Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You sound miserable. And you and your friends can't answer to Patrick J. Charles, ASAF.

 

The three-judge ruling in Peruta had not considered Mr. Charles' work. Then the full en banc 9th rejected their POV after reading Charles. The subseuent rejection of Peruta's CC permit by the SC, with Gorsuch's full participation, shows that that group read Charles too. If you read the unified scholars; amicus briefs, they are full of Charles. 

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

Charles presents his adversaries' best work in every argument, and demonstrates their lack of context. He has read EVERY colonial law. and reports that "bear arms" is a strictly military term. Charles has no PhD, but the PhD's quote him, broadly, based on merit. 

Note: Charles is a modern Schwowerer on steroids. Scalia quoted her, a fatal problem, but only by cherry-picking, not conclusively.

Your turn. You could always quote Dana Loesh, mate:

Still no quotes from your vaunted MacDonald amicus brief in the MacDonald ruling. Continuing to post links to it really doesn't accomplish anything.

Still claiming inside knowledge of what went on at the Supreme Court. Citation, please - Or were you clerking for one of the justices that term?

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 I REPEAT. Your scholarship in Heller and McDonald is illegitimate. May I present a few real scholars, who gathered as one voice for McDonald:

  Quote

  1. Steven Pincus (PhD in History from Harvard)
  2.  Tim Harris (PhD from Cambridge)
  3. Rachel Weil (PhD from Princeton)
  4. Stephen Taylor (PhD in History from U of Tenn)
  5. David Armitage (PhD in History from Cambridge)
  6. Wilfrid Prest (Doctorate from Oxford)
  7. David Thomas Konig (PhD in History, Harvard)
  8. David Lemmings (PhD in History from Oxford)
  9. Paul Finkelman (PhD, Univ of Chicago)
  10. Robert Gross (PhD in history from Columbia)
  11. Peter Hoffer (PhD in History from Harvard)
  12. William Pencak (PhD in History from Columbia)
  13. Michael Lobban (PhD from Cambridge)
  14. Stanley N. Katz (PhD in History from Harvard)
  15. Robert J. Spitzer (PhD in Poly Sci from Cornell)
  16. Edward Vallance (PhD from Oxford)
  17. Carol Berkin (PhD in History from Columbia)
  18. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistorians.authcheckdam.pdf

Its still cute that you think I'm supposed to be awed by a group of PhDs.

Share this post


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

Its still cute that you think I'm supposed to be awed by a group of PhDs.

Mr. CHarles has none, and you are unimpressed by him, as well.

On these boards, you need to deal with their common conclusion that the SAF and Scalia are full of shit. You are Deadeye Dick, after all.

Share this post


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

I think it's hard due to the lack of starting. If you don't start doing something, it won't get done.

Speaking of which, are you ready to start talking about your state's confiscation program and the federal judge's injunction that has it on hold at the moment?

Hah! Hah! Just kidding, of course. It's pretty obvious you'll never start hammering that one out.

Note: The link (from the database Tom doesn't have) goes to a TR thread, which features TR with .22 nonsense.

CA legislation has gone beyond a pretty good start, Mr. Ray. Is the temporory injunction permanent yet?


Actually, this one is mostly not about .22's, but I appreciate the fact that you've adopted ".22's" as shorthand for "assault weapons." A step in the direction of honesty, at least.

The case is still pending last I heard.

It's not certain whether the injunction will become permanent or the confiscation will be allowed to proceed.

Share this post


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

Mr. CHarles has none, and you are unimpressed by him, as well

Joe, you were the one who made a big deal about the specific education of those who espouse the standard model. You claimed that their papers were worth less then nothing because they didn't have a PhD in History. Then you turn around and hang your hat on someone who doesn't have a PhD.

I realize being consistent in your beliefs is difficult, just look at how different you treat the actions of BL vs. those who won't buy what you are peddling.

BTW, still awaiting those inside SCOTUS details you keep mentioning.

Share this post


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

Joe, you were the one who made a big deal about the specific education of those who espouse the standard model. You claimed that their papers were worth less then nothing because they didn't have a PhD in History. Then you turn around and hang your hat on someone who doesn't have a PhD.

I realize being consistent in your beliefs is difficult, just look at how different you treat the actions of BL vs. those who won't buy what you are peddling.

BTW, still awaiting those inside SCOTUS details you keep mentioning.

You are a non-stop whiner who can't string together one side of a discussion of your choice. You don't care for historians with PhD's, and you don;t care for journeymen historians without PhD's. I had to school you on the Wrenn  issues. And you want more, but can't say what.

Share this post


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

I appreciate the fact that you've adopted ".22's" as shorthand for "assault weapons."

You are not well. Come back when you have something to say.

Share this post


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

You are a non-stop whiner who can't string together one side of a discussion of your choice. You don't care for historians with PhD's, and you don;t care for journeymen historians without PhD's. I had to school you on the Wrenn  issues. And you want more, but can't say what.

Since you can't seem to retain what you wrote the other day, here it is. again.

"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."

Once again, there is this thing called evidence - you know, that thing you insist everyone else supply - where is yours? You are claiming inside info with the supreme court.

Oh yes, you quoted the dissent in Wrenn. I guess that passes as "schooling" now. Maybe instead of just reading the briefs you agree with, you might try reading the reply briefs as well. You might find out that things presented as black & white by Charles & Co. may not be quite that cut and dry.

Share this post


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

Which is why the left won't EVER EVER do it.  Why?  Because GUNZ!  Because Assault Weaponz!  Because high capacity magazinez!  That's all they really care about.  They don't care about saving children, its about scary stuff and us not having a right to it.  

Actually that's harsh and unfair.  They do care about children, I'm sure.  But they are more than happy to use dead children as a means to an end rather than actually trying to make a real difference.  Because if they were truly interested in making a real difference, BL and his elk wouldn't be so focused on toolz this whole time and look at ways we can get people to stop killing each other.

You state a position that doesn't work unless you examine the motives for both sides. What do you expect the left to do when you want to arm all of America? It seems to me, that the gun lobby doesn't care about the violence, but merely cares about the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If they could actually sit down and discuss the parameters,  they might be able to hammer out terms that calm both sides.


What a load of crap.

I actually sit down and discuss parameters here daily. Like the parameters that define our .22's as "weapons of mass destruction." What do you expect gun owners to do with that kind of nonsense? Believe in it? Good luck.

You want to discuss parameters? Good. Let's discuss the proper parameters for the confiscation program in Cali.

Share this post


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


What a load of crap.

I actually sit down and discuss parameters here daily. Like the parameters that define our .22's as "weapons of mass destruction." What do you expect gun owners to do with that kind of nonsense? Believe in it? Good luck.

You want to discuss parameters? Good. Let's discuss the proper parameters for the confiscation program in Cali.

It's just forcing you to think out of the little box you have locked your opinions in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 9:34 AM, badlatitude said:

It's just forcing you to think out of the little box you have locked your opinions in.

The California confiscation program and your unwillingness to discuss it reinforces my opinions.

In other Uncooperative news, Boulder is going to try banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)
 

Quote

 

20180501__02DCAGUNw~2.jpg

Carmelia, left, last name not given, and Robert, last name not given, hold signs opposing the assault weapon ban during Tuesday's Boulder City Council meeting.

 

You're not going to have much luck forcing people who think like this:

On 1/9/2018 at 11:52 AM, badlatitude said:

I like my Second Amendment rights and will continue to resist the Nutterz attempts to dislodge me from my rights.


To change our minds.

Share this post


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

The California confiscation program and your unwillingness to discuss it reinforces my opinions.

In other Uncooperative news, Boulder is going to try banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)
 

You're not going to have much luck forcing people who think like this:


To change our minds.

How funny!!! Those are the same people that I asked the same question I asked you, "If you shot your partner in the dark, how would it change how you feel about guns?" The ardent gun lover is not always rational. BTW,  How do you feel about shooting your wife?

Share this post


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

How funny!!! Those are the same people that I asked the same question I asked you, "If you shot your partner in the dark, how would it change how you feel about guns?" The ardent gun lover is not always rational.

What were you doing in Colorado?

And what would you do if you shot your wife? And what gungrabby policies would you advocate for the rest of us?

A confiscation program like the topic one?

Share this post


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

What were you doing in Colorado?

And what would you do if you shot your wife? And what gungrabby policies would you advocate for the rest of us?

A confiscation program like the topic one?

"If you shot your partner in the dark, how would it change how you feel about guns?" 

Share this post


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

"If you shot your partner in the dark, how would it change how you feel about guns?" 

With respect to the thread topic, not at all. I'd still think confiscation programs are a stupid idea that won't work because Americans are gloriously Uncooperative. And Californicators are sorta Americans too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California gun owners lost in court twice
 

Quote

 

In the lawsuit decided yesterday, Rupp v. Becerra, the California Rifle and Pistol Association asked the court to rule that the 2016 Assault Weapons Control Act was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and the Constitution's due process and takings clauses. The California law makes it a crime to manufacture, sell, import or transfer hundreds of popular semi-automatic firearms with a pistol grip or adjustable telescoping stock—and the ban on transfers includes gifts between parents, grandparents, and children.

California gun owners who legally owned such a rifle before December 31, 2016 have only a few choices: register it as an "assault rifle" (which imposes strict new requirements), modify it, sell it, or store it out of state. Failing to register by July 2018 is a crime. (Any bets on how many firearms actually will be?)

 

Yes, I'll bet that Californicators are not all that different from Connecticunts and only about 20% or so will be Cooperative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Californicators have less than a month to sign up to have their weapons confiscated

Quote

Under California law, probably the most Draconian in the country, so-called assault weapons are heavily restricted. They cannot be rented at gun ranges. They cannot be inherited. They cannot be sold to another California resident. They cannot be imported. And owning one is a crime unless it's registered with the government. Officials appear to hope that the number of Californians with fully functional AR-15s or equivalents will keep shrinking and eventually, with time, drop to zero.

Yes, they appear to hope that humans are mortal and this will be the last generation to own scary guns (and common sense says there is no other kind, since all are lethal).

I predict they'll see about the same level of Cooperation as other places with similar confiscation programs have seen: maybe 20-25% of gun owners are interested in having their guns confiscated. The rest of us are not and will be Uncooperative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinion of the court in that case is correct IMO.

The argument of the nutterz boiled down to: the legislature didn't mean to include our "bullet button" equipped guns in the law in which they clearly meant to include their "bullet button" equipped guns.

The judge said, no, they meant to include those guns in the new definition of "assault weapon."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stopped in to see what condition our condition is in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, today's the day that lots of Californicators have to sign up to have their tools confiscated.

On 7/18/2017 at 7:16 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The state estimates that hundreds of thousands of Californians own rifles equipped with a bullet-button device. Many more possess magazines defined by the state as high-capacity. If those individuals fail to register their weapons, or discard their magazines, they will be breaking the law.

I expect it will go the same as in other states: about 3/4 of gun owners will become criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutter victory in the 9th Circuit - Californicators will be allowed to keep standard capacity magazines for now
 

Quote

 

In another blow to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s anti-gun agenda, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Duncan v. Becerra on Tuesday, upholding a lower court’s decision to suspend enforcement of Proposition 63’s restriction on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Following the enactment of Proposition 63, CRPA attorneys sought an injunction against the magazine possession ban, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment, as well as the due process and takings clauses of the United States Constitution. Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction just days before the law was set to take effect. California quickly appealed the decision.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Benitez did not abuse his discretion, holding that he applied the correct legal standards and made reasonable inferences based on the record. But one judge on the panel disagreed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cooperation level appears to be rather low...

37296643_1775737129184731_95935464720039

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of all the places the 9th... lol good job gun grabbers, #walkaway the #redwave is coming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microstamping requirement upheld in the ninth circuit

The majority said that the fact that it means new gun models can't be sold in that state doesn't matter because the gun companies could make them if they wanted to.

The dissent points out that even the inventor doesn't believe that's the case, since the law requires imprints legible by optical microscope and the inventor says an electron microscope is necessary. He also raises a technical objection that the legislature can not have considered standards that were written up after the legislation in question was passed.

Share this post


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

Microstamping requirement upheld in the ninth circuit

The majority said that the fact that it means new gun models can't be sold in that state doesn't matter because the gun companies could make them if they wanted to.

The dissent points out that even the inventor doesn't believe that's the case, since the law requires imprints legible by optical microscope and the inventor says an electron microscope is necessary. He also raises a technical objection that the legislature can not have considered standards that were written up after the legislation in question was passed.

Ummmm  - the magazine disconnector & loaded gun indicator, BFD. Lots of handguns have had one or both for decades, you could argue this is just best practice.

The stamping of every fired cartridge case with a unique ID - good luck with *that* one..... wonder how they think it's going to work with revolvers which don't spit their cartridge cases everywhere with gay abandon.

Not to mention some scofflaw with a file. I mean, whoever thinks that'll never happen - just like nobody intending a criminal act has ever removed a serial number.

Also the minor detail that barrels & slides aren't restricted by the ATF so it's dead easy to buy a replacement slide with a totally different (or no) serial number stamping system without running foul of Federal law. Therefore someone in another State could tool up to make spares quite legally.

All in all another demonstration that the people making the laws have not a single clue about the real world.

Personally I think they should mandate a RFID in every single projectile made and log them all, complete chain of custody from manufacturer to end user. There'd be a metric shitload of money to be made keeping track of that lot and I'm in the database biz, more or less.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Ummmm  - the magazine disconnector & loaded gun indicator, BFD. Lots of handguns have had one or both for decades, you could argue this is just best practice.

The argument has been made in our courts. I found it stupid and said so.

I would argue that it's not best practice just because lots more handguns do not have them.

The reason is reliability. If there's a mechanism that disables the gun if the magazine is out, it might just have a failure mode where it disables the gun, period.

The dissenting Justice pointed out that these features are prevented from coming to market because new models must also comply with microstamping standards that the microstamping inventor says won't work. He's an interesting character, by the way. The usual suspicion that he's promoting this technology for profit doesn't apply. He put it in the public domain because he believes in it. I think he's deluded for the reasons you gave and others, but I do admire people who put their money where their mouth is.

Share this post


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

The argument has been made in our courts. I found it stupid and said so.

I would argue that it's not best practice just because lots more handguns do not have them.

Which would *have* to be one of the most idiotic arguments ever made, IMO.

Was it best practice to put safety guards on rotating machinery? After all, when the first guard went on, nearly all machines weren't guarded. How about light curtains and other devices on stamping presses? ABS brakes on cars? I could go on but I'm sure other readers get the point even though I'm pretty sure you'll obfuscate and duck.

I had a quite expensive (the Govt paid) education on OH&S compliance and best practice back when I used to manage a R&D group.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Which would *have* to be one of the most idiotic arguments ever made, IMO.

It's an argument about consumer preference, not necessarily what's best.

I do remove safety guards from machines with rotating blades and wheels, btw. The damn things seem designed to prevent useful work so I take my chances.

Speaking of which, you ignored the better argument, made more fully in the other thread. Which is, police departments have tried and rejected guns with magazine disconnect devices for the reason I stated: reliability. Which also explains the broader consumer preference noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our condition went "dogballs", starring Tom Ray. Good job, @Uncooperative Tom   The form of censorship was appreciated, and deserved, IMO. Where was this development discussed on the boards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord another thread with nutty tom talking to himself for the most part.  Joker also shares blame for this useless thread.

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull Gator would be loving this.

NY TImes Praises California Ammunition Restrictions

Quote

 

Gun control advocates here have pushed to limit internet sales, ban large-capacity magazines, require sellers to have licenses, raise taxes on bullets, and mandate serial numbers or other traceable markings on ammunition so that the police can more easily track them.

Such regulations, several of which have been enacted and take effect this year and next, are inspired by the view that the best way to limit gun violence is to approach it as a “bullet control” problem. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, told the Senate 25 years ago, when he introduced legislation that would have imposed a 10,000-percent tax on hollow-tip ammunition, “guns don’t kill people; bullets do.”

...

On the other side of the debate, Jesse Figueroa, a manager at M & J gun store in downtown Sacramento, said that he was glad the ban on home deliveries of online ammunition purchases would drive more customers to his store. But he dismissed other rules, like microstamping and ammunition record-keeping, as futile in stopping criminals from using guns.

“These measures,” he said, “are all just a way to slowly chip away at our right to bear arms.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Strikes Down Ban On Handgun Ads

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-handguns/judge-strikes-down-95-year-old-california-ban-on-storefront-handgun-ads-idUSKCN1LS2I5
 

Quote

 

In a decision made public on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento, the state’s capital, said the law was “unconstitutional on its face” because it violated dealers’ commercial $peech rights under the First Amendment.

“The government may not restrict speech that persuades adults, who are neither criminals nor suffer from mental illness, from purchasing a legal and constitutionally-protected product, merely because it distrusts their personality trait and the decisions that personality trait may lead them to make later down the road,” the judge wrote.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, I was hoping for at least one "must be a TeamR judge paid by the NRA to do anything for gunz" attack on the judge, so I could post this part of the article:

Quote

Nunley was appointed by former U.S. President Barack Obama.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In Oakland
 

Quote

 

Authorities said that a 20-year-old Vallejo man and an 18-year-old Vallejo man were in different groups with other people who got into a dispute that ended with gunfire. They were both wounded and taken to a hospital where they were listed in critical but stable condition and placed under arrest.

Two guns were recovered at the scene, police said.

The gunfire also wounded another 18-year-old man, a 32-year-old Redwood City man and a 46-year-old Brentwood man, authorities said.

...

Police are still investigating what started the dispute that resulted in the gunfire

 

It's obvious what started the dispute: people like me owning squirrel assault weapons, which is why the SOLution to these mass shootings is to ban them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 3:57 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Mass Shooting In Oakland
 

It's obvious what started the dispute: people like me owning squirrel assault weapons, which is why the SOLution to these mass shootings is to ban them.

Squirrel assault weapons? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Shooting In California
 

Quote

 

One man and three male juveniles were found at the scene with non-life threatening gunshot wounds, Chavarria said. They were taken to hospitals.

No suspect information was available, she said. Detectives from the Gang Detail were investigating the shooting as gang-related.

 

I'm sure that's a typo and "gun related" was the intended wording. After all, there were no deaths but four injuries, so that's a "mass" shooting and the political lesson here is that we must DO SOMETHYING.

Share this post


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

I'm still not convinced of your sincerity.  I think the biggest issue I have with your obsession for the dogball angle is that banning gunz that are squirrel shooters and have low powered rounds is JUST as silly as banning them based on cosmetic accessories such as flashhiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and the like.  But you seem to mostly ignore that silliness and instead concentrate on the dogball aspect.  Personally, I think you have Less of a case on the dogball front than I do on the silly accessory front.  A lot of people have been killed with dogball caliber rifles and pistols.  Personally, if I had the desire to murder anyone (which I absolutely do not), I would probably choose a suppressed dogball caliber handgun....  A dogball to the back of the skull would turn the lights out instantly.  And my suppressed dogball is scary quiet.  Hollywood quiet.  ;)

Anywho, it appears that if only scary black plastic high(er) powered rifles were on the chopping block and you could keep your handguns, shotties and dogballs - I doubt we would not be hearing from you quite as vigorously on the subject.  I'm happy to be wrong on this......


Sorry for moving your post, Jeff, but it's funnier in a thread in which I've complained extensively about a gun ban that explicitly excludes the censored caliber.

Hope you're happy about how wrong you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 3:48 AM, cmilliken said:

This is usually what seems to happen. I've felt for a long time that the 'possession' laws are really just a quick bypass to lock people up when they - the police - don't really have evidence to prosecute the crime they were ACTUALLY arrested for.  It's cheaper and faster.  

 Any weapons charge hits like a train wreck, I hear. My brother was a drug counsellor, and he once made that offhand comment. But the Shasta County Sheriff names perps as the problem, when ownership by ordinary citizens is the thrust of the violation. 

There is  no parade or welcoming ceremony to being a felon. Citizens just slip into that state, while making other choices. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 3:23 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Mass Shooting In California
 

I'm sure that's a typo and "gun related" was the intended wording. After all, there were no deaths but four injuries, so that's a "mass" shooting and the political lesson here is that we must DO SOMETHYING.  DID THE GHOULISHNESS OVER MASS SHOOTINGS BEGIN HERE?

You are minimizing the recording of our daily multiple shootings? Big Temporary supported this type of thinking, indirectly. Big Temporary might not get the job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 5:51 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Update: Boulder residents have until the end of this month to surrender their previously-legal property.

As is traditional, I expect another rash of "boating accidents" to claim a great deal of the property in question this month. Who knew they did a lot of boating in Colorado in December? But I bet they do...

This guy sums it up:

Quote

“By definition, effective governing must be practical and enforceable,” Boulder resident John Ramey told the Camera. “When something isn’t enforceable, like the war on drugs, that’s a huge sign that the underlying legal model doesn’t match the actual problems and realities.

If you learn your neighbor has killed someone, you turn him in to the cops. If you learn he has smoked a forbidden plant or that a boating accident didn't really claim his scary gun, you probably shrug and move along. And that's why what to do with the Uncooperative types remains unanswered and so many felons in possession remain in limbo.

Share this post


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

 That means this is a Second Amendment issue, and therefore our mission, like the NRAs, is NEVER over.  


Perhaps, but foreign meddling is only an indirectly related issue.

A much more relevant 2nd amendment issue would be the bans and confiscation programs, such as the one in your state.

Any thoughts on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 5:46 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Update: Boulder residents have until the end of this month to surrender their previously-legal property.

As is traditional, I expect another rash of "boating accidents" to claim a great deal of the property in question this month. Who knew they did a lot of boating in Colorado in December? But I bet they do...

This guy sums it up:

If you learn your neighbor has killed someone, you turn him in to the cops. If you learn he has smoked a forbidden plant or that a boating accident didn't really claim his scary gun, you probably shrug and move along. And that's why what to do with the Uncooperative types remains unanswered and so many felons in possession remain in limbo.

This is what corrosion looks like. The Russians do like this, to corrode decent values and democracy. Carry on Tom.

Share this post


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

This is what corrosion looks like. The Russians do like this, to corrode decent values and democracy. Carry on Tom.

The vast majority of American and Canadian gun owners don't cooperate with the confiscation programs.

It's just because we want to continue owning our property and don't see the harm. Much like when you owned your assault weapon for decades.

Share this post


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

The vast majority of American and Canadian gun owners don't cooperate with the confiscation programs.

It's just because we want to continue owning our property and don't see the harm. Much like when you owned your assault weapon for decades.

Go ahead and break the law. Unlawful use at the time is your choice. You are pariahs, you are on your own now, with the constitution working against you.

Your children whisper among themselves now, a strange brew.

Robert Levy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is a felony conviction not a felony conviction?

When it's vacated, of course.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Except in California
 

Quote

 

While serving in the U.S. Navy more than three decades ago, Chad Linton pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, a misdemeanor, and attempting to evade a police vehicle, a Class C felony, in Island County, Washington. More than four decades ago, when he was 18, Paul Stewart was found guilty of first-degree burglary, a felony, after hopping a fence and stealing tools from an unlocked telephone company truck in Yuma County, Arizona. In both cases, the felony convictions were eventually vacated, and both men's firearm rights were restored.

But not according to the state of California, where Linton and Stewart have long led law-abiding lives. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that their vacated felony convictions forever disqualify them from buying or possessing guns.

 

Gee, I wonder if it forever disqualifies them from voting?

Quote

Last week Linton and Stewart, joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three other gun rights groups, filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco, arguing that California's policy violates the Second Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Hmmm... I wish them well but that last one is a bit of a laugher. The P&I clause of the 14th amendment means nothing at all in practice and that will probably continue. The last time someone tried to change it, it was Alan Gura in the McDonald case. Only Scalia or Thomas could really be expected to help him. Thomas doesn't speak and Scalia told him to shut up and sit down.

Share this post


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

When is a felony conviction not a felony conviction?

When it's vacated, of course.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Except in California
 

Gee, I wonder if it forever disqualifies them from voting?

Hmmm... I wish them well but that last one is a bit of a laugher. The P&I clause of the 14th amendment means nothing at all in practice and that will probably continue. The last time someone tried to change it, it was Alan Gura in the McDonald case. Only Scalia or Thomas could really be expected to help him. Thomas doesn't speak and Scalia told him to shut up and sit down.

How is that not judicial activism? Scalia's moves were cultish. He chose shitty info from Cramer and Malcolm if it worked for him.He cherry picked Lois Schwoerer skillfully: she debunked The Standard Model 32 years ago.

Libertarians manufacture hubris, IMO

Quote

Merkel 2010,

HELLER AS HUBRIS, AND HOW MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO MAY WELL CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL WORLD AS WE KNOW IT 64pgs  William G. Merkel

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=lawreview

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 5:55 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Microstamping requirement upheld in the ninth circuit

The majority said that the fact that it means new gun models can't be sold in that state doesn't matter because the gun companies could make them if they wanted to.

The dissent points out that even the inventor doesn't believe that's the case, since the law requires imprints legible by optical microscope and the inventor says an electron microscope is necessary. He also raises a technical objection that the legislature can not have considered standards that were written up after the legislation in question was passed.

California's Slow Motion Handgun Ban Challenged To Supreme Court
 

Quote

 

Last year, Judge Margaret McKeown brushed aside Pena’s concerns over the shrinking roster that in 2013 contained 883 semi-automatics but by 2017 had contracted to 496, saying “all of the plaintiffs admit that they are able to buy an operable handgun suitable for self-defense — just not the exact gun they want.”

A similar case brought by gun industry groups was rejected by the California Supreme Court last year with justices there saying essentially that the law is the law, regardless of what was or wasn’t possible.

“Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute,” Justice Goodwin Liu said for the majority. “But impossibility does not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting a statute and simply invalidate it.”

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the groups in the California Supreme Court challenge, told Guns.com that the state is experiencing a “slow motion handgun ban as fewer and fewer models are allowed to be sold in the state. California is to handguns what Cuba is to cars; only old models are available.”

 

The "Safe Gun" list is likely to dwindle to zero semiautomatics before long as the 5 year periods on existing models expire and manufacturers do not attempt the impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this