fun seeing what the forum would look like if gun ownership, not team affiliation, were a major issue around here.

 

Team affiliation?  I'm not on any team, just a recovering former Republican who is fiscally conservative, with a social conscience...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 5:49 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

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.

One minor change in the new version, but it's still Stoopid.

 

Quote

 

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;


 

 

What do you suppose would happen if I asked DiFi whether my back yard is an "area designated for the purpose of target shooting?"

I'm pretty sure I know: it would turn out that "designated" means "designated by some government authority, NOT the property owner."

So the practical effect is the same one they've always wanted:

Before guests can plink away with our "assault" weapons here in the yard, we must go to town for a background check. Because that's how we're going to prevent "gun violence" that mostly consists of suicides.

Par for the "common sense gun control" course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 7:19 AM, billy backstay said:

 

Team affiliation?  I'm not on any team, just a recovering former Republican who is fiscally conservative, with a social conscience...

I guess I don't understand the difference.

"Mid" liked this post and calls my assault weapon, which is way less badass than yours, my "child killer."

Yours isn't a "child killer" and you have a "social conscience" despite owning it. How can that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amerika must be a hellishly dangerous and insane place if all you upper-middle-class guys living in safe neighbourhoods really need guns. Long guns, short guns, concealed guns, 20-round automatics, seems you're all too scared to live without 'em.

What's the best concealed carry .50 cal belt-fed chopper? Where can I get a small tactical nuke for home defense?

 

Share this post


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

Amerika must be a hellishly dangerous and insane place if all you upper-middle-class guys living in safe neighbourhoods really need guns. Long guns, short guns, concealed guns, 20-round automatics, seems you're all too scared to live without 'em.

Nah, we just have morons who think that banning Billy's gun is DOING SOMETHING useful. Because they're idiots.

Are Aussies so darn dangerous that you can't trust your countrymen with assault rifles like mine, which looks like one of these and fires the ammo that must not be discussed:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

I'm glad I can live in a place where I never lock the doors and I am comfortable with my neighbors having such dangerous firepower.

If my neighbors were so dangerous that they couldn't be trusted with such guns, as Aussies apparently are, I'd try to find a new country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia those who need a gun, ie farmers, professional animal control shooters, security guards and target shooting clubs, can get a license, if their record shows them to be responsible cleanskins.

Criminals have a black market for guns, with very limited supply and very high prices. They mostly use these guns on each other, so doing society a favour.

Your everyday nutcase with a grudge will find it very hard to buy a weapon. 

In any American town, said nutcase would be able to get tooled up within 24 hours for under $300, no questions asked.

I just checked on how many school gun massacres we've had in Aus in the last 30 years. Zero. None. Not one. Zilch. Nix. As far as I know, there has never been a school gun massacre in Australia's entire history.

How many in the USA so far in 2019? How many in the last 5 years? The last ten years?

I like our gun laws.

 

 

Share this post


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

In any American town, said nutcase would be able to get tooled up within 24 hours for under $300, no questions asked.

Well, no, it takes months and costs hundreds of dollars in places like DC, not that this creates any kind of problem for poor people who wish to exercise their rights.

3 hours ago, Happy said:

I just checked on how many school gun massacres we've had in Aus in the last 30 years. Zero. None. Not one. Zilch. Nix. As far as I know, there has never been a school gun massacre in Australia's entire history.

In America, we count shootings that occur near colleges and universities, as well as suicides on property that was once a school, as "school shootings."

If you counted like our grabbers do, you'd find more. But I have learned from Bent and LB15 that it's not an Aussie "school shooting" if it happens at a college. That's only the rule for American "school shootings."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest CT Gun Proposals
 

Quote

 

...

Other gun bills up for discussion at the public hearing would:

— Prohibit cities and towns from imposing their own firearms regulations.

— Ban guns without serial numbers, and regulate so-called "ghost guns" that are assembled by owners or made with 3D printers.

— Allow people to carry handguns in state parks and state forests for self-defense.

— Require safe storage of guns in motor vehicles.

— Allow the transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines between people who already legally possess such weapons and magazines.

 

The ban on 3D printing is almost always just that, not a ban on guns in particular but a ban on information and ways of using it.

The last one is pretty significant though. It's the difference between a registry and a ban, or at least a partial difference for a while.

The wording suggests that someone like Billy could sell his naughty magazine, but only to another naughty person who already owns such things and registered them. If that's right, it's at least a ban with some options until the second-to-last of that generation dies. The last one would face the current set of choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person may or may not have “inherited” an “assault weapon” that, more than likely was used in an actual military assault at some point in a previous “war” that involved American troops.  The transfer from the previous owner, who was a relative of that person, was never recorded, if it did occur.  In light of the discussions in this thread, were any laws broken in the transfer, if it did occur?

Asking for a Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Importunate 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.

 

17 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

without knowing who owns guns gun removal is ineffectual policy.


Yes, that's why there are scores of thousands of felons in possession of now-banned tools up in CT, and have been for years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Importunate 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.

I wonder if five years is a reasonable period to wait before gun owners surrender their property or face felony charges?

Cory Booker sure as hell isn't saying.

Quote

...

Harlow asked Booker if he supports Swalwell's buy-back program, which would impose harsh penalties, including jail time, on those who refuse to sell the government their guns. When asked directly if he supports such penalties, Booker refused to answer.

"When I was mayor of the city of Newark, again I have a record on dealing with gun violence. We did a lot of gun buy-backs and even other creative ideas," he recalled, promising similar proposals if he becomes president. "The critical thing is I think most Americans agree that these weapons of war should not be on our streets."

Unsatisfied, Harlow pressed him, "But would you prosecute people? Do you support the government buying them back and if not potentially people could go to jail if they don't want to sell them back? Yes or no."

Once again Booker refused to answer the question.

"Again, we should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which these people can turn in these weapons," the presidential candidate said. "Right now we have a nation that allows in streets and communities weapons that should not exist."

...

 

 

I think the reporter just doesn't understand and so asked the wrong question.

"Buybacks" have nothing to do with gun bans and confiscation programs, none of which offer compensation for the property that is surrendered.

The compensation is: you don't go to jail for continuing to own your property.

There's no way someone like Cory Booker is going to step forward and advocate changing that pattern. Who wants to deal with questions of how much the compensation will cost, when confiscation is so much cheaper?

He's among the best TeamD has to offer on our other stupid prohibition program but can't see why his favored one is just as flawed.

Share this post


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

1000 down 300M to go...


Well, you do have to make possession of them illegal first.

But that hurdle was overcome years ago in CT.

And yet, the scores of thousands of felons remain in possession of their tools.

Must be frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t remember posting in this thread recently but now that I’m here it’s a great reminder that registering guns and enacting strict controls is a good first step on the path to gunz grabbing.

Share this post


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

I don’t remember posting in this thread recently but now that I’m here it’s a great reminder that registering guns and enacting strict controls is a good first step on the path to gunz grabbing.

Yes, that's exactly why compliance rates are so low.

But the failures of prohibition programs always just result in calls for more strict prohibition programs, so I'm sure the grabby faithful will react that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 5:49 AM, Importunate Tom said:

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.

.

45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Responsible gun owners should be demonstrating that they are concerned about safety in their neighbors and their community, and making whatever gun regulations -work-.

I could make the above regulation work by driving to town for a background check prior to handing someone my wife's squirrel gun in my yard.

But the fact that we've shot here for decades, since I was a little boy, and no neighbor or community member has done anything except come over to participate kind of indicates they really don't share your concern.

We can and do shoot safely here, even transferring assault weapons to friends and letting them shoot, without endangering anyone.

What would be wrong with amending the section of law to read:
 

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 or private property where shooting is legal if—


 

If passed, that would also be "whatever" gun regulation, but quite a bit more likely to be obeyed because really, driving to town for a background check on a person I've known for decades is just pointless carbon footprint building of the kind I prefer not to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 9:22 PM, Fakenews said:

I don’t remember posting in this thread recently but now that I’m here it’s a great reminder that registering guns and enacting strict controls is a good first step on the path to gunz grabbing.

Hey Badlat Jr., Did you sell that Glock of yours? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Hey Badlat Jr., Did you sell that Glock of yours? 

One why are you quoting me from 2 weeks ago? Are you slow or just recently dropped on your head?

Two definitely not related to bad lat. I’m no ones sock.

Three what glock?  I don’t own a gun because I’m not a fearful person.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

One why are you quoting me from 2 weeks ago? Are you slow or just recently dropped on your head?

Two definitely not related to bad lat. I’m no ones sock.

Three what glock?  I don’t own a gun because I’m not a fearful person.

I love come to Jesus moments!

Have you ever posted under the handle of Bull Gator?  Simple yes or no, otherwise, you have no footing to challenge others.  

Share this post


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

One why are you quoting me from 2 weeks ago? Are you slow or just recently dropped on your head?

Two definitely not related to bad lat. I’m no ones sock.

Three what glock?  I don’t own a gun because I’m not a fearful person.

 

 

1. Your posts don't typically require fast response as they are usually tripe.

2. Didn't imply you were his sock, I stated that you were secondary to him in that he sold his gun and then became a big gun grabber, after he sold his SCAR without a background check. In your previous form on these pages you once claimed to own a Glock, what happened to it? Did you sell it to someone without a background check?

3. Perhaps you should have a better memory of the BS you have spewed here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Importunate 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.

This:

13 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

I wonder how suspension of some of the BoR will go over in California?

It will go the same way as everywhere, Shock, bewilderment, acceptance. There may be a few hardcore reactionaries, but in the end, they will get in line too, because they have no answer themselves for all the violence, and they know as well as anyone that it cannot continue.


Is way funnier here, where about 20% of those affected signed up for the confiscation program.

That's actually very high compared to places like Cali and New Jersey that are trying to implement immediate confiscation. Estimates range around 3% compliance in those places.

There are a few hardcore grabbers who will do what badlat did and become assault weapon dealers but most will continue to have "boating accidents" like they do up in Canada.

 

Share this post


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

This:


Is way funnier here, where about 20% of those affected signed up for the confiscation program.

That's actually very high compared to places like Cali and New Jersey that are trying to implement immediate confiscation. Estimates range around 3% compliance in those places.

There are a few hardcore grabbers who will do what badlat did and become assault weapon dealers but most will continue to have "boating accidents" like they do up in Canada.

 

I have a friend who is a documentary filmmaker, I wonder if I put him in contact, if you wouldn't mind being the subject matter when strict gun law comes to a neighborhood near you? The rest of us would be glued to the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to put this back on topic but the latest shooter used a handgun with large capacity magazines of which he had several. Just want to make sure that everybody is ok with guys walking around with .45s with +20 rounds at a time. 

Best news - those mags are cheap - Fathers day coming up!

edit: oops, forgot to add sending T&Ps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Sorry to put this back on topic but the latest shooter used a handgun with large capacity magazines of which he had several. Just want to make sure that everybody is ok with guys walking around with .45s with +20 rounds at a time. 

Best news - those mags are cheap - Fathers day coming up!

And a suppressor. It made the sound diffuse and hard to tell where it was coming from.  This contributed to making it harder for law enforcement  to locate the perp and probably led to some victims getting in the way of deadly fire not knowing where to run

It it makes the OP and Tom feel better, I do not want laws to register these things but rather to ban them.

Share this post


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

Sorry to put this back on topic but the latest shooter used a handgun with large capacity magazines of which he had several. Just want to make sure that everybody is ok with guys walking around with .45s with +20 rounds at a time.  

Best news - those mags are cheap - Fathers day coming up!

edit: oops, forgot to add sending T&Ps

Just want to make sure that everyone knows that caliber and magazine capacity are not relevant. ANY semiauto pistol with a threaded barrel is an assault weapon.

On 6/6/2018 at 6:29 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The part of my shopping list related to handguns says this:

Quote

 

(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
...
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A threaded barrel.

(ii) A second pistol grip.

(iii) A barrel shroud.

(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

To answer your question, I'm a lot more OK with owning such things than I would be with any SOLution I can think up.

But maybe you can surprise me. I assume you're not OK with ownership of such magazines? What SOLution would be OK to solve that problem?

Share this post


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

And a suppressor. It made the sound diffuse and hard to tell where it was coming from.  This contributed to making it harder for law enforcement  to locate the perp and probably led to some victims getting in the way of deadly fire not knowing where to run

It it makes the OP and Tom feel better, I do not want laws to register these things but rather to ban them.

I still think

On 11/9/2018 at 3:34 AM, Importunate Tom said:

We should be able to buy a suppressor at a store just like we were New Zealanders or something.

 

Share this post


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

 

To answer your question, I'm a lot more OK with owning such things than I would be with any SOLution I can think up.

 

Since there is no solution perhaps you can see why I don't engage you?  Perhaps you could surprise me.   My idea: Be Like Oprah - You get a gun, and You get a gun and You get a gun, Everybody gets a gun! Oprah The Equalizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 7:06 PM, Fakenews said:

And a suppressor. It made the sound diffuse and hard to tell where it was coming from.  This contributed to making it harder for law enforcement  to locate the perp and probably led to some victims getting in the way of deadly fire not knowing where to run

It it makes the OP and Tom feel better, I do not want laws to register these things but rather to ban them.

Quick reference guide:

When Bull Gator and Donald Trump are on the same page, turn the page.
 

Quote

 

Q    The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon.  Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t like them at all.

 

Completely predictable, like his power grab to ban bump stocka. You can take the New Yawkah out of New Yawk but good luck taking the grabby instinct out of the New Yawkah.

I don't think you understand how sound works, but even somewhat dampened sound comes from a direction. I've mentioned previously how well a suppressor works at eliminating the supersonic CRACK that fast bullets make. The answer is: not at all because that sound is generated after it leaves the barrel.

On 10/6/2017 at 5:33 AM, Importunate Tom said:

More like a jackhammer.

Quote

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, d'ranger said:
On 6/3/2019 at 4:21 AM, Importunate Tom said:

 

To answer your question, I'm a lot more OK with owning such things than I would be with any SOLution I can think up.

 

Since there is no solution perhaps you can see why I don't engage you?  Perhaps you could surprise me. 

I did ask if you had a new SOLution.

Lacking one, we can discuss the currently-enacted SOLutions: bans and confiscation programs.

They're failing miserably in places like California and New Jersey, possibly due to the fact that "you must like murder so give us your property now" isn't ever going to be a persuasive argument. Compliance rates are near zero.

It's working slightly better where badlat's advice is followed:

On 6/2/2019 at 4:40 PM, badlatitude said:

I would make gun ownership terminate at death.


That's the rule under which Billy Backstay's scary magazine is destined for confiscation upon his death. Estimates are that about 15-20% of the owners of banned items have signed up to have them confiscated upon death as he did.

But that leaves the majority, numbering scores of thousands, as felons in possession.

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
38 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I don't think you understand how sound works, but even somewhat dampened sound comes from a direction. I've mentioned previously how well a suppressor works at eliminating the supersonic CRACK that fast bullets make. The answer is: not at all because that sound is generated after it leaves the barrel.

That's all true, except when the bullet starts out subsonic to begin with.  All .45 handguns are Subsonic as are all or most dogball rounds out of a 5" or less handgun.  

Sadly gaytor is correct that it does make the origin of the sound more difficult to discern even with a supersonic round.  What gaytor misses however, is that the sale and ownership of suppressors are HIGHLY HIGHLY regulated.  It takes a good year to get approved for one after going through a year or more waiting period, an extensive Fed and local BGC, 10 prints, pictures, etc.  So the entire waiting period, BGC, registration, etc. still do not prevent someone from murdering people if they so choose to.  I still maintain that prohibitionists anti-dead kid enthusiasts would get FAR more bang for their buck by repealing or heavily infringing on the 4th Amendment.  Think about it, if the NSA could read this latest shooters texts, emails, listen in on phone calls, etc - they likely could have prevented this latest mass shooting as there would have been some sign of it coming.  But no..... we accept dead kids as a price to pay for our privacy right to not have the gov't snoop into our effects and things.

Share this post


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

I did ask if you had a new SOLution.

Lacking one, we can discuss the currently-enacted SOLutions: bans and confiscation programs.

They're failing miserably in places like California and New Jersey, possibly due to the fact that "you must like murder so give us your property now" isn't ever going to be a persuasive argument. Compliance rates are near zero.

It's working slightly better where badlat's advice is followed:


That's the rule under which Billy Backstay's scary magazine is destined for confiscation upon his death. Estimates are that about 15-20% of the owners of banned items have signed up to have them confiscated upon death as he did.

But that leaves the majority, numbering scores of thousands, as felons in possession.

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

I will always respect the opinion of a dinosaur.

Share this post


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

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

Finishing with an apology and an insult.       and scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is this  new fresh hell? Our newresident gun nut who’s been spewing crap about guns here for years and who has a severe mental illness doesn’t in fact know anything about guns?  He thinks rounds exiting  a . 45 caliber handgun are SUPERSONIC?

And we’re supposed to pay attention to him.

No thank you next..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, d'ranger said:
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

Finishing with an apology and an insult.       and scene.

There was an apology but an observation about how people react when I say bad things about prohibition programs is not an insult. An insult would look more like this:

On 3/26/2018 at 4:58 AM, Importunate Tom said:

I'm just still in agreement with this post, except the part calling me a liar for noting that all the "assault weapon" bans include our dogballs's.

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything More Dogballs.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


And yes, D'Ranger, when you go out of your way to call me a liar for telling the truth, you might just see that post a few more times.

But I still agree with you that our TeamD Senators are unreasonable for including squirrel guns in the censored caliber in their ban on "military style" weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I don't think you understand how sound works, but even somewhat dampened sound comes from a direction. I've mentioned previously how well a suppressor works at eliminating the supersonic CRACK that fast bullets make. The answer is: not at all because that sound is generated after it leaves the barrel.

That's all true, except when the bullet starts out subsonic to begin with.  All .45 handguns are Subsonic as are all or most dogball rounds out of a 5" or less handgun.

Yeah my wife has a 1911 and its slow action cracks me up because I'm used to the snappier feel of my Glock.

But Bull Gator just wants to talk about the scary AR15's so I thought I'd point out that "fast bullets" make a lot of noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 5:34 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Sadly gaytor is correct that it does make the origin of the sound more difficult to discern even with a supersonic round.

And it makes subsonic rounds as subtle as a siren
 

Quote

 

So-called silencers, a.k.a. suppressors, do not eliminate "the sound of gunfire." On average, they reduce the noise generated by a .45 ACP pistol (the kind used in Friday's attack) from around 157 decibels to something like 127 decibels, which is still louder than a siren or a thunderclap. It's not surprising, then, that "most law enforcement experts say" the Virginia Beach shooter's suppressor "likely had no bearing on his ability to kill so many people in so little time," as the Associated Press noted.

The perpetrator of last week's attack also used "extended magazines," although police have not specified their capacity.

 

 

Share this post


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

True.  I run a suppressor on my AR-15 and it is NOT quiet at all.  Certainly better than unsuppressed, but not drastically so.  I can shoot without Ear pro with most other calibers -- even .308 - and its comfortable without muffs (although I still wear foamies just to be safe).  But not an AR.  Its FUCKING LOUD!

A handgun with .45 or subsonic 9mm ammo with a can on is shockingly quiet!  Its almost hollywood quiet.  Almost. 

If you think 127 decibels is shockingly quiet it might be time for hearing aids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who knows anything about guns (not Tom) knows the the question is not the decibel level of the suppressed shot but rather the ambient sound relative to the shots.  (In the case of a mass shooting much louder). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news, Billy!

Your Mini 14 is specifically exempted from the latest gun confiscation bill in the US House.

It's not a "weapon of war" like my wife's squirrel shooter, which is targeted for confiscation under that proposal. The scary adjustable stock again.

And yes, threaded barrels are still the mark of a weapon of war on plinking handguns like this one:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun Collection Confiscated From Crime Victim

At least, that's how some of my elk on a gun nut forum I frequent are viewing this story.

The thing is,
 

Quote

 

Brown, who has a family law practice in Stamford, had six pistols stolen from him sometime in October and one of those guns turned up on a Bridgeport suspect in mid-March. Conklin said Bridgeport police and an inspector from the Golden Hill courthouse in Bridgeport told Brown in May to report the guns stolen, but he did not do it until Monday, the day before Moore allegedly fired on Cooper.

...

According to Brown’s four-page arrest affidavit, the attorney played fast and loose with his armory. He said after he began dating and having a sexual relationship last year with a 30-year-old woman he met while visiting Harry O’s, one of Stamford’s three strip clubs, the woman began visiting his home with a duffel bag and the guns began disappearing.

Barnett told the police he believes that she has the guns and that she is a Bloods gang member from Bridgeport, the affidavit said.

While he has a gun safe, he told police that while cleaning and working on the guns, he would leave his pistols on the kitchen table when the woman was visiting. When he left to run errands, he noticed the guns were missing upon his return. Brown said that he was trying to investigate what happened to the guns himself. He said he ended up giving the woman a cell phone, but mistakenly did not remove some banking information and that was used to take $250 out of one of his bank accounts, the affidavit said.

Brown also said he was concerned about telling police about the guns because he believed that the man who was caught with his gun in Bridgeport, the woman he met at Harry O’s and her sister’s boyfriend are gang members and believes they were involved in the drive-by shooting death of 12-year-old Clinton Howell last December in Bridgeport and other deaths, the affidavit said.

As well as his state permit to carry a gun being revoked with Brown’s arrest, police seized another 19 pistols and long guns in his possession, Conklin said.

...

 

The Monday in question there is last Monday, July 8th, which is a LOT more than the 72 hours that CT residents have to report a gun stolen.

The reporting requirement seems like a reasonable rule to me and this case shows why. I can't imagine having guns stolen and NOT reporting it. OTOH, I can't imagine having them stolen by a stripper who seems to have gang connections, and who brings a duffel bag to my house for that purpose, so maybe there's a relationship. Or remaining silent after I'm pretty sure my stolen guns were used in a drive-by.

I have no problem with his guns being confiscated and hope he lost his law license too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I got my CCW permit 7 years ago, the instructor at the range, said that we should all register, any firearms owned with the CT state police, and/or our local PD.  When I got letters from both PD's, as required for my permit, they had no interest in receiving this information.  So, the only thing I have registered is the 20 round magazine for the Mini-14, none of my other 7 long guns are.  Still have not purchased a handgun, maybe never will, but will keep my permit active, just in case.

Share this post


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

When I got my CCW permit 7 years ago, the instructor at the range, said that we should all register, any firearms owned with the CT state police, and/or our local PD.  When I got letters from both PD's, as required for my permit, they had no interest in receiving this information.  So, the only thing I have registered is the 20 round magazine for the Mini-14, none of my other 7 long guns are.  Still have not purchased a handgun, maybe never will, but will keep my permit active, just in case.

Even so, if you happen to start dating a stripper who you think has gang connections and she shows up with a duffel bag and guns disappear, you should probably report this before you also suspect one was used in a stupid drug war drive-by.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Even so, if you happen to start dating a stripper who you think has gang connections and she shows up with a duffel bag and guns disappear, you should probably report this before you also suspect one was used in a stupid drug war drive-by.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but the likelihood of me dating a stripper, is about as much you conducting a drug war, just sayin'.....

Share this post


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

I'm sure you could date at stripper for $20 a song.......  :lol:

 

No mate; hookers and blow, is much 1980's passe by now!

So Missus BB finally acquiesced to putting the lovely glass fronted, wood gun cabinet, with the long guns, in a corner of the dining area of our large L-shaped living-dining room.  But she refuses to let me mount my beautiful antique, Damascus steel, black powder,  side by side, double barreled shottie,  on the wall in the same public space in our home, so it has to be relegated to the 3rd bedroom/my office, where nobody will appreciate it. The kids were toddlers years ago, when a former client sold it to me, and she made me remove the firing pins back then, even though only an idiot would try to fire a modern cartridge in a Damascus barrel, and I  have no interest in self-loading black powder, except into a small deck cannon......  My office also displays an 1859 Wallings map of Middlesex County that identifies the owner of every structure in the county then.  It's beautiful piece of art, and I had it conserved years ago, so it is in much better condition than the exact same 4x6 maps displayed in the Town Halls of two nearby towns..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jules said:
On 8/13/2019 at 10:28 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Just to remind y'all, gunz are for cowards . .

Exactly.  Emasculate ownership.  "Guns are for pussies."  "Real men don't need guns."

Better than waiting for Congress to take action.


Look out, Billy! The grabbers are coming for your penis.

And Kamala's too!

On 4/28/2019 at 6:34 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:


Look out, Billy! The grabbers are coming for your penis.

And Kamala's too!

 

 

Well, if Kamala owns a handgun, maybe it's time for me also? What do you recommend, Tom?  Glock, or ???

Share this post


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

 

Well, if Kamala owns a handgun, maybe it's time for me also? What do you recommend, Tom?  Glock, or ???

I have a Glock 27 and they're about as reliable as gravity but it does fall under the definition of an "assault" weapon put forth by DiFi and the Presidential Contenders.

Your Mini 14 falls outside that definition because it's so much less like something a soldier would carry than my Glock.

If you want to continue the practice of owning guns that are not "assault" weapons, maybe a revolver? Mine's a stainless S&W in .38/.357 and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under any definition of "assault" weapon yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 4:36 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

I have a Glock 27 and they're about as reliable as gravity but it does fall under the definition of an "assault" weapon put forth by DiFi and the Presidential Contenders.

Your Mini 14 falls outside that definition because it's so much less like something a soldier would carry than my Glock.

If you want to continue the practice of owning guns that are not "assault" weapons, maybe a revolver? Mine's a stainless S&W in .38/.357 and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under any definition of "assault" weapon yet.

tell us more, do the dogballs hang in boxers or briefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds reasonable -

Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/08/20/gun-insurance-san-jose-mayor

Excerpt -

Less than a month after a mass shooting in California, San Jose is considering a proposal that would make it the first city in the U.S. to require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Sounds reasonable -

Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/08/20/gun-insurance-san-jose-mayor

Excerpt -

Less than a month after a mass shooting in California, San Jose is considering a proposal that would make it the first city in the U.S. to require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

California keeps on finding ways to cause "boating accidents" and that's likely to cause some more. Tragic how firearms find their way overboard, isn't it?

Share this post


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

California keeps on finding ways to cause "boating accidents" and that's likely to cause some more. Tragic how firearms find their way overboard, isn't it?

 

You are a boating accident fan, and proud of it.  (You conspire for others to hide their battle gun problem.)

You choose to peddle a gun-hider lie, true to form. You delight in corroding to civic values in general, but I find that Libertarians are not just into shitty citizenship, but they also peddle dark money, and blythe carnage, without skipping a beat. What a package... Roger Stone with gunz.

 

Think about it. After we hide the guns, from dwelling to dwelling, somewhere, we either sneak around with them after the kids are in bed, or we just kinda train the kids to lie about them. All our  kids can keep secrets, right? No burden or conflict there, as they tell fibs about AW's then cringe down in their regularly programmed active shooter drills...

It would be fun to do a search for how many times per month you use this boating accident gag (as if it is clever at all). At least it's not race-baiting. Or tools. Or flowers. Or more proliferation. You have a certain style, fella.

love those dogballs, out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Plenipotentiary 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.

Some things never change. Among them, the Hartford Courant publishing the work of delusional grabbers.

 

Quote

 

...Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a dogballs, .38 or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. Here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .21, .37, or .43-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.

We’d have the opportunity for a national gun policy do-over. New, tougher gun registration and ownership policies, some already favored by NRA membership, would be enacted in conjunction with the changeover in rounds calibration. Fresh attention could be paid to newer, research-vetted strategies, such as the universal adoption of smart-gun technology and limiting the size of rounds available to civilians. Police and military would keep their current firearms and ammuntion, manufactured and distributed under strictest control.

To use the recalibrated rounds, people would have to purchase new weapons to fire them. Many would object. Why should a law-abiding citizen spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars to replace one’s gun collection?...

 

I guess they realized that the scores of thousands of felons created in 2014 really aren't going to sign up to have their property confiscated, so they hatched an even wackier plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2013 at 5:41 PM, billy backstay said:

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????

What do you need a 20 round banana clip for? Hunting? Defending your own home? If you are such a poor shot that you need 20 rounds then "God bless you".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Marty6 said:

What do you need a 20 round banana clip for? Hunting? Defending your own home? If you are such a poor shot that you need 20 rounds then "God bless you".

 

It's just one gun in my small collection.  Rarely used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 2:56 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure you could date at stripper for $20 a song.......  :lol:

how I love this place

Share this post


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

how I love this place

 

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 7/17/2019 at 12:56 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure you could date at stripper for $20 a song.......  :lol:

 how I love this place

Where’s @LB 15 when you need him??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 1:31 PM, billy backstay said:

 

It's just one gun in my small collection.  Rarely used.

Well, then you should take your large collection to a shooting range and train with it. Because if you need 20 round magazines you are a hilarious ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marty6 said:

Well, then you should take your large collection to a shooting range and train with it. Because if you need 20 round magazines you are a hilarious ;)

 

It's just a collection, like art, or whatever floats your boat.  When I am able to re