Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

Which kind of confiscation works best is not really a simple question.

As BL points out, the confiscation program in CT, where they wait for the owner to die, is indeed working better than the one in Cali, where the mass confiscation that was supposed to occur this summer drew the attention of a federal judge.

Doing it in a way that doesn't create splashy headlines and draw the attention of a federal judge is definitely the more effective approach to confiscation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:
19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

There's nothing wrong with talking about shootings.

For example, you could answer my question:

Which of the two ongoing types of confiscation program do you prefer? CA style immediate confiscation or CT style delayed confiscation?

CA style, definitely.


So what do you think of the judge's order blocking your preferred style of confiscation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Uncooperative Masses
 

Quote

 

That gun restrictions are widely disobeyed is a well-documented fact. I've written before that Connecticut's recent "assault weapons" registration law achieved an underwhelming 15 percent compliance rate, and New York's similar requirement resulted in 5 percent compliance. When California imposed restrictions on such weapons in 1990, at the end of the registration period "only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered," The New York Times reported. When New Jersey went a step further that same year and banned the sale and possession of "assault weapons," disobedience was so widespread that the Times concluded, "More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if not impossible to enforce." That's in states with comparatively strong public support for restrictions on gun ownership.

Across the Atlantic, despite varying but generally tight laws on gun ownership, "Contrary to widely-accepted national myths, public gun ownership is commonplace in most European states," according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey. How can that be? "Public officials readily admit that unlicensed owners and unregistered guns greatly outnumber legal ones," possibly because of "a pervasive culture of non-cooperation with public authorities" in many places.

Just a thought, but existing examples of defiance of gun laws in the United States might be an indication that "a pervasive culture of non-cooperation with public authorities" is exactly what we should expect in response to any future successes gun controllers might achieve legislation-wise.

 

It's exactly what I expect when/if the judge's order is lifted and the confiscation program is allowed to proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 4:41 AM, jocal505 said:
On 10/30/2017 at 5:18 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Should the range of prohibited weapons be broader? Should there be any compensation for those whose property is taken, or are guns just a nuisance to be abated, not requiring any compensation?

 

You want your money back for the exotic battle guns, that's nice.

I want one of our amendments in the Bill of Rights respected. Have you learned yet which one and why or are you still working with a copy of the Bill of Rights containing only one amendment?

Share this post


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

I want one of our amendments in the Bill of Rights respected. Have you learned yet which one and why or are you still working with a copy of the Bill of Rights containing only one amendment?

Whaaa...? Nice rabbit hole you have there. I didn't press the link, since you are a rickroller extraordinaire.

How is your  breakthrough temporary injunction in CA proceeding?

How is The Great Pacific Theatre AW Breakthrough going?  (NEWSFLASH FROM POOPUS; the legality of open carry of AW's in the Marianas Islands chain).

Share this post


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

Again, there is no confiscation law in California. So I have a difficult time understanding the impetus to hold me to a standard that isn't there.

One reason we fail to communicate seems to be a difference in how we understand the word confiscation.

So let me ask you for a useful synonym that we can both use. Let's leave guns aside for the moment.

If you legally possess a sailboat and the government passes a law banning possession of it and ordering you to turn it in by last July 1st (without compensation, of course), then that would be a sailboat _____________ program. Fill in the blank.

This pretty well describes the ________________ program that the judge blocked last summer in your state. What kind of a program is it?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, That's perhaps the most childish and insulting provocation anyone has tossed at me. We do not have a confiscation law in California, is that clear? I could care less what a judge blocked, it is no longer the case. Now, please, stop involving me in this insidiously niggling nonsense. 

Share this post


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

Tom, That's perhaps the most childish and insulting provocation anyone has tossed at me. We do not have a confiscation law in California, is that clear? I could care less what a judge blocked, it is no longer the case. Now, please, stop involving me in this insidiously niggling nonsense. 

Same for me, Tom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2017 at 2:10 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


This is going to be inconvenient if Special Ed shows up to tell us that the purpose of registration is not confiscation.

It's not, according to Heller II and Heller III. :o

Share this post


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

Tom, That's perhaps the most childish and insulting provocation anyone has tossed at me. We do not have a confiscation law in California, is that clear? I could care less what a judge blocked, it is no longer the case. Now, please, stop involving me in this insidiously niggling nonsense. 

The judge's order blocking the ban on possession is still in effect, as is the ban on possession it is stopping.

Sorry if a current political issue like this isn't of interest to you. I thought the whole subject of taking guns from those Californians who were too stupid to buy property in other states was something that interested you.

But until you or some other grabber can come up with an acceptable synonym, I'll just continue to call a ban on possession a confiscation program. Because that's what it is.

Share this post


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

It's not, according to Heller II and Heller III. :o

Next, tell us the area that Heller 3 is binding on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Californians Avoiding New Ammo Rules & Prices

I'm sure it's only Uncooperative types doing this. The people who voted for the higher prices, reduced selection, and increased PITA are waiting to enjoy their regulatory efforts after January 1st. Because grabberz are consistent that way and never avoid the very rules that they promulgate.

Looks like about a half a million additional assault weapons were sold last year, as Uncooperative types bought guns that would soon be banned. I'm sure that reasonable gun owners who have a conscience did not buy any of these guns. Why would you vote to ban something and own it? No one is that inconsistent.

gun-sales-by-year.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Californicators Checking In with info on which MegaLoMarts are still selling ammunition.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg $poke About The Magazine Ban

This part is not true:

Quote

First, in analyzing the survey, the district court assumed that every mass shooting where the Survey did not contain information about magazine capacity did not involve a LCM.  Order at 34-36. This assumption is incorrect.

The relevant discussion begins on page 28 of the injunction.

The judge picked through all of their sources and talked at length about what was known of the weapons involved. They go on to base that part of their case on an assumption the judge clearly did not make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 7:18 PM, bpm57 said:

Next, tell us the area that Heller 3 is binding on.

The area where Dick Fucking Heller resided. Heller sued DC successfully in the Supreme Court. He gained the right to a weapon in his hom if he registers it and getsw fingerprinted every three years. That's the present status, bpm57. 
 

Heller, your big-deal victory, may have painted your elk into a corner. An indoor corner.

Share this post


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

Holt v Becerra

In which Uncooperative Californicators are suing to keep their tools.

Have them put their faith in the temporary injunction. Be sure to post a link to it every day.

Share this post


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

Have them put their faith in the temporary injunction. Be sure to post a link to it every day.

An injunction in one case can't be applied to another any more than an exemption in one part of a legislative definition can be applied to another.

You should really learn a bit about how our system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 4:15 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

One reason we fail to communicate seems to be a difference in how we understand the word confiscation.

So let me ask you for a useful synonym that we can both use. Let's leave guns aside for the moment.

If you legally possess a sailboat and the government passes a law banning possession of it and ordering you to turn it in by last July 1st (without compensation, of course), then that would be a sailboat _____________ program. Fill in the blank.

This pretty well describes the ________________ program that the judge blocked last summer in your state. What kind of a program is it?

George Washington confiscated guns for the security of the free state. What is your obsession with confiscation?

When will you correct your mis-statements about gun confiscation in Colonial times?

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
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

An injunction in one case can't be applied to another any more than an exemption in one part of a legislative definition can be applied to another.

You should really learn a bit about how our system works.

Such sophisticated distinctions, suddenly, instead of your stream of sweeping, broadbrush confusion. I.E.You have been applying 1991 NJ law to 2017 Washington State. You have applied your redneck FL panic about rimfires to the entire nation. 

You are a silly little fellow, except when you get serious with your big guns:  some race-baiting for a social worker.

Share this post


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

Heller, your big-deal victory, may have painted your elk into a corner. An indoor corner.

I see.

So Heller (3), which only applies in DC, will make it so firearms are only allowed in the home? No ability to go to a range with it?

Of course, Heller 3 also removed one gun a month, and limitations on number of firearms you could own. In DC.

Joe, it will never get old when you act as a holier then thou antigun warrior, while owning a firearm yourself. What is the word for that again?

Share this post


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

Such sophisticated distinctions

What, that an injunction in one case doesn't apply to every case out there? Not a "sophisticated" idea at all.

It may be new to you, but it isn't new to anyone who pays the slightest attention to court cases.

Share this post


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

You have been applying 1991 NJ law to 2017 Washington State.

You got the year wrong for the NJ law.

It's true that grabberz in your state have proposed a similar, but more strict, law and I talked about their proposal to apply laws similar to NJ's to Washington State.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over two years to get a permit

Quote

 

Concealed weapon licenses are handled differently across states and counties, but in Riverside County, the process works like this: Applicants download forms from the sheriff’s department website, then schedule an in-person interview with staff from the CCW Unit. If approved during the interview, applicants will be fingerprinted, complete a safety course and qualify with each weapon they plan to carry.

Historically, this whole process took no more than two or three months, said Sniff, who has served as sheriff for a decade.

Nowadays, applicants may wait eight times that long just to get the interview.

 

If you're approved during the interview, that is. If not, you should probably look for way$ to be more likable to cops.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

School Shooting in Kentucky Is Nation’s 11th of Year. It’s Jan. 23.

By ALAN BLINDER and DANIEL VICTORJAN. 23, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/kentucky-school-shooting.html

This sounds like a good reason to DO SOMETHING, such as expanding California's confiscation program to the rest of the nation.

 

Share this post


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

California is a problem, I think the overreaction to guns is as harmful as the over dedication to guns.


Can you identify the problem? I think the biggest one's the confiscation program. But you won't even admit that's what you have.

Share this post


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


Can you identify the problem? I think the biggest one's the confiscation program. But you won't even admit that's what you have.

The "California Confiscation program"? OMG after all the OCD, I got this. 

Rest easy.  It's protected by your temporary injunction, the one you spammed and rick rolled with from July 2017-Dec. 2017.:lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 2:32 PM, jocal505 said:
On 10/11/2017 at 11:48 AM, 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 guess "just glancing" explains why you don't understand that the temporary injunction blocks the confiscation program. Kinda the opposite of protecting it. It is protecting the citizens from the confiscation program, temporarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California Looks to Asia and Away from Washington

Ed Kennedy is a journalist from Melbourne, Australia. He can be found on Twitter at @Edkennedy01
January 22, 2018
 
Quote

 

US President Donald Trump has achieved a significant milestone. He is the first President since Dwight Eisenhower, who left office in 1961, to skip a trip to California within his first 12 months in office. Even then, Ike did get there in 13 months after he got to the White House.

Trump is also unlikely to visit anytime soon, given the visceral antagonism that would greet him. Considered in context this milestone tells a deeper story and asks the question whether 2017 was the first big shift away from the absolute power of the US federal government to set and pursue foreign policy abroad.

snip

Ultimately this all means a diminished influence for the Trump administration globally.  And to a degree‚ the United States. A president with strong domestic support can project strong influence abroad. One with turbulence and upheaval at home – and especially leaders at the ready to rival him on the world stage – will find his capacity to carry out his role as America’s chief diplomat seriously hindered, now, and for long as Trump’s agenda to ‘Make American Great Again’ is unable to win the necessary support from the American people.

 

https://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/california-looks-to-asia-and-away-from-washington/

Share this post


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

I guess "just glancing" explains why you don't understand that the temporary injunction blocks the confiscation program. Kinda the opposite of protecting it. It is protecting the citizens from the confiscation program, temporarily.

Quote

It is protecting the citizens from the confiscation program, temporarily.

Temporary relief? Impressive. We have Glory Road here. Spam the forum with this weighty decision. And inform Godot.

 

9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I guess "just glancing" explains why you don't understand

If I dwell upon your skookum but temporary judgement, will that make it permanent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 7:27 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You should really learn a bit about how our system works.

Lay out your lying ass grasp of "our system." Tell us, repeatedly, every day for a year, you silly dumbass, how the NJ laws which nailed Pelletieiri define my plinker in WA state.

Share this post


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

Lay out your lying ass grasp of "our system." Tell us, repeatedly, every day for a year, you silly dumbass, how the NJ laws which nailed Pelletieiri define my plinker in WA state.

You keep telling us that court rulings that you believe in define "assault weapons", Joe. Don't you believe in the Pelliteri result? Or is it only the Maryland Act that you support?

And after you talked about how great the gun laws are in NJ, too..

Share this post


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

You keep telling us that court rulings that you believe in define "assault weapons", Joe.

Think so? It bores me silly. I recently put my faith in amalgams.

 

1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

Don't you believe in the Pelliteri result? Or is it only the Maryland Act that you support?

It's nice of you to ask, but what I "believe" in WA (in 2018) has little bearing on the wishes of the NJ voters' wishes in the early nineties. Pelletieri's gun held eighteen rounds, which they considered over the top. Three decades later, Tom got you all worked up about it, and confused your susceptible mental framework. Where do I come in?

Share this post


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

what I "believe" in WA (in 2018) has little bearing on the wishes of the NJ voters' wishes in the early nineties.

On 1/5/2018 at 10:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here's a Washington State assault weapon definition:
 

Quote

 

"Assault weapon" means:
...
(b)A  semiautomatic  pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

 

 

 

Your grabberz are just like FL and NJ grabberz: all think that both of us own assault weapons. Still waiting for a pic of something like one of our guns on a battlefield.

Do you agree with that definition, Joe, or are the grabberz in your state going too far?

Share this post


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

Do you agree with that definition, Joe, or are the grabberz in your state going too far?

You have weaponzed annoyance while drooling gibberish about squirrel guns and plinkers for more than  year now. ZZzzzz.

Look. I'm tired of your endless non-discussion of a non-problem. No substance, mate. You embarrass yourself by rolling in your own weak excrement, every day on PA. I fear the future of Political Anarchy itself at your hands. ZZZzzzz.

I think I could do without your wisdom in the near and far future. With a gram of any detachment, with the benefit of a bit of distance, or by the grace of any perspective, Pooplius, it kinda seems you have little or nothing to offer. You are a crybaby terror, in high gear, with a solid future in tantrums, as this gun mess deteriorates. 

Does granny still have her .22? Is the big temporary injunction still temporary? Tell us more, mate.

Share this post


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

Think so? It bores me silly. I recently put my faith in amalgams.

 

It's nice of you to ask, but what I "believe" in WA (in 2018) has little bearing on the wishes of the NJ voters' wishes in the early nineties. Pelletieri's gun held eighteen rounds, which they considered over the top. Three decades later, Tom got you all worked up about it, and confused your susceptible mental framework. Where do I come in?

Of course Joe. Your ilk have made up definitions of "assault weapons", but when pressed, the definition you believe in is the one that lets you keep your firearm.

Talk about standing up for what you believe in.

Share this post


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

Look. I'm tired of your endless non-discussion of a non-problem.

Well, except in places where it is law. But that is a non-issue - since it doesn't effect you, right?

Share this post


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

Do you agree with that definition, Joe, or are the grabberz in your state going too far?

You have weaponzed annoyance while drooling gibberish about squirrel guns and plinkers for more than  year now. ZZzzzz.

Look. I'm tired of your endless non-discussion of a non-problem. No substance, mate. You embarrass yourself by rolling in your own weak excrement, every day on PA. I fear the future of Political Anarchy itself at your hands. ZZZzzzz.

I think I could do without your wisdom in the near and far future. With a gram of any detachment, with the benefit of a bit of distance, or by the grace of any perspective, Pooplius, it kinda seems you have little or nothing to offer. You are a crybaby terror, in high gear, with a solid future in tantrums, as this gun mess deteriorates. 

Does granny still have her .22? Is the big temporary injunction still temporary? Tell us more, mate.

My general level of deplorability is once again acknowledged.

Your creepy database is screwed up. Neither of my grandmothers ever had a .22 to my knowledge.

Yes, the injunction is still temporary.

OK, I think the grabberz in your state are going too far in calling your gun an assault weapon.

Do you agree with that definition, Joe, or are the grabberz in your state going too far?

Share this post


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

My general level of deplorability is once again acknowledged. You enjoy being disgusting? Useless posts and links are good enough for Pooplius.

Your creepy database is screwed up. Neither of my grandmothers ever had a .22 to my knowledge.

 

 

Quote

OK, I think the grabberz in your state are going too far in calling your gun an assault weapon.

Do you agree with that definition, Joe, or are the grabberz in your state going too far?

I think you are going too far with all this weak content. You have faded into being a time waster. 

Dude, you are  squirming in public distress because misc. guns are bringing their own demise.

Let there be TR drama, full speed ahead. Go go go. Your extended tantrums respond pretty well to bait.

Quote

Yes, the injunction is still temporary.

Right. Glory Road can be like that. Will you wake us up when  temporary is over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 7:21 AM, bpm57 said:

Well, except in places where it is law. But that is a non-issue - since it doesn't effect you, right?

Relax. This has little to do with me. It has everything to do with the NJ voters' application of the constitution. And they said no to an 18 shot gun model in that State.

Then Pooplius got you all worked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 7:20 AM, bpm57 said:

Of course Joe. Your ilk have made up definitions of "assault weapons", but when pressed, the definition you believe in is the one that lets you keep your firearm.

Talk about standing up for what you believe in.

This post is amusing.

Is Pooplius your fearless leader? Would you follow him to Bunker Hill? Would you even buy a used boat from this fellow?

Pooplius took you for a ride. You are now stressed out about this imaginary problem...and about the .22 long gun of a pacifist sort. 

 

Share this post


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

This has little to do with me. It has everything to do with the NJ voters' application of the constitution.

Is that what you call it? It was forced on NJ by a (D) governor and a (D) legislature. And it still barely passed the senate.

I'm sure the new (D) governor and (D) legislature will ban even more firearms, because (somehow) the 1990 AWB hasn't been effective enough or something.

4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You are now stressed out about this imaginary problem...and about the .22 long gun of a pacifist sort. 

Yes Joe, we know all about how you don't think anyone else should have firearms - but you are special and should be allowed them.

Share this post


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

Relax. This has little to do with me. It has everything to do with the NJ voters' application of the constitution. And they said no to an 18 shot gun model in that State.

And there's no reason WA grabberz could not pass the similar law in your state, banning your assault weapon.

Because it's an assault weapon. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good News For Cooperative Californicators!

The state legislature is working on making it possible to add yourself to the list of prohibited persons.

Quote
This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add his or her own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as misdemeanor or a felony, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would allow a person registered on the list to file a petition in Superior Court requesting to have his or her name removed from the registry. The bill would require the court to hold a hearing and order removal of the person’s name if he or she establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is not at elevated risk of suicide.

Seems like a sensible precaution. After all, most of our gun violence takes the form of suicide, especially among older white guys who are likely to own guns.

Badlat, after getting rid of your guns and before leaving California, you might want to add yourself, just to make sure you don't later acquire a gun and self-murderize yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 2:23 PM, bpm57 said:

Yes Joe, we know all about how you don't think anyone else should have firearms -

I think they are a risky idea, yes...which now carry the karma of dumbshits. I personally like guns, but my perception is that moar gunz seems to precipitate undesirable behavior, inferior or vigilante logic, and questionable civics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 1:09 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And there's no reason WA grabberz could not pass the similar law in your state, banning your assault weapon.

Because it's an assault weapon. Right?

In the fifties our dog would roll in the rotting salmon carcasses on the banks of the Columbia, having a great time. (The salmon spawn twice a year.) That was the natural level that suited that dog in those times. The dog got busted for it, just because. 

When you demand attention at this level indefinitely, Tom (see TR post above), you degrade yourself AND the boards mate.

 

 

Since the firearm holds eighteen rounds, all bets are off, long term, I suppose. The punch line here is that a single shot suits my training and tenor just fine.

No angst over.22's need dominate my friends for thirteen months. Take the mental ward-with-diaper-type-guy behavior elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 1/30/2018 at 4:09 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And there's no reason WA grabberz could not pass the similar law in your state, banning your assault weapon.

Because it's an assault weapon. Right?

...

Since the firearm holds eighteen rounds, all bets are off, long term, I suppose.

Sure seems to fit the definition proposed by legislators in your state:

Quote

"Assault weapon" means:
...
(b)A  semiautomatic  pistol, or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

Which makes me wonder

On 1/29/2018 at 12:43 PM, jocal505 said:

about the .22 long gun of a pacifist sort. 

Why does a pacifist sort have an assault weapon in the first place?

Share this post


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

Take the mental ward-with-diaper-type-guy behavior elsewhere.

 

Share this post


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

Why does a pacifist sort have an assault weapon in the first place?

Deer in the headlights much? For his own reasons. To tantalize Pooplius. To be himself, a lifetime, moderate, gunowner.

Share this post


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

To be himself, a lifetime, moderate, gunowner.

So it is acceptable for _you_ to own an assault weapon, but not for anyone else?

How normal, another controller that considers themselves an exception to the rules.

Share this post


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

So it is acceptable for _you_ to own an assault weapon, but not for anyone else?

How normal, another controller that considers themselves an exception to the rules.

Deer in the headlights much? 

I find all this annoyance surprising and amusing. I opine that your minds work along the lines of emasculation.

 

 

Share this post


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

(Jokal guy not you. I didn't know he owned rifles)

It seems many of our grabberz are also assault weapon owners.

It's OK as long as you say you want to ban them. Say you want to keep something you obviously want to keep (because you're keeping it) and you're a nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2017 at 4:44 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Uncooperative Federal Judge

Quote

 

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“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.

 

 

 


We know from proposals in NY, WA, FL, and elsewhere that the real number that currently defines a "high" capacity magazine is seven, not ten. But that's only because they haven't tried five yet.

With all the gun discussion going on here, it's surprising to me that no one has any comment on our nation's most strict gun confiscation program or the Uncooperative judge's injunction that is blocking enforcement of it.

Share this post


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

With all the gun discussion going on here, it's surprising to me that no one has any comment on our nation's most strict gun confiscation program or the Uncooperative judge's injunction that is blocking enforcement of it.

Were there a big temporary injunctions in CT, NY,  MD, or Highland Park?

Share this post


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

With all the gun discussion going on here, it's surprising to me that no one has any comment on our nation's most strict gun confiscation program or the Uncooperative judge's injunction that is blocking enforcement of it.

Were there a big temporary injunctions in CT, NY,  MD, or Highland Park?

It's a good question. The difference between the CA and CT confiscation programs is one of timing: CT lets registered owners keep them until death, while CA had in mind wholesale confiscation last summer.

I don't see that as a big difference. Both are trying to accomplish the same thing, just at different rates. Does the rate really matter? I think not, but it might answer your question.

Share this post


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

As of this morning, the Supreme Court won't hear this case, which fits a broad pattern.

That one is unrelated to the topic case. It's about waiting periods for buyers, not confiscating from current owners.

Share this post


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

That one is unrelated to the topic case. It's about waiting periods for buyers, not confiscating from current owners.

Ah. So  Big Temporary is still in play. and your hopes are still soaring high. Nice.

Share this post


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

Ah. So  Big Temporary is still in play. and your hopes are still soaring high. Nice.

Yes, it is.

I named myself Uncooperative Tom in anticipation of the confiscation law going into effect. I expect millions of Uncooperative Californicators to do as you do and keep their assault weapons when/if it does. So now I'm stuck with this name for who knows how long.

Share this post


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

Yes, it is.

I named myself Uncooperative Tom in anticipation of the confiscation law going into effect. I expect millions of Uncooperative Californicators to do as you do and keep their assault weapons when/if it does. So now I'm stuck with this name for who knows how long.

So you are celebrating the lawbreakers, and conspiring to join them. Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

No serious person is talking prohibition, simply regulation. 


Nonsense. A ban on possession is prohibition. They're not just talking about it, they enacted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2018 at 3:30 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I named myself Uncooperative Tom in anticipation of the confiscation law going into effect.

You made a shift, from Deplorable Tom. The deplorability remained.

 

On 2/23/2018 at 6:15 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A ban on possession is prohibition. They're not just talking about it, they enacted it.

Nothing your big, temporary injunction can't take on.

 

On 2/23/2018 at 6:15 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Nonsense.

You are certainly the forum's expert on nonsense. And our expert on "bans", except for the pesky CDC ban on research.

Share this post


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

They haven't cured cancer yet either. They need to do that before they can even begin to talk about gunz. 


I'll be happy to discuss the gun confiscation program in your state with you just as soon as you get ready.

Share this post


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


I'll be happy to discuss the gun confiscation program in your state with you just as soon as you get ready.

Is this post what I will be missing with Tom Ray on ignore? You are no longer worth reading, based on your own choices.

Share this post


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


I'll be happy to discuss the gun confiscation program in your state with you just as soon as you get ready.

Is this post what I will be missing with Tom Ray on ignore?

Are you asking me?

The irony of me explaining to you how not reading is supposed to work is difficult to resist but it's dinnertime.

Share this post


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

Are you asking me? The question, about your value, was rhetorical, and is open

The irony of me explaining to you how not reading is supposed to work is difficult to resist but it's dinnertime.

Your content is seldom worth reading these days,  pal. I hope you bounce back soon mate.

Share this post


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

I walked with my wife and a large number of people in Ventura, California.  My reason for marching was to protest the influence of the NRA and to show legislators that there are many people who support more stringent gun laws.  The high school students who spoke at the end of the march were eloquent and inspiring.  I've fired guns and qualified as 'marksman' or whatever is the basic designation for Navy Reserve (Seabee) M16 gun qualifications.   They have their uses but it's too easy for people to get them.  

 

Do you consider it too easy in California or in other places?

 

 

Share this post


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

Do you consider it too easy in California or in other places?

The ol' thread transfer TR jerkoff.

The NRA wanted state laws with pre-emtion. That's what they got in CA, per the constitution, of course. You can't win 'em all, Tom.

 

Need attention, but not on the other topic? What did you think of yesterday, Tom? The loose figure was 800K anti-SAF voices in Wa DC?

Share this post


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

Do you consider it too easy in California or in other places?

 

 

Yes.

Share this post


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

Do you consider it too easy in California or in other places?

 

 

Yes.

So what do you think of the judge's injunction stopping the confiscation program last summer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't thought much about it and hadn't posted in this thread til you quoted me from a thread that I thought was Meli asking, Who Here Marched?  In hindsight, maybe she was just looking for overall numbers, but I'm comfortable using that as a reason to put my opinion out there.  Like yours, it's not going to change much. I appreciate that you post under your real name, unlike some of the socks.  

A judge made a decision that apparently was based on the reality that people aren't going to turn shit in;  I'm fine with that if I read it correctly because having laws that are ignored is counterproductive and disingenuous.  

My position is that access to firearms should be further restricted.  I guess that means sales and production.   I know the NRA opposes expanded background checks.  I support expanded background checks.

edit to add:  by socks I do not mean long-established screen names.  I mean deliberately anonymous socks that spew shit in a topic that is too serious for that.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 5:48 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are you asking me?

The irony of me explaining to you how not reading is supposed to work is difficult to resist but it's dinnertime.

It's your play Tom. If you stop posting nonsense, you will be worth reading. I feel pity when I think of your bigly .22 rabbit hole.  What it is. 

My .02: the kids sounded healthy and vibrant in DC yesterday. You like grass roots shit, but have no comment?

Share this post


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

I hadn't thought much about it and hadn't posted in this thread til you quoted me from a thread that I thought was Meli asking, Who Here Marched?  In hindsight, maybe she was just looking for overall numbers, but I'm comfortable using that as a reason to put my opinion out there.  Like yours, it's not going to change much. I appreciate that you post under your real name, unlike some of the socks.  

A judge made a decision that apparently was based on the reality that people aren't going to turn shit in;  I'm fine with that if I read it correctly because having laws that are ignored is counterproductive and disingenuous.  

My position is that access to firearms should be further restricted.  I guess that means sales and production.   I know the NRA opposes expanded background checks.  I support expanded background checks.

edit to add:  by socks I do not mean long-established screen names.  I mean deliberately anonymous socks that spew shit in a topic that is too serious for that.  

 

 

I don't think that was the judge's reason for the injunction, though it is a good idea to evaluate whether a law will actually be obeyed. The thread title gives my take on whether this one is any more likely to be obeyed than other registration/confiscation schemes.

The judge simply said that some choices are "off the table" and that making possession of ordinary guns illegal is one of those choices. It wasn't related to the likelihood of success or failure of the program.

Sales and production are already just about as restricted as they can be short of banning possession of those already in circulation, which is why that was the next step taken. The "Safe Gun List" is shrinking every year and will probably go to zero soon. Many manufacturers have abandoned the CA market.

 I have said before that I would not sell a gun to a stranger without a background check by a firearms dealer, though it would be legal to do so. I would sell one to a trusted friend or family member without a background check. Since the government can't really tell who is a trusted friend, a background check law on sales would have to cover those too. So it might inconvenience me slightly but not enough to make me object.

If you want to know where the objections come from, I spelled it out over here. Basically, I don't think we should have to go to town to get guests background checked prior to letting them shoot in our back yard. Background check laws must always cover transfers, not just sales, for good reasons. For other good reasons, some transfers are exempt. If you are holding a gun you did not buy, a transfer has occurred.

Share this post


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

it is a good idea to evaluate whether a law will actually be obeyed.

The issue you present is thus a "popularity test" for constitutionality. With firearms, the courts reject such a premise.

Quote

Kolbe, Mar. 2017

P16  ...he (breyer) explained why popularity is not a standard that makes 61 sense. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 720-21 (Breyer, J., dissenting).15

 Meanwhile, the Heller majority said nothing to confirm that it was sponsoring the popularity test. Nevertheless, our dissenting colleagues also claim support for the popularity test from the recent two-justice concurring opinion in Caetano, which propounded that, under Heller, “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” See Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1031 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment). Of course, that reading of Heller failed to garner a Court majority in Caetano. We reject the interpretation of Heller embraced by our dissenting colleagues because it is incompatible with Heller’s clear and dispositive pronouncement: There is no Second Amendment protection for “M-16 rifles and the like,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service.” See 554

P59 Popularity

At bottom, the dissent concludes that the so-called popularity of the banned assault weapons --- which were owned by less than 1% of Americans as recently as 2013 --- inhibits any effort by the other 99% to stop those weapons from being used again and again to perpretrate mass slaughters. We simply cannot agree.

  .https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 1% of us were assault weapon owners in 2013?

Are you sure they counted the two of us, jocal? I don't believe I even realized that I was an assault weapon owner back in 2013.

Share this post


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

Only 1% of us were assault weapon owners in 2013?

Are you sure they counted the two of us, jocal? I don't believe I even realized that I was an assault weapon owner back in 2013.

Bless your heart, Tom. Um, you went potty about .22's four months BEFORE the battle-weapon Waterloo which was Kolbe. 

You are entertained by your own dizzy confusion, which is interesting. IMO you have retreated to a personal duck blind, as the world turns. You need a lot of .22 attention in a deteriorating situation thingee. I'm laughing Tom, and this is gonna get some worse.

Share this post


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

At bottom, the dissent concludes that the so-called popularity of the banned assault weapons --- which were owned by less than 1% of Americans as recently as 2013 --- inhibits any effort by the other 99% to stop those weapons from being used again and again to perpretrate mass slaughters. We simply cannot agree.

And they were talking about who owned an assault weapon in 2013.

Did you know you were an assault weapon owner in 2013?

Share this post


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

And they were talking about who owned an assault weapon in 2013.

Did you know you were an assault weapon owner in 2013?

Get silly on someone else Tom. This is why you are ignore worthy.

Share this post


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

Basically, I don't think we should have to go to town to get guests background checked prior to letting them shoot in our back yard. Background check laws must always cover transfers, not just sales, for good reasons. For other good reasons, some transfers are exempt. If you are holding a gun you did not buy, a transfer has occurred.

 ^^^ A crime of Tom's imagination. Without a single "transfer" offender, Tom and Gottlieb have no standing to challenge this term, so far. 

 

Share this post


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

Bless your heart, Tom. Um, you went potty about .22's four months BEFORE the battle-weapon Waterloo which was Kolbe.

Who would of ever thought that 1 circuit court ruling was the end of the world.

Have you bothered to read the applicable paragraphs in Heller?

I guess its better then endlessly quoting the dissent in DC Circuit cases..

Share this post


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

Who would of ever thought that 1 circuit court ruling was the end of the world.

Tom fell apart before Kolbe, then he broke bad when battle guns were denied his indoor militia.

Quote

Have you bothered to read the applicable paragraphs in Heller?

Sure, go ahead. Present your talking point, if any, and your quotes.

Quote

I guess its better then endlessly quoting the dissent in DC Circuit cases..

Hi Bpm. That issue, phrased in the Wrenn dissent, is about the legal status quo, castle doctrine. Technically, concealed carry has no legal baseline, so Heller could only opine about indoor guns.

NOTE: Patrick J. Charles wrote the series of articles which stopped Gorsuch's POV dead in his tracks last summer. 

For eleven weeks, Gorsuch contributed in an exchange of internal SC memos which discussed outdoor gun rights, if any, at the request of the Ninth (re: Peruta.) SC discussion of the Peruta case, the much-awaited opportunity to expand castle doctrine to the outdoors, was declined, 7-2. Peruta pushed it to the SC and got no CC permit.

Bpm, I quote that Wrenn discussion because the matter is incomplete, and un-determined. Heller, McDonald, and Wrenn each wanted a proper historical review by others, which will be dominated by the conjoined scholars who spoke as one and identified themselves in McDonald.

Quote

~2010 Scholars opposing the Standard Model's interpretation of history:

From Charles' Historic Guideposts, Footnote 143.

--See Brief for English/Early American Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521) (supported by twenty-one scholars and historians);

--Brief for Thirty-Four Professional Historians and Legal Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521);

-- Brief for Professional Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 081521) (supported by six scholars and historians);

--Brief of Historians on Early American Legal, Constitutional and Pennsylvania History as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald,  130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521) (supported by four historians).

(Sixty five total from various backgrounds)

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistorians.authcheckdam.pdf

 

Share this post


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

And they were talking about who owned an assault weapon in 2013.

Did you know you were an assault weapon owner in 2013?

Get silly on someone else Tom. This is why you are ignore worthy.

Yeah, I didn't either. I had heard that people in places like New Jersey considered ordinary .22's like ours to be assault weapons but did not realize at the time that legislators in lots of other states agree.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I didn't either. I had heard that people in places like New Jersey considered ordinary .22's like ours to be assault weapons but did not realize at the time that legislators in lots of other states agree.

Well, give it lots of thought today, and get back to me with something worth discussing (on another topic) some day.

Share this post


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

Tom fell apart before Kolbe, then he broke bad when battle guns were denied his indoor militia.

Sure, go ahead. Present your talking point, if any, and your quotes.

Hi Bpm. That issue, phrased in the Wrenn dissent, is about the legal status quo, castle doctrine. Technically, concealed carry has no legal baseline, so Heller could only opine about indoor guns.

NOTE: Patrick J. Charles wrote the series of articles which stopped Gorsuch's POV dead in his tracks last summer. 

For eleven weeks, Gorsuch contributed in an exchange of internal SC memos which discussed outdoor gun rights, if any, at the request of the Ninth (re: Peruta.) SC discussion of the Peruta case, the much-awaited opportunity to expand castle doctrine to the outdoors, was declined, 7-2. Peruta pushed it to the SC and got no CC permit.

Bpm, I quote that Wrenn discussion because the matter is incomplete, and un-determined. Heller, McDonald, and Wrenn each wanted a proper historical review by others, which will be dominated by the conjoined scholars who spoke as one and identified themselves in McDonald.

 

I have quoted it before, and even told you where exactly to find the applicable paragraph in the Heller decision. Not going to do it again.

Once again, you claim to have information about internal decision making in the supreme court. Please post a citation for it. I see you attribute everything good in the world to your favorite non-PhD in history lawyer.

I realize you enjoy posting your bibliography of 21418724 teaching assistants,  but can you actually post any citations of their work in the MacDonald decision?

Share this post


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

I have quoted it before, and even told you where exactly to find the applicable paragraph in the Heller decision. Not going to do it again.

Patrick J. Charles has good company, quoted next to him in McDonald.  Charles is just Schwoerer on steroids, and his stream of work in court briefs seems endless. I keep finding more articles, each presenting his adversaries' best in a systematic way. The man can, and will, present context.

Quote

I realize you enjoy posting your bibliography of 21418724 teaching assistants,  but can you actually post any citations of their work in the MacDonald decision?

 

"Teaching assistants"? In the key group, seventeen have PhD's, and all 21 have current peer support. Your scholars are shabby law brief manipulators; the only Phd is incommu icado with critics since 1983: Dr. Malcolm is a fraud who recommends the research of Dr. John R, Lott.

Quote

...but can you actually post any citations of their work in the MacDonald decision?

You lost me. You asked a vague question "before", about your past butthurt  (PIA which I don't even recall). And you won't cite or express your own fucking argument. But you have some goose for me to chase. I'll bite, mate:

Merkel and Spitzer were caustic and devastating in what they submitted in McD.

Basically, while mis-counting and mis-representing state law summaries, McDonald hi-jacked the racial equity sought in the 14th Amendment, and exploited it for guns.  Charles follow the intent of each state's authors. Separately, Merkel and Spitzer relate that none of the intention of the framers of the 14th involved weapons, or SAF philosophy. And the latter confirm Charles in McDonald, that the Standard Model is trash which needs to be re-visited.

Interesting stuff. Spitzer's discipline is poli-sci. Here is Spitzer on Parker's weak reasoning, as "The People" are first attached to the Second:

Quote

Spitzer on Parker,

"The People" was interpreted intratextualy: While accepting a militia basis for the Second Amendment, the

Parker court concluded that the Amendment also protects “hunting and self-defense,” with the latter encompassing “either

private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government.”39 Parker’s linchpin for this sweeping conclusion is

its assertion that the reference to “the people” when read “intratextually” (that is, assuming it has the same meaning

throughout the document) “leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”40

Spitzer, WHY HISTORY MATTERS 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByoyLoSA8QKpOG10WnNDSVlGNlk/view

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites