Uncooperative Californicators

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.
If a gun doesn't take an LCM, it is a "neutered" gun. That would be a big fat lie, within a stream of lies.

random said:
Tom's fucking scared.  He is so scared of the slaves revolting that he and his family must have a loaded weapon within reach at all times.  His wife has one.

Must be a cunt to live like that.
Tom's mom has a gun, too. Randy Weaver moves to FL.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
Uncooperative Californicators

Only a couple more days for gun owners to comply and I doubt the attitude will change.

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.


This law is a signal of the desired behavior within CA communities, innit? But you don't  personally care for this law. Your lack of respect for the legal fabric (the constitution, that is) which formed the law is showing. You would rather be criminally-inclined, while spouting cherry-picked bits of the constitution. 

So far, you have applauded criminals, and coached others to become felons for your cause, in CT, NY, FL, NC, and CA. Interesting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?
Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

F395

Member
466
259
west mi
Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?
Please post a link to that event.  I would like to read that for myself.  - Thank you!

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,551
4,464
De Nile
Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.
Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.
May I present...the piper.

Tom Ray, Pied Piper.JPG

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
No one wants your guns. ...
Or...

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.
By "breaking the law" you mean "keeping their guns" so how you can claim no one wants them is beyond belief. The people who made them illegal clearly want them. That's why they made it a felony to keep them.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?
So were they killed on a battlefield? I mean, it's a battlefield weapon, right?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
random said:
Hey Tom, how many guns do you have?  I've got this theory that there is a relationship between the number of guns you have in your house and how fucking scared you are.  Help me out.
I've got this theory that there's a relationship between whether you'll post under your real name and how fucking scared you are.

Let's test the theory. What's your real name?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
random said:
Are you trying to Out me Tom?  ..
No, just testing whether you had the courage to out yourself.

The results were as expected. Unlike me, you won't stand by your own words in a public way because you're scared to do it.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,551
4,464
De Nile
Or...

By "breaking the law" you mean "keeping their guns" so how you can claim no one wants them is beyond belief. The people who made them illegal clearly want them. That's why they made it a felony to keep them.
You clearly have issues with personal rights being regulated. Maybe you shouldn't have advocated for it in the first place.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
You clearly have issues with personal rights being regulated. Maybe you shouldn't have advocated for it in the first place.
I'd say regulated rights beat none at all. I have no issue with the judge's injunction saying that certain policy choices are off the table. How about you?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
So were they killed on a battlefield? I mean, it's a battlefield weapon, right?
Try to keep up. After the Heller decision, Dick wanted LCM's too, but the D.C. court tossed him out. (He subsequently lost Heller III too.) This LCM issue was faced elsewhere, as well.

...Plaintiffs in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, tried unsuccessfully to argue that the ordinance violated Second Amendment rights, but after carefully weighing the evidence from both sides, Judge Darrah firmly disagreed. “The record is clear,” he wrote, “that the features of the prohibited firearms, including LCMs, derive from military weapons with a decidedly offensive purpose of quickly acquiring multiple targets and firing at those targets without a frequent need to reload.” In light of their deadly nature, the judge concluded that prohibiting assault weapons and LCMs is a reasonable way to protect public safety without unconstitutionally burdening self-defense rights.

This outcome marks the tenth major court victory for common sense gun laws in 2014. The encouraging truth is that Second Amendment victories in the courts greatly outnumber the few defeats. In over 900 cases tracked by the Law Center since the landmark Heller decision in 2008, courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to reasonable gun regulations 96 percent of the time.

http://smartgunlaws.org/with-increasing-number-of-court-victories-2014-shaping-into-big-year-for-gun-sense-in-the-courts/




You clearly have issues with personal rights being regulated. Maybe you shouldn't have advocated for it in the first place.
Elle tried to school Tom Ray about this two months after Sandy Hook.  Tom was too giddy to sit still in class.

 On 2/18/2013 at 2:40 PM, elle said: tom....did you or did you not write that you believe the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is to protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense?
Tom: I did.  (...)


elle: ok i disagree with you...i believe the core purpose is (the following part you wrote) to prevent the government from disarming the people.

if you continue to insist it is the first part and not the second part you make is soooo much easier for the government to remove your right to do so.





 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,551
4,464
De Nile
Try to keep up. After the Heller decision, Dick wanted LCM's too, but the D.C. court tossed him out. (He subsequently lost Heller III too.) This LCM issue was faced elsewhere, as well.

Elle tried to school Tom Ray about this two months after Sandy Hook.  Tom was too giddy to sit still in class.
Elle is definitely more eloquent than I am...

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
Try to keep up. After the Heller decision, Dick wanted LCM's too...
So anything with a standard capacity magazine is a battlefield gun that must be banned, even if it's a .22 that has never been seen on a battlefield.

Or maybe...

“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.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
So anything with a standard capacity magazine is a battlefield gun that must be banned, even if it's a .22 that has never been seen on a battlefield.

Or maybe...
The public safety is not off the table. It is in the crosshairs of certain weapons of choice.

Setting public safety aside, the terror or the population needs to be considered. You flaunt battle guns as normal. Naturally, people react to the battle guns, which aren't normal or in common use if only 1% of the population owns them.

Values slip a bit while normal people adapt to the terror. Larry Pratt is selling a new normal, an ab-normal.

“[t]he offence of riding or going armed , with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton . . . .”14  Blackstone

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
So anything with a standard capacity magazine is a battlefield gun that must be banned, even if it's a .22 that has never been seen on a battlefield.

Or maybe...
You sold your bullshit militia rights for bullshit "self defense" rights. Now please source any such rights. 

I've been doing some reading.There is so such right. if folded into civic authority. There never have been such rights.  Your libertarian girl Joyce Lee Malcolm was making shit up. SHe's a shill, Tom.

FOLLOW THE CASH ON THE LIBERTARIAN UNICORN

29. See Amicus Brief of Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Petitioners at 15-17, Kachalsky v. Cacace, 133 S. Ct. 1806 (2013) (No. 12-845), 2013 WL 127179 (discussing how this author’s interpretation of the Statute of Northampton is wrong on these grounds).  It is worth noting that the National Rifle Association funds and supports Academics for the Second Amendment.
I can cite my position. My thanks to Professor Patrick J. Charles. He's an Air Force officer and historian. And he documents and supports individual rights. However, his dedication has been to debunk lousy FF history about gun rights. The man lacks hubris and contains content.

Let's Fly The Libertarian Unicorn Over Any Library...

or The Unbroken Timeline of Gun Control: the Evolution of the Statute of Northampton

(Pre-statute legal development had occurred, based on problematic.weapons behavior)

1329 Statute of Northampton recorded, weapon control text elsewhere

(1419) “no one, of whatever condition he be, go armed . . . , or carry arms, by day or night, except the vadlets of the great lord of the land . . . , and the serjeants-at-arms . . . , and the officers of the City, and such persons as shall come in their company in aid of them, at their command, for saving and maintaining the peace.”21 

(1576) Yet may an affray be without worde or blow given as if a man shall sh[o]w himself furnished with armour or weapon, which is not usually worne and borne, it will strike a feare to others that be not armed as he is: and therefore both the Statute of Northampton . . . made against the wearing of Armour and weapon and the Writte thereupon grounded, doe speake of it, by the words, effrey del pays , an, in terrorem populi .23  Source: Lombarde

(1602) f any person whatsoever (except the Queenes servants and ministers in her presence, or in executing her precepts, or other offices, or such as shall assist them: and except it be upon Hue and Crie made to keep the peace, and that in places where acts against the Peace do happen) shall be so bold, as to go, or ride armed, by night, or by day, in Faires, Markets, or any other places: then any Constable, or any other of the saide Officers, may take such Armour from him, for the Queenes use, & may also commit him to the Gaole.  And therefore, it shall be good in this behalf, for the Officers to stay and arrest all such persons as they shall find to carry Dags or Pistols, or to be appareled with privie coates, or doublets: as by the proclamation [of Queen Elizabeth I] . . . .24  WILLIAM LAMBARDE, THE DUTIES OF CONSTABLES, BORSHOLDERS, TYTHINGMEN, AND SUCH OTHER LOW AND LAY MINISTERS OF THE PEACE 13-14 (London, Thomas Wight 1602).   

(1619) If any person shall ride or goe armed offensively, before the Justices, or any other the Kings officers; Or in Faires, Markets, or elsewhere (by night, or by day) in affray of the Kings people (the Sheriffe, and other the Kings Officers, and) every Justice of the peace . . . may cause them to be stayed and arrested, & may binde all such to the peace, or good behaviour . . . And the said Justices of the P. (as also every Constable) may seize & take away their Armour, and other weapons . . . .  So of such as shall carry any Daggs or Pistols that be charged: or that shall goe appareled with privie Coats or Doublets . . . .  And yet the Kings servants in his presence; and Sheriffes and their officers, in executing the Kings processe, and all others in pursuing the Hue and Crie, where any felony, or other offences be done, may lawfully beare Armour or weapons.28

(Coke, 1644) (“But he cannot assemble force, though he be extreamly threatned, to goe with him to Church, or market, or any other place, but that is prohibited by this Act.”). 

(1660)  “Any (except the Kings Officers and their companie doing their service) riding or going armed, or bringing force in affray of the people, are to be imprisoned, and lose their armour.”49 

(1736) “may take away Arms from such who ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People, and may apprehend the Persons, and carry them, and their Arms, before a Justice of the Peace.”62 

(1774) “Justices of the Peace . . . may apprehend any Person who shall go or ride armed with unusual and offensive Weapons, in an Affray, or among any great Concourse of the People . . . .”61 

George Webb’s 1736 treatise, published four decades earlier, similarly drew upon Dalton (1618), stipulating that constables  (1736) “may take away Arms from such who ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People, and may apprehend the Persons, and carry them, and their Arms, before a Justice of the Peace.”62 

(1789 Blackstone) [t]he offence of riding or going armed , with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton . . . .”14  

(1792)  “all affrayers, rioters, disturbers, or breakers of the peace, and such as shall ride or go armed offensively, to the fear or terror of the good citizens of this Commonwealth.”72 

Three states adopted the Statute of Northampton wholesale. North Carolina began its statute by listing the exceptions— government officials in performance of their duty and the hue and cry—then stipulated that no one shall bring (1792) “force in an affray of peace, nor to go nor ride armed by day nor by night, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the King’s Justices, or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere . . . .”73 

(1800) riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land, and is prohibited by statute upon pain of forfeiture of the arms.”63 

http://urbanlawjournal.com/files/2013/12/Charles-Northampton-FINAL12.20.13.pdf
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,977
1,628
Punta Gorda FL
Even The Trace is anticipating Uncooperative Californicators
 

The bullet-button workaround exposes what critics say is a fatal flaw of practically any law that seeks to impose bans on certain types of weapons. Because they often target specific features of weapons — and not broad categories — the laws are vulnerable to workarounds by savvy gun manufacturers and gunsmiths. Already, there are several devices available for sale in California that seek to subvert the state’s expanded assault weapons ban.

...

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.

Compliance with laws that require gun owners to register or relinquish their weapons is thought to be low. New York and Connecticut both passed similar bans on assault weapons after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a gunman killed 20 children and six educators with a rifle and high-capacity magazines. In both states, the number of firearms registered with the state is dwarfed by estimates of weapons in circulation.
Of course compliance is low when people are required to give up their property or sign up to have it confiscated at a later date. Heck, jocal can't even convince himself to give up his assault weapon. How's he going to convince anyone else?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,123
255
near Seattle, Wa
My rifle is not illegal. I wouldn't make myself a felon over keeping it, either.

Californians only want what Englishmen needed through the centuries---no weapons posturing or empowered bullies at the market.   

The Supreme Court has been presented with  civilized history.  The history relates that the "no weapons please" provisions of the Statute of Northampton. 450 years later, those provisions flowed nearly verbatim into two state constitutions, and directly verbatim into one.

  1. Question.  From the bench, did Blackstone quote the Statute of Northampton in 1769?
  2. Did Blackstone Support OC?
  3. Did Blackstone support CC?
I know the answers, but will entertain libertarian dogma about armed self defense. But where is Pooplius in this discussion?

Answer 1. Yes. Clearly and with eloquence.

Answer 2. No on OC. Pay attention. OC was what was forbidden by Northampton, No riders were to be armed. No arms allowed at  the marketplace. courts, or in other public places..

Answer 3. No on CC. Concealed weapons made the misdemeanor offense of packing a felony.
Who was Judge Blackstone? What is his importance to the founding father's elk? Why did Joyce Malcolm use Blackstone's name eighteen times in the opening pages of the Heller brief?

Wiki

(Blackstone's work was) designed to provide a complete overview of English law, the four-volume treatise was repeatedly republished in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and in a posthumous edition in 1783.

In the United States, the Commentaries influenced Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and remain frequently cited in Supreme Court decisions

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top