Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

My rifle is not illegal. ...

 

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.

On 2/25/2017 at 6:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The proposed legislation is here.

 

Here is the definition:

 

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;

 

 

There is no exemption to it.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.

 

You are adding to your credibility problems. We have both posted the exemption. Here it is again.

Quote

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet, "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

Let's continue inclusively, quoting lines 28-37: "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: line 37  A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T9m, it's been an eye-opener for me to see the key role of the milita to the English Parliament, and to the founding fathers. I know you feel quite bonded to the militia. But you have a goofy interpretation of self-endowed militia rights IMO. The "hue and cry" went through government channels during Colonial times.

These are tense times in CA. The thread is about massive lawbreaking which will occur in CA. For perspective, let's jump to the tensions in Shay's rebellion in colonial MASS. The militia came to the rescue, did it not?

Quote

 Take for instance the following statement, which was drafted by the Massachusetts Assembly in the midst of Shays’ Rebellion:

Whereas in a free government, where the people have a right to bear arms for the common defence, and the military power is held in subordination to the civil authority, it is necessary for the safety of the State that the virtuous citizens thereof should hold themselves in readiness, and when called upon, should exert their efforts to support the civil government , and oppose the attempts of factious and wicked men, who may wish to subvert the laws and Constitution of their country . . . .84  p1745

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

What was the problem? After the revolutionary war, many of the militia were BK and in foreclosure, and the peace had made many civil actions over debts active.

That militia confronting the rebels reported to state officers, with accountability to the governor and Congress, per the constitution.  The rebels had less right to confront an elected government than to attack a foreign ruler. They had no militia standing, just a mobocracy, basically. When escaping, most went North to NH, and Joyce Malcolm would mangle certain legal phrasing which resulted from their presence there.


The awesome point is that today in California, such a militia would challenge you and your boys with the illegal guns, who subvert the laws and Constitution of their country.

No Californian can be protected by the same constitutional structure which he is opposing with lawbreaking or armed force.

Lastly, if AW guns are illegal, these guns are now incriminated by, and excluded by, the Miller ruling, i.e. their use is not lawful.

 

 

Share this post


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

Even The Trace is anticipating Uncooperative Californicators
 

Of course compliance is low when people are required to give up their property or sign up to have it confiscated at a later date. Heck, jocal can't even convince himself to give up his assault weapon. How's he going to convince anyone else?

You are subverting constitutional laws, again, with Kolbe called "popularity test" constitutionality. Popularity does not drive constitutionality.

Your core of such civics is disloyal, and not sustainable. If you build a craft on a rotten keel, you will build an unseaworthy craft.

If these citizens must have their battle guns they can move to a state where AW's are more welcome. They chose felony behavior for guns instead.

 

Your mangled Miller principles now exclude these felons, since the use of the gun in CA is no longer lawful.

Share this post


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

You are adding to your credibility problems. We have both posted the exemption. Here it is again.

 

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

 

The exception, which you say doesn't exist, was posted again. The law, when presented as a whole, protects tube feeders. 

This explains why there is no alarm in the RKBA community in Washington State. Dave Workman has never mentioned the tube feeder concerns.coming from FL.

But if you want to be worked up about it, and manic for another six months, be my guest.

 

Look around. The U.S. courts seem "convinced" of my POV  since they regulate armed confrontation in 95% 0f their gun decisions.  Managing violence has a deep and successful tradition in civilized countries. Self defense is a good thing but armed self defense has been illegal since before 1385.

Share this post


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

...

If these citizens must have their battle guns they can move to a state where AW's are more welcome. They chose felony behavior for guns instead.

 

...

That may not be a conscious choice.

They may be people who don't realize their guns are banned assault weapons since they're not very good at reading laws and keeping track of which exemption was in which section.

That was part of the reason the topic law was stayed by the judge. He said Cali firearms law was so complicated that people could not understand it well enough to obey. You know, people like yourself.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, as far as that goes. Was there similar ignorant confusion in NY and CT? These guys shell out for three AW's each, but are clueless about the legal status of their hobby? They don't hang with gun guys at gun places? Being so out of touch, where do they buy ammo? When they go to the range, is their AW unseen in use?

Share this post


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

Cali Ban Causes Spike In Sales Of Featureless Rifles

They're also buying up the last of the "bullet button" guns and gunsmiths are working on alternative ways to reload almost as easily as people in the free states.

You are not macho, affluent AW shooters with three AW's each, on the national average (as per the NSSF info in Kolbe).You are poor little victims, oblivious to laws, and subjugated by constitutional legislation. You are whiners AND victims, victims who need AW's, and concealed handguns too.

And your proposed armed-confrontation behavior is new territory for any advanced country,  contrasting 1)self defense legal basics, 2)"thou shalt not kill" and 3)Justice William Blackstone. 

Your name in Tom Ray. You are a Libertarian hotshot who can't discuss CATO's brief work in Heller?

Okay. Let's see the next chapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your article (from FOX) tells how the many legal "workaround" gimicks will be dealt with in the future. But we learned soething.  By 2013 we presented a tighter definition and format than in the '94 AW restrictions. Tom, these law cheater gimicks will flow, but I think that the GVP types will fail and bumble their way to a better situation anyway;

For example, we "anti's" got trashed by the terms of the '94 AW ban. The gratuitous terms of Manchin-Toomey were a similar debacle.Yet each would have improved the overall situation (and the former has numbers which are measurable enough to be significant). My sorry-ass, disorganized GVP side learned from each. Kinda like the day Gabby Giffords dusted herself off and moved forward with her life. Manchin Toomey was a trojan horse package which presented six fatal BC flaws, but was still better than chaos in the private gun market. Just part of a long, steep, failure-prone, uphill obstale course.

How long? The goal of of the GCA '68 was coached by Frank Sinatra (in a boat eventually steered and motivated by Billy Jack, seriously).  Since they had set out for gun registration, there was little celebration in that group upon the adoption of the GCA '68 . They felt they failed overall, yet their modest bit has somehow firmly withstood the forty year assault of the gun lobby. (It's minimal terms were reniforded line for line in Heller: the low-key FFL system remains). I humbly suggest that we dysfunctional "anti's"  fail our way to the goal line okay in this gun issue, however clever the bypass for the bullet buttons.

 

At the moment, the worst enemies of the gun extremists may be the economy, the dis-interested millenium generation, and the higher courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 4:36 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

 

You may have a technically solid point, or may not. If so, it involves technical language (rimfire vs. centerfire) and the actual  intention of that language, and the chosen terms' acuity. Within the law you are quoting is a provision exempting tube feeding .22's, and i suggest that exemption would be cited loudly in court (based on appearances if nothing else) IF I REPEAT IF massive tube feeder confiscation occurred. In your cynicism, you assume that court would back confiscation. In my hope for our system I assume the judge would be considerate of the express exception, and use his common sense, balancing merits. 

Which would lead to the issue of the seventeen round capacity. I hate to feed your .22 Caliber Whinerama, but that's a lot of shots. Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

I want to weigh in that nine months of the .22 caliber outrage crap is puhlenty, my friend. Is there some way you could go back to Bloomberg or tools or something?

 

Share this post


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

Which would lead to the issue of the seventeen round capacity. I hate to feed your .22 Caliber Whinerama, but that's a lot of shots. Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

If you were among those "many" you'd be more convincing.

But you won't give up your AW. You just want others to give up theirs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

If you were among those "many" you'd be more convincing.

But you won't give up your AW. You just want others to give up theirs.

I don't own any AW, going by my state's statutes. Only a disfigured Gollum under a bridge would maintain that I do.

Share this post


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

Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

Sorry, I cant find public health benefit in my copy of the Constitution

Share this post


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

Sorry, I cant find public health benefit in my copy of the Constitution

It seems that you aren't reading these court cases. One primary obligation of the state is to protect its citizens. It's responsible for that.

 

Share this post


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

I don't own any AW, going by my state's statutes.

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

You are demonized for good cause, because you come here to annoy.

Share this post


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

Sorry, I cant find public health benefit in my copy of the Constitution

It's in the preamble between common defense and blessings of liberty.

From Wikipedia for example: "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[22]

Whether that concept applies in this case is a debatable point.  Whether the concept of public health benefit exists isn't debatable at all, it's enshrined in the constitution.

Share this post


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

It's in the preamble between common defense and blessings of liberty.

From Wikipedia for example: "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[22]

Whether that concept applies in this case is a debatable point.  Whether the concept of public health benefit exists isn't debatable at all, it's enshrined in the constitution.

The "debatable point" is whether gun restrictions are effective, or not.  Each court case cites the public safety benefit of restrictions, as per the studies presented on our forums. No modern cases claim the public health benefit of RTC.

This 2017 study has been added to the Wrenn briefs. It uses four models (including Lott's and Moody & Marvel's) to examine this question. Over fourteen years in 11 new RTC states, the states with firm gun restrictions experienced a 42% drop in crime, the states with loose restrictions show 9%.

Quote

States that have enacted right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have experienced higher rates of violent crime than states that did not adopt those laws, according to a Stanford scholar.

(...)Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue found that states that adopted right-to-carry laws have experienced a 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws.

(...) “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper.

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

 

Share this post


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

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

Demonized? Hah. Mocked? Absolutely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of both, actually. Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do, as long as it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this:

Quote

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

A bit of both, actually. Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do, as long as it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this:

 

That's nice. Wake me when I should get concerned.

Share this post


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

 it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this...

Federal judges say lots of stuff (and you need to cherry pick it). Such LCM's have a capacity which is opposed by four different federal districts.

Quote

 Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do...

What the hell do you expect if we taste praline and dick flavor? You make your own bed around here. Your routine lies become poison to a quality community. Two weeks ago you denied Blackstone's layout of the British right to oppose tyrants four times, in spite of quality sourcing. You trashed your creds again last week, Tom. You dis-respected yourself, IMO.

This week, you posted a innocent-looking long gun picture, failing to display the offending feature within the .22 weapon, an LCM receiver. When corrected you didn't man up. (You played boring, coy, girly games about your deception.)

"Personal attacks, waah?"? I feel I am attacking the deception, not my fellow sailor here. You are a fine fellow, I suppose, but somehow one who doesn't mind soiling himself frequently. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

That's nice. Wake me when I should get concerned.

If I could wake people up and cause them to be concerned about their rights, you'd see lots of drug warriors suddenly concerned about the fourth amendment, lots of evangelicals suddenly concerned about abortion rights, and yes, lots of lefties suddenly concerned about second amendment rights.

But I can't. Only you can decide you're interested in your rights.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...
 

Quote

 

Miller implies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment. Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute the common defense, requires only a modest finding.

...

Another exhibit, the Attorney General’s Exhibit 50, appears to be a 100-page, 8-point type, 35-year survey of shooting incidents published by  Mother Jones magazine.  Oppo. Gordon Declaration at Exh. 50.  Mother Jones magazine has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence.  It is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.


 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

Share this post


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

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

Hmmpph. A manly man, no doubt. 

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

Share this post


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

Hmmpph. A manly man, no doubt. 

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

My two little ladies would have laughed their butts off at that pic.

Share this post


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

(Mother Jones) lacks some of the earmarks for the scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

Pooplius, this is the conclusion from YOUR unsourced.quote. Are you now speaking in favor of scientific presentation and conclusion?

The MIller case is not your friend, buddy. Far from it. And where is your cite? Benitez?

Share this post


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

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...
 

 

Hold on now. Back to militia? You can't have it both ways. It's either a personal right, subject to local regulation, or it's a militia clause subject to regulation as part of the state militia. 

Share this post


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

Pooplius, this is the conclusion from YOUR unsourced.quote. Are you now speaking in favor of scientific presentation and conclusion?

The MIller case is not your friend, buddy. Far from it. And where is your cite? Benitez?

Haven't you learned yet?

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You might find mention of an uncooperative federal judge. You might have been complaining about repeated mentions of him for weeks.

And, as usual, it appears you might not have read his injunction.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Hold on now. Back to militia? You can't have it both ways. It's either a personal right, subject to local regulation, or it's a militia clause subject to regulation as part of the state militia. 

The personal right and the miltia clause intersect at the people.

That's us.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Haven't you learned yet?

You want me to learn how to play hide and seek, On PA? That's not how the big boys do it.

Quote

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You are too slippery for that, buster. Still not cite, eh?

You disguise shit and mis-lable shit and misquote shit and twist shit. You directly misquoted Winkler in one link phrasing. John R. Lott 's input on may i$$ue was hiddsn "upthread, under a deceptive link phrasing:(a double deception to hide your shitty source),. That guy (your double-hidden disgraced source),.suggested background checks for voting before a Republican voting committee last week. But back to the point.

On Political Anarchy, the big boys regularly provide cites to support their positions. Especially you, Tom.

Share this post


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

The personal right and the miltia clause intersect at the people.

That's us.

Oh no you don't. What a collosal fail, because military justice is handled on an entirely different legal basis than civilian gun mayhem. Your underwear militia needs a state sponsorship and a muster, or you are civilians, in your underwear, with gunz. At home, I might add.   

What a joke. You are a delusional poser with poor reading habits, my friend. I sourced thus detail elsewhere. At least read SAILING ANARCHY dammit.

Share this post


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

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

Joe, he's calling yer ass out.

Share this post


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

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

Thank you. I checked it out, there's not much there. I think you're grasping at straws. Judge Benitez may be your hero, but this is a snoozer for me, a no-brainer, since four district courts have upheld the logic of containing LCM's. (The guns they slide into are severely restricted or totally banned in eight states.)

Secondy, it's the Ninth CIrcuit, where they will never accommodate Judge Benitez, IMO.  Speaking of the Ninth Tom, what happened to your breakthrough case approving OC for AW's in the Marianas Islands?

 

Share this post


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

Joe, he's calling yer ass out.

You're pretty good, BC, you fit right in with the posers. The Gun Club Choir needs to replace choir members, you should join up. WIth you and Greever singing they have two occasional singers in the choir.

Here's a tip: Eugene Volokh will make you look really smart in that crowd...and nobody reads him.

Share this post


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

I checked it out, there's not much there.

BS. There's no more reason to believe you would actually read material I post this time than any previous time. Over several years of debate, you failed to learn the difference between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

If you had read Judge Benitez's injunction, you would probably quote some part of it with which you agree or disagree. But you didn't.

There's enough there to temporarily halt this summer's confiscation program. Which is kind of unfortunate to me. I was sorta looking forward to seeing how many Uncooperative Californians we have. I suspect it's more than the "scores of thousands" who declined to sign up to have their guns confiscated in CT.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several posters in other threads have been attempting to help Mitch find examples of previously-legal consumer products that are now illegal to possess.

The answers are revealing.

Gun ownership is pretty much like owning a slave, subjecting minor girls to sex, or possessing illegal drugs.

The last example is really the best one, and the most relevant to the judge's injunction that stopped this summer's confiscation program.

If a gun is property, there's a constitutional problem with taking it without just compensation. It's a fifth amendment problem, so Joe will probably mistake it for a fourth amendment problem again.

OTOH, if a gun is just a public nuisance, no such compensation is needed.

Needless to say, California legislators take the "public nuisance" view of exercising our rights.

So are guns property or a nuisance?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

i would say property, and just compensation is required for confiscation. But there isn't any confiscation, unless you're a felon or otherwise don't have a right to own a tool....

By "otherwise don't have a right to own a tool" do you mean "live in California" or what?

Or maybe you don't know anything about the law for which you say you voted?

The very first sentence of the Uncooperative federal judge's injunction:

Quote

On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.

Maybe you can come up with a synonym that makes you more comfortable but when you make possession a crime, it's a confiscation program to gun owners.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

By "otherwise don't have a right to own a tool" do you mean "live in California" or what?

Or maybe you don't know anything about the law for which you say you voted?

The very first sentence of the Uncooperative federal judge's injunction:

Maybe you can come up with a synonym that makes you more comfortable but when you make possession a crime, it's a confiscation program to gun owners.

It's just a well regulated society to involved citizens.

Share this post


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

It's just a well regulated society to involved citizens.

Yes, we know that grabbers mean "banned and confiscated" by "well regulated."

The good news is that most of the informed people have given up on trying to claim "no one wants your guns." Making possession illegal kind of made the intent undeniable.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a major-league whiner, Tom. You get upset by Pelleteiri's illegal gun, seven round limits in NY, the constitutional banishment of LCM's, and the fact that gun suicides are considered gun violence. You have a rich future as a whiner. I'm in a lawn chair laughing at your whole bit.

Selective confiscation will happen.  No one is here (or in any state capital) to convince you otherwise.

When are you going to explain the gun confiscation enforced by the founding fathers?

  • Shays' Rebellion
  • The Whiskey Rebellion
  • We had loyalty oaths or gun confiscation demanded in Pennsylvania and Mass. 
  • Washington had the ALL colonies disarm known Tories. They each complied.
  •  

Here's a follow-up Q.  Why was gunpowder confiscation not listed as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence? 

And another. Why are you wetting your pants about selective, legal gun confiscation? Do you think it will go away after power snivelling?

 

Share this post


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

Why are you wetting your pants about selective, legal gun confiscation?

I see you still have not read the injunction. Unsurprising.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I see you still have not read the injunction. Unsurprising.

I glanced at it from beginning to end a few times. I don't put much stock in temporary injunctions, especially in in the Ninth these days.  (I put stock in the legislative choices of Californians, in a future hopefully exposed to fewer of battlelfield guns. Did the Marianas ruling sweep the land yet?).

However, you have something to crow about with D.C.'s Wrenn/Grace outcome. Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all you guys retired?

I can't see how you all have the time to do this same shit day after everloving day.

Share this post


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

Here's something for Uncooperative Tom to mull over later this evening.

"Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/11/ninth_circuit_rules_there_s_no_second_amendment_right_to_sell_firearms.html


Yes, I know. I pay attention to court actions whether or not they go the way I like. Following this one on calguns.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1198255&page=6

In this case, I agree with the 9th. Enforcing zoning rules isn't really "strictly regulating gun shops." It's just regulating businesses. The idea that gun shops are exempt because of the second amendment is pretty laughably wrong to me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncooperative Americans
 

Quote

 

When in 1990 New Jersey imposed an "assault weapons" ban on the possession of semiautomatic rifles with certain cosmetic features that give them a military look, the response was underwhelming. One year later, the New York Times reported that of the estimated 100,000 to 300,000 affected weapons in the state, "Only four military-style weapons have been turned in to the State Police and another 14 were confiscated. The state knows the whereabouts of fewer than 2,000 other guns."

More recently, after 2008's Heller decision supposedly took the most draconian gun restrictions off the table by reaffirming the Second Amendment's protection of individual right to own weapons, Connecticut passed a comparatively less restrictive registration requirement. Owners responded by telling the state about their possession of "as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents," according to the Hartford Courant.

"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem," commented Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-Stafford).

New York followed up with a similar law of its own that achieved perhaps 5 percent compliance.

 

It's a struggle to get double-digit compliance rates with confiscation programs in the NE.

I'm kind of looking forward to the enforcement of this ban, should it hold up in court. I expect it will hold up in practice about as well as those other examples.

Get it through your heads, D's. We're not going to cooperate with your confiscation programs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Uncooperative Americans
 

It's a struggle to get double-digit compliance rates with confiscation programs in the NE.

I'm kind of looking forward to the enforcement of this ban, should it hold up in court. I expect it will hold up in practice about as well as those other examples.

Get it through your heads, D's. We're not going to cooperate with your confiscation programs.

Power snivelling ^^^, without the power.

You are pretty smug, as you encourage law breaking on both coasts and in between..flying in the face of the constitution. What kind of citizenry would we find in the land of CATO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncooperative, I'd hope.

Like in Washington and Colorado...
 

Quote

 

In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.

More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Uncooperative, I'd hope.

Like in Washington and Colorado...
 

 

You don't mind being the lead cheerleader for shitty civics?  You float a rotten boat, then put your elk out to sail the rotten craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 1:40 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Yes, I know. I pay attention to court actions whether or not they go the way I like. Following this one on calguns.

Nope. If you have comprehended the big pic, you have kept your thoughts to yourself. You do  not acknowledge the myriad cases lost by  CATO. There's quite a pattern in play, and it's gotta be disappointing to any Second Amendment absolutist.

Quote

Whoops, My Recent Court Failures include Highland Park, the SAFE Act, an edict for intermediate Scrutiny, by Alan Gura

Whoops, 200 gun cases, each approving gun restrictions, by Adam Winkler

Share this post


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

You don't mind being the lead cheerleader for shitty civics?  You float a rotten boat, then put your elk out to sail the rotten craft.

Nope, I don't mind a bit.

I think disobeying stupid laws is one way we change them. Nothing shitty about it, except shitty gun confiscation programs that won't work on the Uncooperative.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your guns are more important to you than your constitution. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“These aren’t the results I hoped to see. I hoped to see an effect. But it’s much more important to see what’s actually happened,” said Garen Wintemute

Keep hoping that others will cooperate with confiscation programs.

I'll keep hoping that you lead by example and get rid of your assault weapon. But you won't cooperate any more than I will.

Share this post


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

Keep hoping that others will cooperate with confiscation programs.

I'll keep hoping that you lead by example and get rid of your assault weapon. But you won't cooperate any more than I w

Dead wrong. Your statement is a lie, in fact. I intend to  break no laws, intentionally or intentionally, over gun ownership, period.

Tom,  where is your source for your Wintemute  quote? Hiding something again?

Share this post


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

Answer the question. Here it is again.

Quote

If the founding fathers could confiscate guns for a variety of reasons (including political loyalty and insurrection), what is your issue with selective confiscation today? 

 


If you ever get around to reading the injunction you might figure out the issue.

Share this post


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

Tom,  where is your source for your Wintemute  quote? Hiding something again?

If you ever develop the habit of clicking and reading links, you will quit asking for sources that have already been given.

I hope you don't. It's pretty funny. Especially when you follow it up with a post about how much you read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, hiding something. 

Gun laws define appropriate behavior to judges. They define appropriate behavior to society, too. It's interesting to me that you are taking a wedge issue here, and levering it.

Here we find you carelessly applauding gun scofflaws, the same way you applaud gun suicides. I see each instance is both an unfortunate human tragedy and as an unfortunate family tragedy. The divisive element seem to bring you joy

5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


If you ever get around to reading the injunction you might figure out the issue.

The Dorado tactic. Your position is so superior it needn't be stated.  FAIL.

Share this post


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

If you ever develop the habit of clicking and reading links, you will quit asking for sources that have already been given.

I hope you don't. It's pretty funny. Especially when you follow it up with a post about how much you read.

Panties in a bunch today?

Why would I comb through your posts for an absent source?  I lost interest with fucking squirrel activity somewhere along the way. Other worthless TR MO: compound hide and seek with John R. Lott as a source gets alternated with rick rolls to the Miller cover sheet...yet you butcher the basics of Miller.

A sharp guy like you needs to avoid hide and seek with sources on PA. So  much for your adolescent diversion, buddy.

 

 

My serious question for Tom Ray: If the founding fathers could confiscate guns for a variety of reasons (including political loyalty and insurrection), what is your issue with selective confiscation today? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whassup with 2.5 years of confiscation confusion, Tom?  Malcolm claims that fifty years of individual gun rights prevailed before our revolution. Yet such rights in 1790 were historically absent. No pamphleteers or edititorials criticized repeated powder confiscations and the breaking of gun locks by local magistrates ariound 1775.

GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A GRABBER, disarming massive numbers of Tories and Uncooperatives, eh? Do I need to document the four examples of gun confiscation again? Will the squirrels and .22's distract us another ten months?

When are you going to correct the shit you made up? 

 http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163762

Quote

Uncooperative Tom  Posted February 17, 2015

I take it from the non-answer that you can't find colonial examples of banning and confiscation of guns. Neither can I. That's not what "well regulated" meant back then, nor should it be what it means today.Post 34 Tom 2-16 Claims  the absence of "confiscation" by Colonists in the FF period.

  • Post 76 Feb. 18 Tom replies that only the British confiscated guns.
  • Post 76.  Tom adds an un-sourced history piece which coaches bringing confiscation into the FF-era gun control discussion.
  • Post 78 Feb. 21. Again, Tom brings historically false gun confiscation claims into a discussion of history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 9:47 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, we know that grabbers mean "banned and confiscated" by "well regulated."

Tom, was George Washington a grabber?

Share this post


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

Tom, was George Washington a grabber?

Did he make possession of ordinary weapons illegal for everyone as California has tried to do?

No?

Then I'd say no.

Share this post


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

Did he make possession of ordinary weapons illegal for everyone as California has tried to do?

No?

Then I'd say no.

You certainly came up with an interesting definition of "grabber." Basically, you just believe whatever you want. Then you peddle that like a Hoover vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 possession of ordinary weapons blah blah  lying ass blah...

Are M-16's and "the like" JUST "ordinary weapons"?  Didn't one federal appeals court find battle guns extraordinary enough to be denied constitutional protection, in Kolbe?

Read SAILING ANARCHY.

Share this post


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

Are M-16's and "the like" JUST "ordinary weapons"? 

If these are "the like" that we're talking about, yes.

marlins-99.jpg

Share this post


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

If these are "the like" that we're talking about, yes.

marlins-99.jpg

Thanks for the silly and repetitios content, you lightweight.

Quote

Shays' Rebellion  in a nutshell   from Patrick Charles, Historiographical Crisis, History Lesson 104

p1780 Herein enters the Standard Model myth that the cause and effect of the American Revolution was the right to keep and bear arms. The claim is unproven, yet Standard Model writers somehow link the drafting of the Second Amendment to Revolutionary War disarming and British embargoes. (269, quoting Halbrook)  How can this be if we do not have one piece of historical evidence that expressly links the two?270 

270. Nevertheless, the Heller majority agreed with this interpretation. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 594 (2008)

(Quoting Heller: “And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.”).

Indeed, the Heller majority cited to two sources in support of its conclusion, but both are taken out of historical context. For the history and context behind the two sources relied upon, see Charles, “Arms for Their Defence”?, supra note 3, at 421–35.

Neither the debates, state ratifying conventions, letters, pamphlets, nor newspaper editorials on the Constitution support this conclusion. It is a figment of the popular imagination that the Model writers created.

The interpretation is also problematic in that it conflicts with the fact that Congress, colonial governments, and the local committees of public safety frequently disarmed suspected loyalists or persons who did not take an oath of allegiance.271 

 

 

Share this post


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

So do you accept that things other than guns and drugs that were once legal to possess are now illegal to possess?


There are a few examples, though none with constitutional protection.

Would you agree with the CA government that guns are a nuisance to be abated, or do you think of them as property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe no one got another answer to my question.

It was legal to have gold before executive order 6102.

The gold was viewed as property, not a nuisance, so the owners were compensated when they turned it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 9:13 AM, jocal505 said:

Are M-16's and "the like" JUST "ordinary weapons"?  Didn't one federal appeals court find battle guns extraordinary enough to be denied constitutional protection, in Kolbe?

Read SAILING ANARCHY.

Can you perhaps tell us just how many people are running around with M-16's and "the like"

Share this post


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

Can you perhaps tell us just how many people are running around with M-16's and "the like"

One out of one hundred citizens, according to the NSSF in Kolbe,  as of 2013. The punch line is that each guy owns three of them. YCMTSU.

Share this post


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

One out of one hundred citizens, according to the NSSF in Kolbe,  as of 2013. The punch line is that each guy owns three of them. YCMTSU.

Obviously untrue. You and I both only own one assault weapon.

Share this post


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

Obviously untrue. You and I both only own one assault weapon.

Very tedious stuff, Tom. But thanks for sharing your understanding of the nuances of other subjects.

Share this post


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

One out of one hundred citizens, according to the NSSF in Kolbe,  as of 2013. The punch line is that each guy owns three of them. YCMTSU.

Your number seems off a bit, no matter who it came from..

The ATF says there is only ~176K transferable machine guns in their database (1)  - and I'm positive that they are not all the M16. And if it is a M16, it is a machine gun.

_Try_ to at least be accurate in your claims.. I can build a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, but looking like one doesn't make it a Ferrari.

1: http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

Share this post


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

Your number seems off a bit, no matter who it came from..

The ATF says there is only ~176K transferable machine guns in their database (1)  - and I'm positive that they are not all the M16. And if it is a M16, it is a machine gun.

_Try_ to at least be accurate in your claims.. I can build a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, but looking like one doesn't make it a Ferrari.

1: http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

He did say M16's and "the like."

"The like" includes these assault weapons. At least according to FL grabbers. I'm not really sure what an "assault weapon" is so I have to take the word of any grabber who identifies a gun as an assault weapon.

marlins-99.jpg

Share this post


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

He did say M16's and "the like."

"The like" includes these assault weapons. At least according to FL grabbers. I'm not really sure what an "assault weapon" is so I have to take the word of any grabber who identifies a gun as an assault weapon.

marlins-99.jpg

You sound pretty confused, Tom. You  you can't sort the gun basics any more. You dumbed it down for guns.

Share this post


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

You sound pretty confused, Tom. You  you can't sort the gun basics any more. You dumbed it down for guns.

Well, the "control" people have a long history of confusing the issue by claiming that the rifle you can buy in a local store is the same as the rifle being issued in the military.

These same "control" people also like to call standard capacity mags "high capacity", but "high capacity" is defined as almost any number from 7-20.

 

Share this post


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

Well, the "control" people have a long history of confusing the issue by claiming that the rifle you can buy in a local store is the same as the rifle being issued in the military.

These same "control" people also like to call standard capacity mags "high capacity", but "high capacity" is defined as almost any number from 7-20.

 

Hello? The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models. Except full auto feature. which WHOOPS was deemed less lethal though more dangerous.

The NSSF and SAF had their chance (under strict scrutiny guidelines FFS) before the full en banc Kolbe judges. Your problem, bubba:  commercials for the guns said the consumer models are to military spec.

 

Look you sport whiner, "high capacity, standard capacity" (meaning twenty rounds for the  Mimi 14) blah blah... whatever...fine---just choose your own term and present it, I'm easy. But I suggest that you won't like the arrangements under any term, or any number = white noise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 2:43 PM, bpm57 said:

Your number seems off a bit, no matter who it came from.. IT CAME FROM THE NSSF

The ATF says there is only ~176K transferable machine guns in their database (1)  - and I'm positive that they are not all the M16. And if it is a M16, it is a machine gun.

_Try_ to at least be accurate in your claims.. I can build a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, but looking like one doesn't make it a Ferrari.

1: http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

Here you go. My  source is page 23 of the Kolbe decision, which cites the NSSF. 

Quote

The State has calculated that — accepting the plaintiffs’ estimate that there were at least 8 million FSA-banned assault weapons in circulation in the United States by 2013 — those weapons comprised less than 3% of the more than 300 million firearms in this country. Moreover, premised on the plaintiffs’ evidence that owners of the banned assault weapons possessed an average of 3.1 of them in 2013, the State has reckoned that less than 1% of Americans owned such a weapon in that year.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

Share this post


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

The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models.

 

"a  semiautomatic  centerfire  rifle  that  has  a  fixed  magazine  with  the  capacity  to  accept  more than 10 rounds;" is only "the like" of an M16 in one significant way: grabbers want to ban both.

Share this post


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

Hello? The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models. Except full auto feature. which WHOOPS was deemed less lethal though more dangerous.

The NSSF and SAF had their chance (under strict scrutiny guidelines FFS) before the full en banc Kolbe judges. Your problem, bubba:  commercials for the guns said the consumer models are to military spec.

 

Look you sport whiner, "high capacity, standard capacity" (meaning twenty rounds for the  Mimi 14) blah blah... whatever...fine---just choose your own term and present it, I'm easy. But I suggest that you won't like the arrangements under any term, or any number = white noise.

 

"Could not demonstrate a difference... except" Well, nice to see you are confused as to what "difference" means free hint: it means they are not the same

Cell phone cases claim to be made to mil spec as well. I find it unlikely that any AR ad out there actually says what "mil-spec" it meets - if it does, I'm sure you will be disappointed if you actually look up what that spec is.

https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-15-military-collector-m4/

https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-m4a1/

They look similar, but one is an issue weapon, and the other one isn't

If it isn't select (or burst) fire, then it isn't what the military is buying.

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

"entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review"

That is from page 10 of the Kolbe en banc ruling. The only Kobe strict scrutiny ruling I can find is the vacated one.

If you look at the concurring opinions, the "esteemed" judges actually complain about the whole idea of subjecting it to strict scrutiny. I can see why - they had to re hear the case to get to the predetermined outcome. 

So, reading comprehension issues, Joe?

 

 

Share this post


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

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

"entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review"

That is from page 10 of the Kolbe en banc ruling. The only Kobe strict scrutiny ruling I can find is the vacated one.

Hah! You expect him to understand the difference?

The guy can't figure out who the main plantiffs are. Figuring out levels of scrutiny is just not gonna happen. Of course he's going to get it wrong.

Share this post


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

Hah! You expect him to understand the difference?

The guy can't figure out who the main plantiffs are. Figuring out levels of scrutiny is just not gonna happen. Of course he's going to get it wrong.

Hi Pooplius.

What's your problem? The bottom line of Kolbe? That AW's are no longer protected as a "right"? 
Bingo.

Share this post


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

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

 The partial federal court ordered strict scrutiny from the district court. My info is that the 4th Circuit Court complied.

I don't know how this worked between the courts. But Judge Traxler ruled 2-1 that Kolbe go back to District Court under strict scrutiny guidelines. Simultaneously, the MD AG pressed for en banc review.  There, going far beyond the AW issue itself,  intermediate scrutiny of AW rights was ordered, 

Quote

(Source: David Kopel, a CATO writer, February 4, 2016)

Today the 4th Circuit decided Kolbe v. Hogan, a Second Amendment challenge to a 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute. The statute bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.” In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler, the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seek en banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

(...) Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defen