While no one ever listens to me,
I am constantly being told to be quiet.
In a world of snowflakes,
be the heat..
How would the state know who has an "assault weapon"? Unless it's for idiots who actually registered them........Originally Posted by l921428x
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Fox News has a special report on this today. Megan Kelly reports on Connecticut Gun Grab.
What if a person ships his "assault" weapons to a friend out of state to hold on to until the BS is over (or he moves)?
What if he lies and SAYS he sent them to a friend?
It would be interesting to see those S.O.B.'s try to demand "proof" that they were sent.
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
The people that are getting letters tried to register them, but the registration paperwork didn't get to the .gov in time.
IIRC shipping to a friend, or storing them out of state is A-OK. But this kind of reminds me of, if you have to bury your guns, then it's time. . . .
US Constitution: Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 4
The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
The article mentioned 50,000 to 350,000 semi auto weapons are NOT registered as the people are choosing civil disobedience and did not comply. Frankly they need to use these weapons rather than sit by and get picked off one at a time. I doubt they will but they should.
Yes, registration ALWAYS leads to Confiscation. Never ever register a firearm!
That is VERY true. But how or when to do it?
There needs to be a LARGE, multi-state "critical mass" of people who are prepared and willing to take action.
If one or two people grab a rifle, drive to Washington and try to arrest the criminal politicians, they will just be assassinated, the media will spin it as a "terrorist attack" and the government will claim "see, homeland security success!".
Then, the news will be plastered with crap like "Homegrown militias are a threat to our Country and must be stopped" followed by another rash of illegal, Constitution shredding "executive orders".
Unless a LARGE, nationwide group of American Patriots gets together and plans, then executes a housecleaning mission, there is no hope.
So, if worse came to worse and I had to do SOMETHING to keep my guns from being stolen by the .gov, my choices for now are either (1) Try to kill a few of them before they get me or (2) Bury/Hide/Ship out of state any weapons they are trying to take.
Trying option #1 will just get me killed, the vilified in the media and possibly result in ANOTHER rash of stupid gun laws.
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Proof that the politicians are completely out of touch with reality:
(fast forward to 10m, 20s)
This clown thinks that "law abiding citizens" will register their firearms because it's "their duty".
Can someone tell me why a "law abiding citizen" is of any concern to the legislators, to the state police or to anyone else?
Supposedly, they are "law abiding" and therefore it can be assumed that they will obey the laws (such as the laws against assault, the laws against murder, etc..)
Unreal.
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
I'm surprised no one has offered to take some guns of your hands until you can move out of state.
"I'm fucking furious, I'm violently angry, and I like it. If you don't know what that feels like then I feel bad for you"
I keep reading about people telling those in Connecticut, New York, Illinois, and commiefornia to move out of those states. Why would anyone live there? Take that further, adding states to the list as people run instead of standing up to the tyrants, and there is only one, very overpopulated but well armed state left.
Just like that saying about coming for assault weapons, but I only have hunting shotguns, so what do I care, the same about people living in states that violate what our founders fought and some died for. Eventually someone is going to have to stand up and say "I'm not going to take this anymore" and hopefully it will be lawyer in hand and done the peaceful way.
I'm sure the governor would like to have all of them. All I can say is "come and take them".
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
I hate New York with a passion. I always have. I plan to leave here as soon as I retire. But it's not because of "gun laws". If everyone just ran away from a state that pulled some communist bullshit, soon the whole Country would be communist, with nowhere else to run.
Concerning your last sentence... the "lawyer in hand and peaceful method" is long since hopeless.
Clearly unconstitutional rulings have been taken to court, the case argued peacefully and according to legal procedure. The judge pretends to listen, tries to hide his boredom, then gives his verdict: "It's all legal, it's all Constitutional".
Have you read the ruling issued by Judge Skretny (the last challenge to the NY "safe" act)?
Aside from shooting down the "7 round limit", he upheld most everything else (and now we have to take it to the next court and spend more $$$).
But look at the uninformed BS he writes in his decision:
The lead up to the reasoning why banning "assault weapons" is OK
Can you believe THIS bullshit?Calling the SAFE Act’s restrictions “a ban on an entire class of firearms,” Plaintiffs
liken the SAFE Act to the ban struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller. But unlike the
handgun ban, the SAFE Act applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New
York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense;
it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their
right to self-defense. Current owners of the now-regulated weapons may lawfully possess
them so long as they register the weapons with the State. They may also possess 10-
round magazines, and, most places, they may load those magazines with up to seven
rounds of ammunition. And, at certain designated areas, they may load the weapon with
10 rounds. Although the Act does make unlawful future purchases or sales of assault
weapons, New Yorkers can still purchase, own, and sell all manner of semiautomatic
weapons that lack the features outlawed by the SAFE Act. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves
concede that attributes of the banned weapons are “present in easily-substituted
unbanned, counterpart firearms.”
There is much debate, both in the community at large and in this litigation, whether
the banned “military-style features” of semiautomatic weapons will be effective in reducing
crime and violence.
Plaintiffs contend that many of the outlawed features do not make firearms more
lethal; instead, according to Plaintiffs, several of the outlawed features simply make the
firearm easier to use. For instance, they argue that a telescoping stock, which allows the
user to adjust the length of the stock, does not make a weapon more dangerous, but
instead, like finding the right size shoe, simply allows the shooter to rest the weapon on his
or her shoulder properly and comfortably. Another outlawed feature, the pistol grip, also
increases comfort and stability. The same goes for the “thumbhole stock,” which, as the
name suggests, is a hole in the stock of the rifle for the user’s thumb. It too increases
comfort, stability, and accuracy according to Plaintiffs.
But Plaintiffs later argue that the banned features increase the utility for self-defense
— which is just another way of saying that the features increase their lethality. Plaintiffs
make this explicit: “Where it is necessary for a crime victim to shoot the aggressor, and
lethal or incapacitating injury will stop him, the lethality of the defender’s firearm is a
precondition to her ability end the criminal attack.” (Pls.’ Br. at 22; Docket No. 23-1.) The
National Rifle Association of America, as amicus curiae, make a similar argument,
describing how the banned features improve a firearm’s usability. (NRA Br. at 10; Docket
No. 46.)
There thus can be no serious dispute that the very features that increase a
weapon’s utility for self-defense also increase its dangerousness to the public at large.
See, e.g., McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3107 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Just as [firearms] can
help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders, they can help thugs
and insurrectionists murder innocent victims.”).
Hell, let's ban COMFORTABLE shoes, because a criminal may buy them and then be enabled to run away from the police faster. In the name of public safety, people may only wear uncomfortable shoes.
Yeah. Some dumbass democrats who have never touched a gun, have never fired a gun are "better equipped" to make policy judgments? OK.And “[i]n the context of firearm regulation, the legislature is ‘far better equipped than the judiciary’ to
make sensitive policy judgments (within constitutional limits) concerning the dangers in carrying firearms and the manner to combat those risks.”
Yup. Those telestocks are horribly dangerous. And those pistol grips! God-forbid a rifle be EASY to hold. And that awful black "military" color. Surely increases the lethality by at least a factor of 100.New York has met that burden; substantial evidence supports its judgment that the
banned features are unusually dangerous, commonly associated with military combat
situations, and are commonly found on weapons used in mass shootings.
Ok, let's consult the EXPERTS... the Brady Bunch. Surely THEY know all about guns. When a case of discrimination against blacks comes up, let's be sure to get testimony from the EXPERTS.... call in the KKK.As Brain Siebel testified, the
military features of semiautomatic assault weapons “serve specific, combat-functional
ends” and are “designed to enhance the capacity to shoot multiple human targets rapidly.”
(Testimony of Brian J. Siebel, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, at 1 (Oct. 1, 2008),
attached as Ex. 29.) “The net effect of these military combat features is a capability for
lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of firearms in
general, including other semiautomatic guns.” H.R. Rep. 103-489, at 19-20 (1994)
A grenade launcher? A bayonet mount? When was the last time ANYONE was mentioned in the news shooting at someone with a grenade? When was the last time you've heard of a "drive-by knifing" with a bayonet?And while there is not (and cannot be) a dispute that the outlawed features make
semiautomatic weapons easier to use, New York identifies purposes of these features that
are particularly unnecessary for lawful use. Of course, several of the banned features, like
a grenade launcher, bayonet mount, or a silencer, require no explanation.
Yup, those harmless features "require no explanation".
I'm missing something here. I can't seem to find the "sporting purpose" clause in the Constitution.......And New York further points to evidence that AR-15 type rifles are “not generally
recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,” nor used
frequently for self-defense.
Well... all the news *I've* read said that Clinton's ban had NO effect on crime.What’s more, New York presents evidence that its regulations will be effective.
Drawing from his comprehensive study of the 1994 federal ban (supra, at 21), Christopher
Koper avows that the regulations will reduce the stock of “dangerous weaponry” in New
York and are thus “likely to advance New York’s interests in protecting its populace from
the dangers of [] shootings.” (Koper Decl., ¶ 65.) His analysis of the data “indicates that the
criminal use of assault weapons declined after the federal assault weapons ban was
enacted in 1994, independently of trends in gun crime.” (Id.) Because New York’s
regulations are tighter than those in the federal ban, he believes, quite reasonably, that
the affect will be greater. (Id., ¶ 60.)
But BUT wait a minute! A few pages back the decision said:
TWO PERCENT? And banning them accomplishes what exactly? TWO PERCENT?Defendants paint a different picture, contending that assault weapons “are a tiny
percentage of the firearms available.” (Def.’s Br., at 29; Docket No. 77.) According to the
testimony of Professor Laurence Tribe before the United States Senate in February of
2013, Americans own roughly 310 million firearms and roughly 7 million assault weapons.
(Tribe Testimony, at 24, attached as Ex. 28; Docket No. 78-3.) Using these rough numbers,
assault weapons account for only about 2% of the guns owned in this country.
Want to have some fun? Read the whole decision. Keep a barf bucket handy.
Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks