Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

 

 

there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition.

 

Shortly following the assault weapon definition, section 27, are two qualifying sections specifying exemptions.

The statute offers outright that tube feeders "shall not be construed" as LCM's in 29.

 

You'd like the disclaimer under section 27 to be within 27. That;s nice, but this minor, over-worked detail sounds like sour grapes.

I'm trying to picture the legal brief you could manage around such a complaint.No victims would be presentable in your court case, including your father and I, the owners of the guns in question

It's like the way you David Kopel, and Alan Gottlieb mangle the legal need for "transfer" verbiage.

 

By the time you get worked up in another myopic outrage, there;s not enough standing for a court presentation.

The SAF sued WA over transfer verbiage. Theytried to save face after their dumbass confiscation scare tactics lost to background checks (by a 20 point voting margin).

Laughed out of court, Gottlieb drove away in a black Corvette paid for by an SAF pre-emption settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 672
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The part on transfers is stooopid too. My wife could let someone engage in target practice with her scary gun at a licensed range, but not here in our yard where we actually use it. If someo

More on what the word possession means. So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them. People who

Poor Tom. Poser poser poser. For viable civil disobedience, you need to lead your 80% to jail. Did you read about the layers of civil disobedience in Wiki? The article shames us, decent citizens

Posted Images

Yuuuge Increase in Gun Permit Fees

 

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

 

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

 

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governor’s budget estimates.

 

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

 

That increase, the governor’s budget estimates, would bring in another $2.6 million annually to the state’s coffers.

 

 

Well, after bringing in that 2.6 million, the deficit will be down to $3.6 billion. It did make a tiny dent in the 600 million part to the right of the decimal, but is that really the reason for the large increases?

 

Or perhaps the theory is that richer people are less violent or somehow otherwise more deserving of second amendment rights.

 

Or maybe they just want to punish the enemy gun owners in any way possible, regardless of whether they're rich or poor or whether it will really make any difference in the state budget deficit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

there is no exemption to the assault rifle definition.

 

Shortly following the assault weapon definition, section 27, are two qualifying sections specifying exemptions.

The statute offers outright that tube feeders "shall not be construed" as LCM's in 29.

 

You'd like the disclaimer under section 27 to be within 27. That;s nice, but this minor, over-worked detail sounds like sour grapes.

 

 

An exemption to one definition is not an exemption to another. Someday, an honest liberal might appear and explain this to you and we can move on to the "oops we didn't mean to ban those" stage of this conversation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Making the exercise of protected rights unaffordable for the poor is bad. Sometimes.

 

It can disproportionately affect minorities. Also sometimes bad.

 

But the same people who think a few bucks for an ID to vote is a prohibitive barrier to a protected right have nothing to say about a few hundred bucks extracted from enemy gun owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor?

 

No, Pooplius is hiding behind poverty.

After hiding behind the ACLU.

And hiding behind the NAACP.

And hiding behind MLK.

And hiding behind Rosa Parks.

And hiding behind Rev. Mosteller and the SCLC.

And hiding behind the CDC 2013 report.

And hiding behind Adam Winkler..

While quoting Sol Rosenberg whenever possible.

 

Yet each of these parties holds fundamental differences to Tom Ray's actal beliefs and policies.

Each would dis-associate with Tom IMO.

 

This manipulation, this pattern of deception, shows that Tom recognizes the "higher road" elements of our culture.

It displays that he can't show such fine elements while flying the flag of his own brand.

His brand opposes most of what these parties stand for.

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor.

 

Yes, we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

No fucklehead - its equating the 2nd Amendment to the 15th Amendment. How one right is treated affects how all other rights are treated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never equate the two. Their very natures are dis-similar. Their respective karma will take them to separate spheres. Watch and learn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not too hard to figure out, Pooplius.

It's because voting is intrinsically important, and because guns are just guns.

Limiting voting is bad for the general population. Limiting guns isn't.

 

EQUATING GUNS TO VOTING IS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE, at least among non-extremists.

 

It's really mostly limiting guns to poor people. Limiting their rights does little to harm the rest of us and treating a protected right with disrespect can't possibly spread through the courts to the others. Also, Favre sucked.

 

 

Libertarians are champions of the poor.

 

Yes, we are.

 

 

The Koch Brothers and CATO are champions of the poor. Have a cite?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I'm wondering because on July 1, Californians are supposed to hand their scary standard capacity magazines over.

 

I think there will be quite a few uncooperative ones. I'm keeping this screen name at least until then in anticipation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

I am pleading the Fifth on that one, Tom....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey billy,

 

I've been wondering about something.

 

If the new CT law had required that your magazine be confiscated immediately instead of upon your death, would you have complied?

I am pleading the Fifth on that one, Tom....

 

 

Well, that's an answer of sorts.

 

I think the Cali way of going about it is more honest in the long run.

 

Either way, you're leaving the next generation without a freedom you enjoyed. In Cali, you have to accept the consequences in your own life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Racists, Commies, and Atheists! Oh My!

 

 

Forty years ago, young college students were the most tolerant of controversial speech. That is no longer the case.

Most Americans still agree that we should allow people to say what they think.

 

Those who don't are, ironically, making their enemies more powerful by drawing attention to them. Guns.

 

And you are sure doing your bit for the anti gun lobby Tom.

 

Not sure why this reply ended up in a thread about intolerance so I decided it should go where my most recent gun posts have been.

 

Why is asking about the timing of gun confiscation such a terrible thing to do, Liferandom?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

It's possible that a few of those "scores of thousands" were unaware they were becoming felons by failing to sign up to have their guns confiscated but I think most were deliberately Uncooperative because they did not want their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

On 9/25/2017 at 10:28 PM, Spatial Ed said:

Registration.  It will send a message to irresponsible gun toters that we are serious about guns.


What do you think, Ed? Was it the confiscation or something else that caused "scores of thousands" of people to become felons rather than cooperating with your plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 2/16/2014 at 5:57 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Quote

...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

It's possible that a few of those "scores of thousands" were unaware they were becoming felons by failing to sign up to have their guns confiscated but I think most were deliberately Uncooperative because they did not want their guns confiscated upon their deaths.

On 9/26/2017 at 6:28 AM, Spatial Ed said:

Registration.  It will send a message to irresponsible gun toters that we are serious about guns.


What do you think, Ed? Was it the confiscation or something else that caused "scores of thousands" of people to become felons rather than cooperating with your plan?

I suspect there will be scores of thousands who, when the Po-leece shows up at their door to confiscate weapons and arrest them on a felony, will simply claim that they sold them to "some guy" a while back.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

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

I suspect there will be scores of thousands who, when the Po-leece shows up at their door to confiscate weapons and arrest them on a felony, will simply claim that they sold them to "some guy" a while back.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

My high capacity magazine is state registered, but do I believe my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is still exempt, unless the law has been changed again, when I wasn't paying attention?

I wasn't paying attention in 1995, when my 100 Ton USCG license required renewing, and they did not send me a renewal form, as they had in the past.  Damn shame, as it's a royal PITA to try and renew it now, with TSA BS, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeff was talking about this:

Quote

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

I think your gun is still exempt, just the scary magazine must be exported to another state (something that's sometimes bad) or confiscated upon your death.

I don't know about you, but I react to grabbers saying "you can keep the gun, just not the (ammo, firing pin, magazine, whatever other crucial part) about the same way sailors would react to a mast ban. "You can keep your sailboat, just no masts" will not make sailors feel like nothing bad has happened.

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

I think Jeff was talking about this:

Quote

Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

I think your gun is still exempt, just the scary magazine must be exported to another state (something that's sometimes bad) or confiscated upon your death.

Yes, you are correct sir.  That was exactly what I was referring to.

I'm curious though, the Op/ed piece talks about registering "assault weapons".  How is BBS's Mini-14 exempt from that?  Its more of an "assault rifle" than jocal's tube fed .22LR.

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

Mini-14's fly under the grabbers radar every time.

it is just a "Ranch Rifle" after all...

Ah yes.  If course.  Because this rifle:

firearms-images-products-422l.jpg

Is SOOOO much less dangerous than this rifle:

5846.jpg

 

How do I know???  Because one of these makes jocal shit his pants and the other doesn't.  THAT is what differentiates an "assault rifle".  

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

Mini-14's fly under the grabbers radar every time.

it is just a "Ranch Rifle" after all...

Not every time. We have remarkably thorough grabbers in Florida.

But on the federal level, Billy's gun did slip through the cracks the last time I checked.

On 10/14/2016 at 7:44 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

...

 

Text of HR 4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

 

A Mini 14 is only as dangerous as an AR-15 if it has a folding stock. Billy's is on the list of specific exemptions.

 

 

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

Hey Billy,

If I mail you a saw and a hinge, will you turn your gun into an assault weapon? You know, just to be Uncooperative?

No, folding stock makes it illegal and way more dangerous, than with full wood stock, right??

Kind of like a sawed off shotgun is way more dangerous than my Belgian Browning, or Sears Roebuck 12 gauge.........

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

No, folding stock makes it illegal and way more dangerous, than with full wood stock, right??

Kind of like a sawed off shotgun is way more dangerous than my Belgian Browning, or Sears Roebuck 12 gauge.........

Bah, just because the government calls it scary doesn't mean you have to adopt that opinion as your own. That's what Aussies do, and a useful tendency if you're going to have a prison island, so well done, Brits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

13 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I don't think so. People have really short memories and attention spans.

If one had gradual and grandfathered legislation..like..

all new guns must be registered...fee $25 (admin costs)

...all owned guns must be registered within 5 years say.july.2022

registered by july 2019 no fees

registered  by july 2020 fee $10 per

Reistered by July 2021 fee $30 per

get the idea?

Then..when most people have put their pocket before their principles (as most people do..eventually) and regestered their guns

You can start getting heavy on fines for the recalcitant..most people will not sympathise because it's human nature to forget all about principles you abandoned.

Evil I know :)

Here's the problem with your little plan. The linked article says:

Quote

Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.

You're not talking about a few Uncooperative people like you might see on an island that used to be a prison.

Scores of thousands. "Widespread" noncompliance.

There are lots of people who did not wish to sign up to have their guns confiscated and became felons as a result. You think a little money is going to change that?

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

Er Tom..you do know that Australians are envious of those with a convict ancestor don't you.. :D

you couldn't be offering a better compliment.

We admire more our ancestors who fought those nasty Brits than any who were disarmed and imprisoned by them.

Might explain why you think that we'd see a small and dwindling minority of people who don't cooperate with confiscation programs.

We don't. As Eva Dent. There were cooperative folks like Billy who signed up but noncompliance was (and remains) widespread.

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

We admire more our ancestors who fought those nasty Brits than any who were disarmed and imprisoned by them.

Might explain why you think that we'd see a small and dwindling minority of people who don't cooperate with confiscation programs.

We don't. As Eva Dent. There were cooperative folks like Billy who signed up but noncompliance was (and remains) widespread.

And injuns..don't forget the injuns!!:rolleyes:

I think my little 5 year plan may have hit a nerve with tommy :D

The hip pocket nerve will beat a twitchy trigger finger every single time..all you'l have left are the bundys :D

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

The hip pocket nerve will beat a twitchy trigger finger every single time..all you'l have left are the bundys :D

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

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

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

Sigh..and that's why it failed miserably you idiot.

That's the trouble with you "tough guys", you don't ever understand subtle coercion.

Yes..threaten something draconian ..people will jack up..legislate something with a lot of carrot and small stick..you win..fark..and you call yourself a hunter. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 9:39 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Bah, just because the government calls it scary doesn't mean you have to adopt that opinion as your own. That's what Aussies do, and a useful tendency if you're going to have a prison island, so well done, Brits.

That's a super cunty way to talk.  I am not sure if you are this way, or talking about guns makes you this way, but it's an ugly look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That's a super cunty way to talk.  I am not sure if you are this way, or talking about guns makes you this way, but it's an ugly look.

All the Aussies who have visited here want to shoot my guns and I'm not that way toward them at all. The ones here in PA are treated about like they treat me.

BTW, we have a Tom Ray Thread for discussions about me.

This one is about CT's slow-motion registration/confiscation program. Any thoughts on the topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Having skimmed your posts I thought it was about Airsoft rifles.

No, Billy started it because he registered his scary magazine for his Mini 14.

A registered magazine can be kept by the owner until death, at which time it becomes a crime for the family to continue to keep it.

It can be sold out of state or surrendered to the cops by the owner.

The goal is to rid the state of scary guns and magazines after one generation.

I don't really see the harm in allowing Billy's family to keep the whole gun. Do you feel safer knowing it's going away?

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

No, Billy started it because he registered his scary magazine for his Mini 14.

A registered magazine can be kept by the owner until death, at which time it becomes a crime for the family to continue to keep it.

It can be sold out of state or surrendered to the cops by the owner.

The goal is to rid the state of scary guns and magazines after one generation.

I don't really see the harm in allowing Billy's family to keep the whole gun. Do you feel safer knowing it's going away?

Maybe they should bury the scary mag with Billy.  Seems like he might need it in the afterlife.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 6:34 AM, Spatial Ed said:

Maybe they should bury the scary mag with Billy.  Seems like he might need it in the afterlife.

Billy will want the thing is his coffin more than the millenium generation will want it in the closet.

Quote

The goal is to rid the state of scary guns and magazines after one generation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 6:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

A felony conviction and 5 years in prison is just a bit more harsh than your little fines and failed miserably, with even supporters admitting to "widespread" noncompliance by "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

Any group of scores of thousands contains mostly good people who don't harm others. Yes, even gun owners.

 

What a bunch of self-serving crap.

Hi Tom. It's not for you to exonerate law-breaking in CT. These citizens need to follow the laws passed and applied by their state constitution...which includes an individual gun rights provision. Life is moving on in CT, with strict laws about LCM's and AW's. These folks need to keep up on Post-Heller individual gun rights.

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

What a bunch of self-serving crap.

Hi Tom. It's not for you to exonerate law-breaking in CT. These citizens need to follow the laws passed and applied by their state constitution...which includes an individual gun rights provision. Life is moving on in CT, with strict laws about LCM's and AW's. These folks need to keep up on Post-Heller individual gun rights.

That's true. If I could pardon them all, I would, but it's not for me to do.

They'll continue to be Uncooperative and the confiscation program will fail in its goal of eliminating scary guns like Billy's within one generation.

As a gun control supporter, you must be used to such failures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

Life must seem so simple to prohibitionists.

6 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Pass a law that all guns must be registered.  If you don’t register them, you go to jail because you have illegal weapons.  


Umm. Yeah. Lock up "scores of thousands" of CT residents.

I looked up the prison capacity in that state. http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2967&q=487584

They have recently had 18k locked up. The number is lower now but that indicates capacity.

Let's assume that "scores of thousands" means merely two score, or 40,000 people who need to be locked up (the actual number is higher).

I'm not sure how prohibitionists get through the day with a distorted view of reality that makes this seem like a feasible idea, let alone a good one.

It's a stooooopid idea, which is why I brought it to this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Stoopid...

Feinstein Did Something

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Her new assault weapons ban exempts your gun, Billy. It does, however, ban my wife's Ruger 10-22. Because a 10-22 is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

I know, I know, it's stoooopid to actually look at details or respond to a gun ban with anything other than a simple "yes."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2017 at 8:53 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Speaking of Stoopid...

Feinstein Did Something

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Her new assault weapons ban exempts your gun, Billy. It does, however, ban my wife's Ruger 10-22. Because a 10-22 is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

I know, I know, it's stoooopid to actually look at details or respond to a gun ban with anything other than a simple "yes."

The part on transfers is stooopid too.

My wife could let someone engage in target practice with her scary gun at a licensed range, but not here in our yard where we actually use it.

If someone wanted to buy it, that person could hold it here in our yard, but it's not clear whether or not he could actually fire it.

If she took the scary telescoping stock off and put the original wood furniture back on, she could let someone shoot it here on our property. But if they want to shoot it with the scary plastic stock, there has to be a background check, the gun has to be transferred to a dealer, then it can be brought back here and that person could shoot it. Of course, he couldn't then hand it back to her. That would be a transfer. It would have to go back to the dealer to be handed back to her, then brought back here.

I know, I know, examining details of how gungrabbers actually affect our lives is tedious crap and we should just agree to these stoooooooooooopid ideas without examination.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Greever said:

The Mini-14 flies under the radar yet again! (I just wish it wasn't so hard on brass)

Never would have thought that my Ranch Rifle might be an appreciating asset! LOL!

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

The Mini-14 flies under the radar yet again! (I just wish it wasn't so hard on brass)

Never would have thought that my Ranch Rifle might be an appreciating asset! LOL!

You'd have to export it to a state where the magazine isn't banned to see any serious appreciation. And resist the temptation to put any scary furniture on it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 ‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of
19 the following:
20 ‘‘(i) A threaded barrel.
21 ‘‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
22 ‘‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
23 ‘‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

1 ‘‘(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

3 ‘‘(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

 

Dangerous weapons that have to be removed off our streets:

http://www.ruger.com/products/markIV2245Lite/models.html

https://www.pardiniguns.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34:hphpe&catid=32:target-pistols&Itemid=53

https://www.pardiniguns.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:spsp-rf&catid=32:target-pistols&Itemid=53

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelli_MP_90_S_World_Cup_32_caliber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelli_MP_95E_32_Wad_Cutter

Detachable magazine C96 Mauser (broomhandle Mauser)

I'm sure there are others. These are just ones that came immediately to mind.

Could the Glock 17 be considered a "A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm"? since the G18/G18C are full auto..

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

Could the Glock 17 be considered a "A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm"? since the G18/G18C are full auto..

I'm not sure how it could be considered anything else.

In the unlikely event DiFi's bill passes, it will be pretty funny to watch some unfortunate lawyer try to keep a straight face while explaining why putting a telescopic stock on my wife's squirrel shooter makes it a weapon of war that is "the like" of an M-16.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really should have restricted that comment to the Aussies here in PA.

Anyway, getting back to DiFi's stoooopid bill,

Quote

(C)  Any  part,  combination  of  parts,  component,  device,  attachment,  or  accessory  that  is  designed  or  functions  to accelerate  the  rate  of  fire  of a  semiautomatic  rifle  but  not  convert  the  semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

She's trying to ban bump stocks because of that epidemic of one dead guy.

I hate to bring this up, but this also covers binary triggers, trigger cranks, lightweight bolt carriers, match trigger kits, and maybe some other scary things that grabbers would want to ban if they heard about them. Oops.

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

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.


How do you think that CT should deal with the scores of thousands of Uncooperative felons who didn't sign up for the confiscation program?

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


How do you think that CT should deal with the scores of thousands of Uncooperative felons who didn't sign up for the confiscation program?

Cutesy pie Tom Ray, presenting gun felonies again.  These citizens have called their own shots, for guns. Divorce courts and custody hearings (and both are pretty common) will regularly air out such lawbreaking, eh?  The secret battle guns are difficult to hide; this will all sort out in the natural course of things, within a few generations.

I hear that gun penalties (felonies in this case) are life changers. And I hear the millennium generation is not impressed with having guns around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 3:47 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

that epidemic of one dead guy.

Fifty eight humans lost their lives, shithead...and a new benchmark for mass shootings was set.  What part of bloodbath do you not understand?

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


How do you think that CT should deal with the scores of thousands of Uncooperative felons who didn't sign up for the confiscation program?

Cutesy pie Hartford Courant, presenting gun felonies again. 

How irresponsible of that pre$$ corporation to talk about "scores of thousands" of new felons.

Oh, wait, it's only bad if I do it.

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

How irresponsible of that pre$$ corporation to talk about "scores of thousands" of new felons.

Oh, wait, it's only bad if I do it.

You want to bring up the "bad"? Really? Society and families pay the costs of pariahs such as you and your elk. You have burdened us, while giddy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 10:10 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The part on transfers is stooopid too.

My wife could let someone engage in target practice with her scary gun at a licensed range, but not here in our yard where we actually use it.

If someone wanted to buy it, that person could hold it here in our yard, but it's not clear whether or not he could actually fire it.

If she took the scary telescoping stock off and put the original wood furniture back on, she could let someone shoot it here on our property. But if they want to shoot it with the scary plastic stock, there has to be a background check, the gun has to be transferred to a dealer, then it can be brought back here and that person could shoot it. Of course, he couldn't then hand it back to her. That would be a transfer. It would have to go back to the dealer to be handed back to her, then brought back here.

I know, I know, examining details of how gungrabbers actually affect our lives is tedious crap and we should just agree to these stoooooooooooopid ideas without examination.

The section of law in question:
 

Quote

 

(1)  Beginning  on  the  date  that  is  90  days  after the  date  of  enactment  of  the  Assault  Weapons  Ban  of 2017,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  who  is  not  licensed  under  this  chapter  to  transfer  a  grandfathered semiautomatic  assault  weapon  to  any  other  person  who  is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed  manufacturer,  or  licensed  dealer  has  first  taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

(2)  Paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply  to  a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting  in  a  licensed  target  facility  or  established range if—

(A)  the  grandfathered  semiautomatic  assault weapon  is,  at  all  times,  kept  within  the  premises  of the target facility or range; and

(B)  the  transferee  is  not  known  to  be  prohibited  from  possessing  or  receiving  a  grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—

(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and

(B)  does  not  include  temporary  custody  of  the grandfathered   semiautomatic   assault   weapon   for  purposes  of  examination  or  evaluation  by  a  prospective transferee.

 

The noted exemptions imply that "transfer" includes temporary transfers of possession, which is why the NRA made her use that term in her bill. Or something.

Paragraph 2 suggests to me that "a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting" here in my back yard would not be exempt and would therefore require a background check because this is not a licensed range.

Paragraph 3 (B) is interesting because intent matters when you hold a gun under that law. "Prospective transferee" in that context means "prospective purchaser" not "prospective person who just wants to hold it while looking at it."

So that would mean that if JBSF came to visit me, I could hand him a gun and say, "You want to buy this?" but not just "Check this out." And he could only take it if he wants to buy it.

The existence of that exemption suggests to me that a temporary transfer of possession in any other context isn't exempt or it would have its own exemption.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on what the word possession means.

Quote

However, where a spouse, significant other, or child has the combination to the safe, or otherwise can exercise dominion and control over the NFA firearm, the prosecution can charge that individual with constructive possession. In US v. Turnbough, when the police searched the defendant’s home pursuant to a valid search warrant and found a handgun, that did not have a serial number, in the master bedroom, the defendant argued that he could not be found guilty of constructive possession if his live in girlfriend and her child were not charged. While his argument was frivolous, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared, “[In] viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, at the least, a reasonable jury could conclude that all three parties exercised dominion and control over the gun. Possession may be either sole or joint.” Id. at *7. Thus, although the prosecutor did not bring a charge of constructive possession against the girlfriend and her child, the Court was amenable to the prosecutor bringing such charges.

So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them.

People who own NFA guns form gun trusts to share ownership so that more than one person can access or touch the NFA weapon for exactly this reason.

Access and/or touching a weapon is constructive posssession. If you didn't buy it first, that means a transfer has occurred. And that's why we have never had, nor will we ever have, a "universal" background check law covering transfers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

More on what the word possession means.

So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them.

People who own NFA guns form gun trusts to share ownership so that more than one person can access or touch the NFA weapon for exactly this reason.

Access and/or touching a weapon is constructive posssession. If you didn't buy it first, that means a transfer has occurred. And that's why we have never had, nor will we ever have, a "universal" background check law covering transfers.

More confusion and obfuscation fro Tom Ray. G  The only way out of this major dilemma it to eliminate background checks.

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

Why do you think Diane Feinstein gave in to the NRA obfuscation plan and used the word "transfer" in her stooooopid bill, Jocal?

I thought she was pretty much free of their influence. Is she a secret agent of the libertarian army?

I haven't followed the silliness of your post ^^^, and have no reason to bother. Not sure what you're saying. It sounds giddy, like unworthy post content, rather like diddling in public.

But tell me something (since you are such a superior elk). Why is Diane not alone in using this word "transfer" in legislation? The word is used universally, I might add.

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

More on what the word possession means.

So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them.

People who own NFA guns form gun trusts to share ownership so that more than one person can access or touch the NFA weapon for exactly this reason.

Access and/or touching a weapon is constructive posssession. If you didn't buy it first, that means a transfer has occurred. And that's why we have never had, nor will we ever have, a "universal" background check law covering transfers.

Whew. This is a pure generation of confusion. It masks a shitty attitude about how to, well, transfer guns.

One single,  brief, common server  search effort presents what appears to be a moderate FFL website, with a healthier attitude. Here's the straight scoop on transfers from an FFL paid to do them. They can be part of the solutions we gunowners need. Proper respect for gun transfers can be the heart of an effective background check system.

Quote

Firearms transfer?

This is a question we get asked frequently and a term we can sometimes take for granted. A transfer, in a nutshell, is a physical hand-over of a firearm. For a FFL dealer, it means that your customer fills out the ATF Form 4473, you run the NICS background check, and upon a “proceed” decision, can then give the firearm to the customer. This is going to be what the ATF is referring to when asking you how many transfers you’ve done.

The act of doing a transfer is something that many FFL dealers build their business model off of because it can be so useful in today’s market. For example, many people purchase firearms from GunBroker, an online gun auction website. When one of those purchases takes place, the seller cannot just ship the firearm directly to the buyer. It will need to be shipped to a FFL dealer in the state where the buyer resides. If you advertise your services as an FFL dealer willing to do transfers, GunBroker members in your area can contact you for aid in the transfer process. You can charge a small fee for this service, usually $15-$30. You provide a service while helping people in your area!

Another important note to mention in regards to transfers is that they can only take place in one of two locations. The first is your licensed business premises, i.e. the physical address listed on your FFL. The other location is a gun show, which the ATF views as an extension of your license.

Transfers performed by a FFL dealer are an important part of the firearms business. They are what help to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and the streets of America safe. Join FFL123.com Today!

https://www.ffl123.com/what-is-a-firearms-transfer/

 

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

Why is Diane not alone in using this word "transfer" in legislation? The word is used universally, I might add.

Because possession, not ownership, is what matters when someone is holding a gun. The word is used universally, but you somehow want to blame it on the NRA because you don't understand this stuff. Copying and pasting without reading doesn't lead to understanding.

 

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

A transfer, in a nutshell, is a physical hand-over of a firearm.

Yes, and constructive possession is basically access and/or holding a weapon. And I can access and pick up and move my wife's weapons. And whenever I do, a transfer has occurred.

 

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You can charge a small fee for this service, usually $15-$30. You provide a service while helping people in your area!

Yeah, no thanks. I don't want to contact a dealer and pay him a fee when I open our safe. I don't see how it helps anyone. It seems ridiculous to me.

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

Because possession, not ownership, is what matters when someone is holding a gun. The word is used universally, but you somehow want to blame it on the NRA because you don't understand this stuff. Copying and pasting without reading doesn't lead to understanding.

 

Yes, and constructive possession is basically access and/or holding a weapon. And I can access and pick up and move my wife's weapons. And whenever I do, a transfer has occurred.

 

Yeah, no thanks. I don't want to contact a dealer and pay him a fee when I open our safe. I don't see how it helps anyone. It seems ridiculous to me.

Horse shit and fear mongering, daily. You have found your niche. 

Quote

And I can access and pick up and move my wife's weapons. And whenever I do, a transfer has occurred.

Silliness on parade. Nothing better to do with your time, eh? You and David Kopel and the SAF keep making this laughable claim. Let's see some examples of the Great Transfer Crisis in real life.  Can you present any such prosecutions? 

 

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE GALORE: HOW THE SAF SHOWED THEM, 2014

In Washington State we approved solid background checks with a whopping 20% voting margin. The SAF called all extremists to our state capital, to flaunt mass transferring. The State Patrol yawned and publicly said "no worries" about "transfers.". The spectacle of 5000 gun nuts was 10% of that. Many young, armed protesters, some photographed with fingers inside trigger guards, glibly partied in the spectator section of the Capital. Within two weeks, guns were banned forever in the spectator gallery.  And all the SAF's huffing and puffing about transfers was hot air.

 

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

Let's see some examples of the Great Transfer Crisis in real life.  Can you present any such prosecutions? 

I don't have to in order to know that...
 

Quote

 

although the prosecutor did not bring a charge of constructive possession against the girlfriend and her child, the Court was amenable to the prosecutor bringing such charges.

While there aren’t any cases of a spouse, significant other, or child being charged with constructive possession, those familiar with the Olofson case (BATFE successfully prosecuted an individual for a malfunctioning firearm in direct contravention to precedent) should recognize that the tide is changing. The absence of such a case does not mean that the BATFE or a zealous prosecutor cannot charge constructive possession and convict based on it. Moreover, the absence of such a case does not mean that a zealous prosecutor hasn’t already threatened charging such an individual unless that person testifies against the individual that the prosecutor really wants behind bars.

 

 

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

Laws are in place to allow punishment if you are caught breaking them.  Those who do not wish to be punished, usually follow the law.  If you break the law by grinding off the serial number of your gun, and you are caught with it, expect to be punished.


And if you punish all the scofflaws, expect the prison population to grow by several orders of magnitude.

Because that's workable.

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

Why would normally law abiding gun owners need to be incarcerated?


Because, as noted in post 57 of this thread,
 

Quote

 

the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law.

...

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

...

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

But locking up scores of thousands of people in a state with a prison population under 20k is going to be a problem.

And dreaming that they're suddenly going to become cooperative and sign up for the confiscation program is going to continue to fail. They don't want to give up their assault weapons any more than badlat, jocal, or Maui do.

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

Vermont is leeching guns into surrounding communities, big-time. Two adjoining states have formally complained.


Is that bad?

I ask because one of the ways Billy could legally dispose of his scary magazine would be to export it to another state. Do you support that part of the topic law or do you think the grabberz did something wrong here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 6/16/2014 at 8:30 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 6/16/2014 at 8:24 AM, billy backstay said:

Where do I get a magazine like that for my Mini-14? Ooh-La-La; me likey!!

 

In a state where it's legal.

 

If you come to FL, I might buy one for you. Knowing that you plan to take it back to a place where it will be illegal would make the transaction legally dubious, but I'd call it civil disobedience. ;)

Billy, quit asking how you can commit a felony. It upsets Joe.

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

Billy, quit asking how you can commit a felony. It upsets Joe.

That's real classy, Pooplius. Drag your friend in, then blame him. The only criminal intent was your own. The "civil dis-obedience " is you trying to have the stature of MLK. 

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

Billy, would it be legal for you to get such a magazine or is the registry closed?

Need help defending your checkered intentions? Boldly expanding the conspiracy which you denied an hour ago?

Do they let you near junior sailors?

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

PeeweeJo, 

Do you need another seance with Pee Wee, or what? Do they have swamp gas in Arabia?

3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

supposedly purchasers can get around the background check since  its an online sale???  

A Sherlock Holmes FAIL> With the interwebs, after the first contact, a surreptitious sale excluding any FFL is one phone call away. 

Quote

 Glad you finally figured out that is not the case.  

Speak for yourself, Jefffie, while you whisper to the tampons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 1:05 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 11/26/2017 at 7:22 AM, jocal505 said:

Why is Diane not alone in using this word "transfer" in legislation? The word is used universally, I might add.

I told the wifee I plan to move on DiFi like a bitch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites