Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So yeah, blah, blah, blah .22.

 

Share this post


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

Yep, he had no response at all, much like yourself. Thanks for the demonstration. I know why he had no response and that's good enough for me.

You are so clever, Tom. You are something else buddy. You showed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yep, he had no response at all, much like yourself. Thanks for the demonstration. I know why he had no response and that's good enough for me.

You are so clever, Tom. You are something else buddy. You showed him.

Fooling him into becoming a temporary advocate for banning his own gun was the really clever propaganda trick.

Showing him links to actual bills was all it took to bring his advocacy to an end. Really not all that difficult or clever by comparison. But thanks anyway.

Share this post


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

Fooling him into becoming a temporary advocate for banning his own gun was the really clever propaganda trick.

Showing him links to actual bills was all it took to bring his advocacy to an end. Really not all that difficult or clever by comparison. But thanks anyway.

Atta boy Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that didn't take long

Quote

 

The National Rifle Association has filed a federal lawsuit over gun control legislation Florida Gov. Rick Scott has signed, saying it violates the Second Amendment by raising the age to buy guns from 18 to 21.

The lawsuit came just hours after Gov. Scott, a Republican, signed the compromise bill Friday afternoon.

Lawyers for the NRA want a federal judge to block the new age restriction from taking effect.


 

And as always,

Quote

The bill fell short of achieving the ban on assault-style weapons sought by survivors.

The main thing being sought was to ban our .22's and I'm still glad they failed and glad they didn't even get close enough to prompt me to join the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the part on registration:

Quote

     (b) An assault weapon A battlefield .22 or large standard capacity ammunition magazine
282  possessed pursuant to this section may not be sold or
283  transferred on or after January 1, 2018, to any person within
284  this state other than to a licensed gun dealer, as provided in
285  subsection (5), or by a bequest or intestate succession. A
286  person who obtains title to an assault weapon a battlefield .22 or large standard capacity
287  ammunition magazine for which a certificate of possession has
288  been issued under this section by bequest or intestate
289  succession shall, within 90 days of obtaining title, apply to
290  the Department of Law Enforcement for a certificate of
291  possession as provided in paragraph (a), render the weapon .22 or
292  large standard capacity ammunition magazine permanently inoperable, sell
293  the weapon .22 or large standard capacity ammunition magazine to a licensed
294  gun dealer, or remove the weapon .22 or large standard capacity ammunition
295  magazine from the state.

(edited a bit for accuracy. The "10" in Ruger 10-22 indicates the size of the standard magazine, but the topic law says more than 7 is "large" capacity, so in practice, "large" means "standard.")

The dates have been updated but the intent remains: use the registry as a tool to make sure the next generation can't own battlefield .22's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The best part is hearing the moron squad saying that the left is driving those kids’ efforts. It is worse than that. Those kids are driving the left. They don’t believe the bullshit machine, and they are going to be voting for a long time. 


Those Parkland kids are also delightfully honest and have enough courage of their convictions to actually come out and say that the main SOMETHING they want done is to ban our .22's.

I mean ban assault weapons, of course. It's the same damn thing, but for some reason when I word it one way it's particularly annoying.

Share this post


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

I mean ban assault weapons, of course. It's the same damn thing, but for some reason when I word it one way it's particularly annoying.

Do you find value in being "particularly annoying"? How is that working for you so far? Isn't fifteen months enough?

Share this post


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

Do you find value in being "particularly annoying"? How is that working for you so far? Isn't fifteen months enough?

You are being ironic, right Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shots fired....

'The first casualty': NRA broadsides Florida House Speaker for gun control 'betrayal'

Source: Politico




By MARC CAPUTO 03/19/2018 01:21 PM EDT Updated 03/19/2018 01:48 PM EDT 

MIAMI — The National Rifle Association accused outgoing Florida House Speaker and likely gubernatorial candidate Richard Corcoran of a “betrayal” on Monday for his role in passing a gun control law for the first time since Republicans won control of the Florida Legislature two decades ago. 

“Speaker of the House Richard Corcoran (R) is adding insult to injury by calling the betrayal of law-abiding firearms owners ‘one of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,’” NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said in a legislative update sent to members and posted on the website of the NRA’s lobbying arm. 

“One of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,” she wrote again for emphasis, “NOT !!!!!!” 

Hammer made clear that, though the law in question helps end “gun free zones” at many public schools, she and the NRA do not believe that the new three-day waiting period and 21-year age limit for long gun purchases is justified.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/03/19/the-first-casualty-nra-broadsides-florida-house-speaker-for-gun-control-betrayal-319476 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Untitled.jpg.99c344c2e3b359befc26c2214da79925.jpg

Share this post


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

Shots fired....

'The first casualty': NRA broadsides Florida House Speaker for gun control 'betrayal'

Source: Politico




By MARC CAPUTO 03/19/2018 01:21 PM EDT Updated 03/19/2018 01:48 PM EDT 

MIAMI — The National Rifle Association accused outgoing Florida House Speaker and likely gubernatorial candidate Richard Corcoran of a “betrayal” on Monday for his role in passing a gun control law for the first time since Republicans won control of the Florida Legislature two decades ago. 

“Speaker of the House Richard Corcoran (R) is adding insult to injury by calling the betrayal of law-abiding firearms owners ‘one of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,’” NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said in a legislative update sent to members and posted on the website of the NRA’s lobbying arm. 

“One of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,” she wrote again for emphasis, “NOT !!!!!!” 

Hammer made clear that, though the law in question helps end “gun free zones” at many public schools, she and the NRA do not believe that the new three-day waiting period and 21-year age limit for long gun purchases is justified.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/03/19/the-first-casualty-nra-broadsides-florida-house-speaker-for-gun-control-betrayal-319476 

I thought the lawsuit filed March 10 was the first expre$$ion of di$approval.

Anyway, glad to see this too. Not quite glad enough to join yet, but a bit closer.

Share this post


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

Golf Cart of Death.jpg

That pic doesn't show the telescoping stock that makes it a scary assault weapon but does show a few of the reasons it's not exactly concealable.

Are you still afraid of the revolver with the open cylinder?

Share this post


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

That pic doesn't show the telescoping stock that makes it a scary assault weapon but does show a few of the reasons it's not exactly concealable.

Are you still afraid of the revolver with the open cylinder?

Good job, your carbine barrel is pointed at your guest, you're an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 6:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.

 

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

That's the text of the law under consideration.

18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I want to openly join d'ranger is calling you a bloviating liar about your whole .22 issue. 

Having another grabber call me a liar for telling the truth makes my day, jocal. Fact is, my rimfire rifle holds more than ten rounds and I'm not the one who has an issue with it. Grabberz are.

Because they claim to think it's a weapon of war. Oddly, none will say whether they'd be indifferent between my gun and an M4 if headed to actual combat.

Share this post


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

Because they claim to think it's a weapon of war.

 Where? Cite it.

Share this post


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

 Where? Cite it.

Well, how about the words (and legislation) of Diane Feinstein?

  “There are steps we can take to reduce shootings that are overwhelmingly supported by the public. We can expand and strengthen the background check system. We can help states in their effort to keep guns from dangerous individuals. We can raise the age to purchase all guns to 21. We can ban dangerous bump stocks that allow semi-automatic guns to fire like machine guns. And we can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets."

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=BFD26004-BB01-4A2A-8D07-08764021C615

Now, lets go to the text of her latest AWB, so we can see what these "military-style assault weapons" are:

(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.

“(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.

“(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.

 

Now, what does that cover? Well, lets see:

image.jpeg.8ab598c1f6dfbc577806e42253ba15e2.jpeg

Target pistol to the rest of world. Even legal in Canada, despite the short barrel length. But to deadly for US citizens to own according to DiFi.

You can make the case that every aftermarket trigger for anything  is illegal under (C)

Plenty of others, find a partial list here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095/text

You might even be able to make the case that the catch all categories in her list of banned firearms bans everything semiauto.

I won't ask why she has a long list of "legal" firearms added at the end, her bill is only supposed to effect semi autos with detachable mags, right?

Of course, in 1991 NJ, "assault weapons" were the "guns of choice for drug dealers", according to Gov. Florio.

Like the Marlin model 60 that Pelleteri owned.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fail. I just don't see the silly bit, where Tom's rimfire gun is being declared a "weapon of war."  I see where the thing is restricted, but restricted in darn few places. Let's start over.

Quote

(NOTE: Deadeye Dick is a susceptible elk. Now he needs to document Tom Ray's prolonged timewaster silliness:

Tom Ray: Having another grabber call me a liar for telling the truth makes my day, jocal. Fact is, my rimfire rifle holds more than ten rounds and I'm not the one who has an issue with it. Grabberz are.

Because they claim to think it's a weapon of war.

Again where do "they" claim to think Tom's rimfire is a weapon of war?

Share this post


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

“(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.

This line, taken from your post, seems to exempt Tom's semi automatic long gun from your definition of AW. Nowhere are rimfires or Model 60's identified as weapons of war. You are making shit up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 4:17 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

That pic doesn't show the telescoping stock that makes it a scary assault weapon but does show a few of the reasons it's not exactly concealable.

Are you still afraid of the revolver with the open cylinder?

 

Golf Cart of Death.jpg

The fucking pistol on the floor of the golf cart, which has no cylinder, was left pointed at an area of human activity. Why?

It's next to a beer. Why?

The lever action carbine is yours, but is a second gun pointed at the activity area. Why?

Let's be careful out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 5:58 AM, mikewof said:
On 2/25/2018 at 5:38 AM, jocal505 said:

We've had arguments about this around here. Jeff is on the flick now, but strongly objected to this doctor's premises. I presented doctor descriptions with cites, Jeff djust oubled down. Five or more operations are needed for survivors. Flesh transfers are needed. Aw's are not a leading cause of spinal paralysis. Rep. Scalise had two operations, just for infection. These wounds are on a new level of gunshot injury.

From your article:

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

I just saw this.... I've never been on the flick.  Where do you make this shit up from, joke-al????

Share this post


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

I just saw this.... I've never been on the flick.  Where do you make this shit up from, joke-al????

:lol: Your head had exploded, Jeffie. You began to spout pedophelia nonsense. Jeffie plays the pedo card, wtf? Post 1776 Just Another HS Shooting Monday Feb. '18

Quote

Shootist Jeff Posted Monday at 08:09 AM

"refreshing children"????  Seriously, get help jocal.  You are on the edge of a mental breakdown with this shit. 

Not to mention CREE PEE.  I won't use the P-word, but you're coming damn close to that line.

Then you went incommunicado. Since you had also accused me of pedo with my daughter, this was a second offense. I assumed Zapata got you tossed for a bit. I was mistaken.

Watch your mouth my friend.

Share this post


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

 Where? Cite it.

As BPM noted, this part of DiFi's press release:

Quote

we can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets.

Says that the guns covered by her proposal, such as my wife's .22, belong on a battlefield, not on our streets with badlat's SCAR.

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

“(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.

This line, taken from your post, seems to exempt Tom's semi automatic long gun from your definition of AW. Nowhere are rimfires or Model 60's identified as weapons of war. You are making shit up again.

This is the problem with not reading. I have lost count of how many times I have tried to set this straight. Let me try one more time.

Her proposal DOES exempt my gun. Glad you discovered it. You could have discovered it much sooner by simply reading my posts.

The topic proposal DOES NOT exempt my gun.

Here's a quote from a FL Senator who is sponsoring the ban on our .22's:

Quote

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – State Senator Linda Stewart (D-Orlando) is calling on her colleagues in the legislature to place SB 196, a bill relating to gun safety, on the agenda for a hearing. The bill bans the sale of civilian versions of military assault weapons and the high capacity magazines that make them so lethal.

The bill in question covers your ex gun and mine.

So were you aware in 2013 that you owned a civilian version of a military assault weapon with a high capacity (though fixed and tedious to load) magazine?

Because that's what Senator Stewart just called our guns.

Share this post


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

So were you aware in 2013 that you owned a civilian version of a military assault weapon with a high capacity (though fixed and tedious to load) magazine?

Garbage. If a clip is not to be confused with a magazine, I kinda figure an ammo-feeding tube is not to be represented as a magazine. Where is the sweeping rimfire objection these days? Did it get screened out?

5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

we can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets.

Says that the guns covered by her proposal, such as my wife's .22, belong on a battlefield, not on our streets with badlat's SCAR.

It doesn't say that, not in your own quote ^^^ or anywhere else. It doesn't claim that all LCM platforms determine a battle gun. But many laws suggest that all LCM platforms are a public hazard. If you are all confused about battle weapons like this, you don't mind playing the fool.

Stupid hour started five minutes ago, and its over. If you think this argument works for you, just use it intensely a few more years.

Share this post


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

Garbage. If a clip is not to be confused with a magazine, I kinda figure an ammo-feeding tube is not to be represented as a magazine.

It doesn't say that in your own quote, or anywhere else. It doesn't say that all LCM platforms are battle guns. But many laws suggest that all LCM platforms are a public hazard. You are confused about battle weapons, you don't mind playin the fool.

Stupid hour started five minutes ago, and its over. If you think this argument works for you, just use it intensely a few more years.

Joe, what you are calling an ammo feeding tube, is literally called a tubular magazine.

Some shotguns, and even lever actions have them too.

Share this post


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

high capacity magazines

You sound confused, too. You let Pooplius do your thinking, eh? You follow him, to such stupidity?

Share this post


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

You sound confused, too. You let Pooplius do your thinking, eh? You follow him, to such stupidity?

So what is a "high capacity" magazine to you, Joe? Your fellow travelers seem to not agree on the issue.

Share this post


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

Joe, what you are calling an ammo feeding tube, is literally called a tubular magazine.

Some shotguns, and even lever actions have them too.

Now you've done it, the usual suspects will be around soon to talk about nitpicking gun nuts.

Which always makes me wonder about what words they use on their boats - since correct terminology clearly doesn't matter to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question is thoroughly covered in my signature line. Many are like Sister Mary Shootist, Shirley, there will be no satisfaction.

Share this post


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

The fucking pistol on the floor of the golf cart, which has no cylinder, was left pointed at an area of human activity. Why?

It's next to a beer. Why?

The lever action carbine is yours, but is a second gun pointed at the activity area. Why?

Let's be careful out there.

Probably because a firearm doesn't do anything on its own, Joe, and the adults there have self control.

Share this post


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

Garbage. If a clip is not to be confused with a magazine, I kinda figure an ammo-feeding tube is not to be represented as a magazine.

Get back to me when you kinda figure out how to read and have looked at the definitions in the topic law.

That tube under the barrel of our assault weapons is called a "fixed magazine."

Share this post


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

Get back to me when you kinda figure out how to read and have looked at the definitions in the topic law.

That tube under the barrel of our assault weapons is called a "fixed magazine."

Twenty two's are not battle guns, big guy. You have embarrassed yourself, even up and down the third grader trail, for 1.3 years.

Whine away at this definition, or the next one. Whine whine whine, but as you lecture, the active shooter drills and magnetometers teach the kids all they need to know. 

Share this post


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

Twenty two's are not battle guns, big guy.

We're developing something of a consensus on that point around here.

On 3/26/2018 at 4:58 AM, Uncooperative 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 .22'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 22lr.  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.

Now if only we could get the word to gungrabby D's who actually write these bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) we could quit discussing something on which we all apparently agree. Sometimes.

Share this post


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

blah blah blah (assault weapon, .22)

I'd like to see a specific law to confiscate that fucking .22 - just to shut him up.

(Fixed for the easily-triggered.)

Your wish is my command. Have a look at post 1 of this thread for the law of your dreams. That's the 2017 version. The 2018 update is somewhere in the thread, but only the dates are changed.

Share this post


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

(Fixed for the easily-triggered.)

Your wish is my command. Have a look at post 1 of this thread for the law of your dreams. That's the 2017 version. The 2018 update is somewhere in the thread, but only the dates are changed.

The law that turned Tom into a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2018 at 2:55 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Get back to me when you kinda figure out how to read and have looked at the definitions in the topic law.

That tube under the barrel of our assault weapons is called a "fixed magazine."

All worked up about .22's? How's the blood pressure, Tom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ease the sheet said:
10 hours ago, mad said:

In what way?

Its about the magazine.  Why is Tom's gun ok and his wife's potentially illegal?  They are both .22. And only one has a large capacity, removable magazine.


I'm glad you think my gun is OK. Grabberz in my state, like those in others, definitely do not think it's OK.

They specifically say that the magazine on my gun is not "large capacity" but that doesn't matter. It's an assault weapon, subject to banning and confiscation like any other.

Share this post


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


I'm glad you think my gun is OK. Grabberz in my state, like those in others, definitely do not think it's OK.

They specifically say that the magazine on my gun is not "large capacity" but that doesn't matter. It's an assault weapon, subject to banning and confiscation like any other.

Since when is caliber relevant to assault weapon classification? 

Im not reading the whole thread, I dont have that much hair left as it is. Maybe you could quote both the relevant clause and then the minimal amount that you think is relevant?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

Since when is caliber relevant to assault weapon classification? 

Im not reading the whole thread, I dont have that much hair left as it is. Maybe you could quote both the relevant clause and then the minimal amount that you think is relevant?

I don't think caliber is relevant. "Assault weapon" is just a political term that means simply "gun that TeamD wants to ban."

I brought your response here because you said the classification was about the "large capacity, removable magazine." It's not.

The magazine on my assault weapon is fixed, not removable, and the law specifically says the magazine is NOT to be considered large capacity. But the gun is banned anyway. The relevant quotes and links are in the topic post.

.22's like mine have been classified as assault weapons in New Jersey for decades. Mine looks a lot like one of these:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Share this post


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

I don't think caliber is relevant. "Assault weapon" is just a political term

Assault Weapons are defined in legislation, that's law to you.

"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name."

Which is it Tom ...

  1. you haven't got a fucking clue
  2. you know better but are lying to your fellow sailors.

Share this post


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

Assault Weapons are defined in legislation, that's law to you.

"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name."

Which is it Tom ...

  1. you haven't got a fucking clue
  2. you know better but are lying to your fellow sailors. 

3. I read the topic law, which is legislation to you, and saw that it applies to my assault weapon, which has none of the naughty features listed in your unrelated definition.

Share this post


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

3. I read the topic law, which is legislation to you, and saw that it applies to my assault weapon, which has none of the naughty features listed in your unrelated definition.

Oh cool, so that means your claim ""Assault weapon" is just a political term", was indeed complete bullshit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/14/assault-weapons-explained
 

Quote

 

Although "assault weapons" fire no faster than any other semi-automatic, such as a Glock 19 pistol or a Ruger 10/22 hunting rifle, politicians routinely conflate them with machine guns, which have not been legally produced for civilians in the United States since 1986. Prohibitionists like Feinstein argue that "assault weapons" are good for nothing but mass shootings and gang warfare, despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of these guns are ever used to commit crimes. They say these firearms are "weapons of choice" for mass shooters, who are in fact much more likely to use handguns, and claim they are uniquely deadly, even though the category is defined based on features that make little or no difference in the hands of a murderer.

Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center, laid out this strategy of misdirection and obfuscation in a 1988 report on "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America." Sugarmann observed that "the weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

He added that because "few people can envision a practical use for these guns," the public should be more inclined to support a ban on "assault weapons" than a ban on handguns. While handguns are by far the most common kind of firearm used to commit crimes, they are also the most popular choice for self-defense. Proscribing "assault weapons" therefore sounds more reasonable.

...

"Defining an assault weapon—in legal terms—is not easy," Josh Sugarmann warned back in 1988. "It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are 'black and wicked looking.'" Yet that is basically what Feinstein and likeminded state legislators have done. To give you a sense of how arbitrary Feinstein's distinctions are, her bill specifically exempts the Iver Johnson M1 carbine and the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, but only when they have fixed stocks. Adding a folding or adjustable stock to these rifles transforms them from legitimate firearms into proscribed "assault weapons," even though that change does not make them any more lethal or suitable for mass murder. A folding stock makes a rifle shorter for transport or storage, while an adjustable stock allows a more comfortable fit for shooters of different sizes.

Many supporters of "assault weapon" bans seem confused about what they entail. In a widely mocked 2007 interview on MSNBC, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D–N.Y.), who had introduced a bill that would have banned semi-automatic rifles with barrel shrouds, confessed, "I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is. I'm assuming it's a shoulder thing that goes up." Politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton often say "machine guns" or "automatic weapons" when they are talking about semi-automatic rifles. According to a Reason-Rupe survey conducted around the time that Feinstein introduced her 2013 bill, about two-thirds of Americans mistakenly thought "assault weapons" fire faster than other guns, hold more rounds, or use higher-caliber ammunition. The respondents who harbored these misconceptions were especially likely to say such guns should be banned.

People who know better may nevertheless support "assault weapon" bans as a tactic for achieving more stringent gun restrictions down the road. "No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished," The Washington Post editorialized after President Bill Clinton signed the 1994 ban into law. "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

 

Yep, just a politically useful term that means "gun that TeamD wants to ban."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

Tom  please quote the relevant clause which outlaws your gun with its tubular,  fixed magazine. And can you give me some more examples of assault weapons with fixed magazines.


OK. From the topic post, as I said:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.

 

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

You'll have to ask a real ammosexual like badlat for other models.

I look at proposed laws and comment on how they would affect my life and the guns that I own. I don't know a lot about other models. Never knew what a SCAR was until badlat started talking about his.

But I doubt they wrote that section just for my gun. Obviously, the authors have other models in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 3:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

only a tiny percentage of these guns are ever used to commit crimes.

Not so.  The evidence says otherwise. Gun damage by AW is a significant factor, and it's growing. 

  •   This researcher's work was once hijacked by the NRA pundits. His reaction at that time was classy and understated, then he went back to work.
Quote

KOPER 2017

This study investigates current levels of criminal activity with assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics in the USA using several local and national data sources including the following:

  • (1) guns recovered by police in ten large cities,
  • (2) guns reported by police to federal authorities for investigative tracing,
  • (3) guns used in murders of police, and
  • (4) guns used in mass murders.

 

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%). 

Assault weapons account for 13–16% of guns used in murders of police.

Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police.

Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited.


Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 42% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Did he define your .22 as an "assault weapon" in that study, Joe?

What the hell difference does it make, my friend?

 

THE POOPLIUS CHALLENGE: pick only one

yes, he defined it as an AW

I refer you to the future of guns, as related by @badlatitude

no, he did not define it as an AW

I refer you to the future of guns, as related by @badlatitude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 3:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Although "assault weapons" fire no faster than any other semi-automatic, such as a Glock 19 pistol or a Ruger 10/22 hunting rifle, politicians routinely conflate them with machine guns, which have not been legally produced for civilians in the United States since 1986.

There must be thirty things wrong in this first sentence. 

  • Without scientific evidence, my impression is that the AW guns on You Tube shoot quite a bit faster than my Marlin 60.
  • The machine gun hyerbole is bogus, IMO. In the present tense, people have plenty of practical matters to fear about AW's without any presumption that they are machine guns.

As for the rest of the article, it's  interesting, as reason.com spiel, it must be the best that they can do. You guys are a bunch of whiner babies, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 11:37 AM, bpm57 said:

Now you've done it, the usual suspects will be around soon to talk about nitpicking gun nuts.

Which always makes me wonder about what words they use on their boats - since correct terminology clearly doesn't matter to them.

They just shout pull that rope in an increasingly loud voice until someone actually pulls the correct line.

Pretty much the way they handle violence.  Lots of noise with little substance.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

There must be thirty things wrong in this first sentence. 

  • Without scientific evidence, my impression is that the AW guns on You Tube shoot quite a bit faster than my Marlin 60.
  • The machine gun hyerbole is bogus, IMO. In the present tense, people have plenty of practical matters to fear about AW's without any presumption that they are machine guns.

 

The rate of fire on your Marlin 60 is related more to the cartridge than the design of the action.

It's the reason that they can't be used for hunting anything bigger than a rabbit in most states.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 6:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

 

 

Quote

After two mass shootings in the state, some Florida lawmakers want an all-out ban on assault rifles.

 

Florida would join a small handful of states in the Northeast and California if it passed a ban.

 

The legislation calls for banning assault-style automatic rifles.


...

7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The machine gun hyerbole is bogus

I agree, but it happens all the time. We saw the same deliberate conflation by Obama and his ATF director. And it's still in the Ed's database:

On 12/6/2012 at 7:05 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 10/17/2012 at 7:26 AM, Tom Ray said:

Getting back to those mean looking weapons, Obama seems confused about what an automatic weapon actually is.

 

  Quote
“[W]hat I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

 

Automatic weapons? Hmmm... well, maybe he misspoke, and executives can't be wrapped up in the jargon of every issue. That's why they have underlings.

 

Like ATF Acting Director Traver, who is equally confused.

 

About 1:17 into the video accompanying that article, he starts demonstrating a fully automatic weapon and talking about how they are available all over the place.

 

Traver is not really confused. He knows the difference. He and the reporter were clearly trying to mislead ignorant members of the public into thinking machine guns are freely available on our streets and are causing lots of crime. Neither is true.

 

 

Two conclusions are possible from viewing that report: Traver is so incompetent that he does not know there are legal differences between machine guns and other guns, or he was deliberately trying to mislead the public. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on competence and say he was misleading the public, but it seems to me that either one is disqualifying for an ATF Director.

 

Share this post


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


...   TIME TO WHIP THREE LINKS OUT OF MY DATABASE...

I agree, but it happens all the time. We saw the same deliberate conflation by Obama and his ATF director. And it's still in the Ed's database:

 

Are you serious, Tom? What a silly message. It should be beneath you.

I read your damn links today, and lost respect for myself for spending my time on your typically silly tripe. I'll do better tomorrow.

Share this post


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

I read your damn links today, and lost respect for myself for spending my time on your typically silly tripe. I'll do better tomorrow.

That's OK, you really shouldn't have any.

Share this post


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

I read your damn links today, and lost respect for myself for spending my time on your typically silly tripe. I'll do better tomorrow.

You might start by actually trying to follow your "I play it straight" masturbatory post for just 1 day.

A whole day of not changing the topic, actually posting the links you claim to have, etc.

Imagine how surprised everyone will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 6:32 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:


OK. From the topic post, as I said:

You'll have to ask a real ammosexual like badlat for other models.

I look at proposed laws and comment on how they would affect my life and the guns that I own. I don't know a lot about other models. Never knew what a SCAR was until badlat started talking about his.

But I doubt they wrote that section just for my gun. Obviously, the authors have other models in mind.

The feinstein sponsored bill seems to give an exception to tubalar magazines, the clause you quoted above does not. Is it incomplete of is there 2 different bills?

Share this post


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

The feinstein sponsored bill seems to give an exception to tubalar magazines, the clause you quoted above does not. Is it incomplete of is there 2 different bills?

Check the thread title: Florida gun ban.

This thread is about a state proposal. Feinstein is a US Senator.

But since I live in FL, each is a proposal that would affect my life if passed. The FL proposal is worse because it includes both my assault weapon and my wife's and because it requires confiscation upon our deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because happy has melted my brain with his sheer idiocy, I read the first 10 posts. You dont seem to think the Florida law will make it? Is that correct?

Share this post


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

Because happy has melted my brain with his sheer idiocy, I read the first 10 posts. You dont seem to think the Florida law will make it? Is that correct?

That's correct, at least for now.

You asked earlier for other examples of assault weapons with fixed magazines. Here's one:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html

As you can see, guns like my .22 have been classified as "assault weapons" for decades up in New Jersey. The BIG PROBLEM that people around here seem to have with it is not that such a classification is ridiculous, it's that I point it out.

So if the point of your question is to reassure me that it can't happen here in FL, don't bother. It can and the people who want me to shut up (and never seem to want the other side to shut up) seem to support that outcome.

We have lots of vocal FL voters here. They'll speak up if they see something with which they disagree. And they apparently see no such thing in this thread.

Share this post


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

That's correct, at least for now.

You asked earlier for other examples of assault weapons with fixed magazines. Here's one:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html

As you can see, guns like my .22 have been classified as "assault weapons" for decades up in New Jersey. The BIG PROBLEM that people around here seem to have with it is not that such a classification is ridiculous, it's that I point it out.

So if the point of your question is to reassure me that it can't happen here in FL, don't bother. It can and the people who want me to shut up (and never seem to want the other side to shut up) seem to support that outcome.

We have lots of vocal FL voters here. They'll speak up if they see something with which they disagree. And they apparently see no such thing in this thread.

Gun threads here are becoming rather boring, with the previously zealous either giving up or not participating. 

In general,  you and I have major differences of opinions on guns. At the personal level, you seem like a reasonable responsible gun owner with passion. I'm good with that.

My opinion is obviously irrelevant but calling .22's 'assault weapons' is pretty stupid. I owned a ruger 10.22 when they were legal here. Bought an over the counter 50 rd magazine for shits and giggles. Contemplated getting a file out....

They would make a great 'assault weapon' but to group rimfire rifles with centrefire rifles is ludicrous. Even our laws recognise this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All rimfires are not created equal.

I mentioned in the Stoopid thread that we're going to do some shooting out here over Memorial Day.

I still have our old iPhone 3's and iPhone 4s's. I plan to shoot one of each model with a .22 and the other with a .17 HMR.

My prediction is that there will be a hole from the .22 shots and the phones hit by the .17 HMR will explode. That's what happens when I shoot oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some air rifles that are pretty quiet but I would hesitate to shoot one in a neighborhood. My favorite is a Beeman R10 in .20 that I bought back in the 80's. I got the version with the short barrel and open sights. No one does that. The point of getting a Beeman at the time was to get the long barrel and a good scope. I didn't want to lug all that weight around and am not careful enough with scopes.

I have used it to kill squirrels and rabbits and am sure I could kill a coon with it but haven't ever done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As kids, we used to shoot  a .177 air rifle in the back yard.

Occasionally dad would get out his 10.22 with his home made silencer. Using shorts, it was quieter than the air rifle but the shorts didn't have enough  oomph to cycle the action. 

All this in a suburban back yard.

 

Share this post


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

You might start by actually trying to follow your "I play it straight" masturbatory post for just 1 day.

A whole day of not changing the topic, actually posting the links you claim to have, etc.

Imagine how surprised everyone will be.

Hi bpm. 

  • How did you like all the Patrick J. Charles?
  • You must prefer one of the six Libertarian authors by now, so which one?
  • When will your posts gain some content?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lying Malarky said:

(To Tom) At the personal level, you seem like a reasonable responsible gun owner with passion. I'm good with that.

@Uncooperative Tom .  Reasonable, my sweet ass.

Mr. Malarky, how do you feel about opening up the machine gun registry? How do you feel about dismissing peer reviewed science? How do you feel about denying the ban on federal funding for gun violence research?  These points of view are held by Tom, and they are delusional.

What do you have to say about a person who quotes both John Lott and Gary Kleck? How do you explain a Second Amendment hotshot who won't weigh in on Joyce Lee Malcolm? Tom is a passionate guy with no foundation.

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

When will your posts gain some content?

Perhaps when your "Palmer" claims gain some "proof" Not WaPo articles about Mr. Palmer, but links to the legal rulings that you claimed happened in that case.

But thanks for playing, Joe. Just like admitting you owned an AW, expecting you to live up to your "I play it straight" post is just reaching to far.

Share this post


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

Perhaps when your "Palmer" claims gain some "proof" Not WaPo articles about Mr. Palmer, but links to the legal rulings that you claimed happened in that case.

But thanks for playing, Joe. Just like admitting you owned an AW, expecting you to live up to your "I play it straight" post is just reaching to far.

If you think I owned an AW, you belong to a unique little cult. And it makes you a wanker too, IMO. You seem to be an insatiable grouser, basically. At least you have my sympathy over how Palmer folded. Here is the guncite.com version,  my good man. Follow the links, it's all there I think.

 http://www.guns.com/2015/12/16/federal-appeals-court-voids-win-over-good-cause-requirement-for-d-c-carry-permits/

The Palmer case was a shocker for me, but Boothy was so happy he wanted to wipe out three dozen ganstas the first day. LMFAO.

Share this post


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

If you think I owned an AW, you belong to a unique little cult. And it makes you a wanker too, IMO. You seem to be an insatiable grouser, basically. At least you have my sympathy over how Palmer folded. Here is the guncite.com version,  my good man. Follow the links, it's all there I think.

 http://www.guns.com/2015/12/16/federal-appeals-court-voids-win-over-good-cause-requirement-for-d-c-carry-permits/

The Palmer case was a shocker for me, but Boothy was so happy he wanted to wipe out three dozen ganstas the first day. LMFAO.

Do you even read your links, Joe? That is a ruling in Wrenn. You _assured_ us that the DA in _Palmer_ "vacated" the judge. What happened in Wrenn was a 3 judge Court of Appeals panel did something. Not what you described, or even the same case. Would you like to try again?

20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The Palmer case was a shocker for me, but Boothy was so happy he wanted to wipe out three dozen ganstas the first day. LMFAO.

Cite? Remember Joe, you "play it straight", we expect you to live up to the same cite requirements you hold everyone else to.

Share this post


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

Bought an over the counter 50 rd magazine for shits and giggles. Contemplated getting a file out....

File for what????  

Share this post


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

Do you even read your links, Joe? That is a ruling in Wrenn. You _assured_ us that the DA in _Palmer_ "vacated" the judge. What happened in Wrenn was a 3 judge Court of Appeals panel did something. Not what you described, or even the same case. Would you like to try again?

Cite? Remember Joe, you "play it straight", we expect you to live up to the same cite requirements you hold everyone else to.

Like I said, follow the links to confirm the matter, as I related it. Without knowing the article, I punched two buttons in it and got plenty about Palmer. See below. Enjoy. 

I'm glad you are inquisitive, and that you are involved around here. But I can't do your reading for you, on a subject you've whined about for a week. You are the tenderfoot who suggested I didn't know Wrenn...which was just Palmer II, pressed by the same Libertarian actors.

Quote

“Plaintiffs, as well as the majority of law-abiding citizens, who fail to satisfy the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason/proper reason’ requirement because they cannot ‘show a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community’ or that they are engaged in a ‘type of employment that requires the handling of cash or other valuable objects that may be transported upon [their] person,’ are unable excursive their fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,” wrote U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. in a 23-page opinion from his bench in New York.

“Thus, the Court concludes that the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason/proper reason’ requirement impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms,” said Scullin, who issued a preliminary injunction against Lanier and the city from enforcing the requirement.

Scullin, a 1991 nomination to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, was the same judge who, in his July 2014 ruling in the Palmer case, struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying guns outside the home which resulted in the city adopting its new concealed carry plan.

Gun rights advocates greeted...

http://www.guns.com/2015/05/19/saf-wins-injunction-over-good-cause-requirement-for-d-c-concealed-carry-permits/

 

Share this post


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

You are the tenderfoot who suggested I didn't know Wrenn...which was just Palmer II, pressed by the same Libertarian actors.

The fact that you still don't understand that Wrenn was a different law then Palmer doesn't speak well to your understanding of either case.

It might help if you read your own links.

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Scullin, a 1991 nomination to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, was the same judge who, in his July 2014 ruling in the Palmer case, struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying guns outside the home which resulted in the city adopting its new concealed carry plan.

It is almost like the information you need can be found right there.

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Like I said, follow the links to confirm the matter, as I related it.

If I want to read Fantasy, Joe, I can think of better things then your misunderstanding of US courts.

The simple _fact_ is that Scullin was not removed from the Palmer case, the "DA" did not "vacate" Scullins ruling in Palmer, and no matter how hard you wish for it, Wrenn is not Palmer.

How about what Judge Kollar-Kotelly thinks about Palmer and Wrenn being the same thing?

MINUTE ORDER (paperless). This case has been reassigned in light of the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the preliminary injunction previously issued by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., in this case. In light of the reassignment, Defendants’ #33 Motion for Case Reassignment and Plaintiffs’ #34 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Case Reassignment are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court will provide the parties an opportunity to provide additional briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by no later than FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2016, at NOON, indicating whether they intend to file supplemental briefing. If they do, they shall include a proposed schedule for expedited briefing in light of the time constraints for resolving a motion for a preliminary injunction under local civil rule 65.1. As a final matter, the Court notes this case pertains to a different statute than the one that was at issue in Judge Scullin’s decision in Palmer v. DC (09-cv-1482). Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/9/2016.

http://michellawyers.com/wrenn-et-al-v-distsrict-of-columbia-et-al/

Share this post


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

If you think I owned an AW, you belong to a unique little cult.

I don't think Pelleteri did either, but neither my or your opinion matter. NJ judges say he did.

NJ certainly has one of the oldest definitions for AW codified into state law - why would you ignore it?

Share this post


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

@Uncooperative Tom .  Reasonable, my sweet ass.

Mr. Malarky, how do you feel about opening up the machine gun registry? How do you feel about dismissing peer reviewed science? How do you feel about denying the ban on federal funding for gun violence research?  These points of view are held by Tom, and they are delusional.

What do you have to say about a person who quotes both John Lott and Gary Kleck? How do you explain a Second Amendment hotshot who won't weigh in on Joyce Lee Malcolm? Tom is a passionate guy with no foundation.

 

 

 

A person who likes guns isn't necessarily a nutter. 

Tom is just passionate, like you. I disagree with tom on many aspects of gun control,  just like I disagree with you.

 

If either one of you two get kicked,  you respond accordingly.  That's just how it is.

Share this post


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

A person who likes guns isn't necessarily a nutter. 

Tom is just passionate, like you. I disagree with tom on many aspects of gun control,  just like I disagree with you.

 

If either one of you two get kicked,  you respond accordingly.  That's just how it is.

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

Share this post


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

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

And this guy is happy to live under Australian gun laws.

Share this post


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

Your points are accepted, However, one guy is based on vetted history and research. The other guy is winging it.

Yet things like this never come up in briefs written by your approved historians.

As one English court would soon declare, “[a] man has a clear right to protect
himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where
he is traveling or going for the ordinary purposes of business,” though
there is “no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of
arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm . .
. .” King v. Dewhurst, 1 St. Tr. 529, 601–02 (Lancaster Assize 1820)
 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn_Appellants-Reply-Brief.pdf

pg 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

If I want to read Fantasy, Joe, I can think of better things then your misunderstanding of US courts.

WHINER BABY

I gave you a guncite article covering Palmer. I found a source, slanted for your elk, on a topic of your choosing, mate. Let the record show that the CATO executive, Tom Palmer, could not protect his from mobs in D.C. based on shall issue.

Quote

MINUTE ORDER (paperless). This case has been reassigned in light of the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the preliminary injunction previously issued by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., in this case. In light of the reassignment, Defendants’ #33 Motion for Case Reassignment and Plaintiffs’ #34 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Case Reassignment are DENIED AS MOOT. 

Shall issue in D.C. was also the matter covered in Wrenn. 

Share this post


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

I gave you a guncite article covering Palmer. I found a source, slanted for your elk, on a topic of your choosing, mate. Let the record show that the CATO executive, Tom Palmer, could not protect his from mobs in D.C. based on shall issue.

You gave a source.. about Wrenn. You made up a wonderful bit of fantasy, and claimed all sorts of things _about Palmer_ I'm asking about _Palmer_ not Wrenn. No matter how much you wish, Joe, they are not the same case. Palmer was done in district court in december of 2014. It was dismissed from Appeals court April 2015. Do you see the word "Palmer" in the article and decide it must be about the case?

The minute order quote.. that you cut, and put meaningless BOLD in.. was in Wrenn. Note that it even says "in this case".

And oddly enough, the DC Appeals court doing something is not what you claimed happened. You claimed the DA vacated Scullins and sent him back to his retirement home. In Palmer. Not Wrenn. I can't find anything in either case that describes changing the judge that way.

But DC did get their way in Wrenn, not that it mattered by the end of the case.

7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Shall issue in D.C. was also the matter covered in Wrenn.

Which only makes it the same case in your mind.

And just yours.

Because you claim to know everything about Palmer and Wrenn, Joe, I'll let you figure out why they are not the same case. Hell, I've even given you the answer.

Share this post


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

As kids, we used to shoot  a .177 air rifle in the back yard.

Occasionally dad would get out his 10.22 with his home made silencer. Using shorts, it was quieter than the air rifle but the shorts didn't have enough  oomph to cycle the action. 

All this in a suburban back yard.

 

We never shot anything but slingshots in suburbia, except the one time a friend and I shot a 30/30 into his swimming pool. We wanted to see what would happen to the bullet. It mushroomed. We didn't get caught but I was pretty sure we would. Stupid teenager tricks.

My dad used his .22 with those "primer only" loads to shoot squirrels in his yard in his last house. Pretty quiet even with no silencer and not very powerful. It was semi-rural, with nearby neighbors but they had cows and horses and everyone had at least a few acres. No one ever objected.

 

Share this post


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

We never shot anything but slingshots in suburbia, except the one time a friend and I shot a 30/30 into his swimming pool. We wanted to see what would happen to the bullet. It mushroomed. We didn't get caught but I was pretty sure we would. Stupid teenager tricks.

My dad used his .22 with those "primer only" loads to shoot squirrels in his yard in his last house. Pretty quiet even with no silencer and not very powerful. It was semi-rural, with nearby neighbors but they had cows and horses and everyone had at least a few acres. No one ever objected.

 

A 30/30 in the pool sounds like reasonable kid behavior.

How did we ever survive. ...

 

On tv, American suburbia seems to not show fences etc.

Our houses have a 6ft high fence around them. As kids, we used to jump them pretty regularly. Other adults generally rarely popped their heads over.

Normally,  no one really interferred in each others backyard. Probably explains our domestic violence rates.....

Share this post


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

In 1768, John Hancock needed permission to shoot the guns of his militia in Boston.


And in about 1979, we shot a 30/30 into a suburban swimming pool. We knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

I still think it was wrong and still disapprove of firing guns in cities. How does that disapproval relate to TeamD plans to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's)?

Share this post


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


And in about 1979, we shot a 30/30 into a suburban swimming pool. We knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

I still think it was wrong and still disapprove of firing guns in cities. How does that disapproval relate to TeamD plans to ban and confiscate (assault weapons, our .22's)?

Wankerville, more of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites