Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BHMCruiser

  1. The purpose is to make things harder on law-abiding gun owners and ultimately get rid of guns, except maybe some sporting firearms. That's why they chose non-existent technology. There's a pretextual nod to "public safety." It's like DC's firearms registry. The DC AG said it was so the police could check it when they got a call and cross-reference the address to see if they were approaching a person who had a firearm. That makes sense, right? Except that the police do not do that, and never did.
  2. SAAMI filed suit along with NSSF There is a patent on the technology but it has not been reduced to practice by anybody ever. Including the patent holder.
  3. I could find one. Here is FactCheck: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/orourke-endorsement-triggers-false-posts-on-bidens-gun-policy/
  4. I had the internal mount on the scope rings come lose before. Check that too.
  5. don't he's wrong
  6. Here's an article from noted dipshit alt-right site ... Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-orourke-guns/partly-false-claimvideo-shows-joe-bidensayingif-he-wins-hes-coming-forourguns-idUSKBN20S2ST
  7. It's a tightrope because it's frowned upon to pepper the thrower.
  8. No, what has happened is that California requires dual micro-stamping for any handguns that will be added to the roster. The firing pin of the firearm must imprint a unique code on each primer of each round that is fired, and the bullet itself must be micro-stamped as well, so it can be identified and matched with the firing handgun if it is recovered. Since the technology does not exist to do this, no manufacturers will be adding firearms to the list. I can assure you no manufacturer is boycotting the biggest firearms market in the world. There is pending litigation involving these issues.
  9. Rogen was funny in Freaks & Geeks and The 40 Year Old Virgin. Otherwise, he sucks.
  10. It's Coming to America 2, not Citizen Kane. I doubt the plot is really all that critical.
  11. Yes but that happens all the time (like when you are arrested). There's a balance between the exigency of the circumstance and the interest in predeprivation process. The real devil is in the details here. Everything that happens AFTER the petition is heard ex parte is what the concern should be. I'm not trying to be condescending, but "ex parte" is just lawyer talk for "only one side is heard."
  12. Like I said, some do, and some don't. It varies by jurisdiction.
  13. No need to apologize. I started it with the "you ever say anything" line. It's cool. This is a touchy topic and we need to remember that we're all here for the same reason: unyielding loyalty to Alabama football.
  14. try me
  15. You may as well have just said "no." What exact problem are you trying to solve? Murder? Mass shootings? Domestic shootings? Illicit arms exports? Straw purchases? Each of these would require a different approach and you have yet to articulate the problem you see, and how what you are proposing would solve or even improve it.
  16. the dynasty is over (tm)
  17. The lack of process is all in the details, and it varies by jurisdiction. If you have a red flag law that requires a sworn statement with a penalty for lying, is actually temporary, is actually of a short duration, AND automatically returns the firearms when it expires or is terminated, then you are pretty close to something that deals with a serious problem with sufficient respect for the due process rights of the respondent. As long as gun rights are not terminated, or the guns permanently withheld, or the respondent has to actively litigate their return ($$$$$$$), then it may be alright. Most ERPO states do not work that way. The liberty and property rights are divested without an opportunity to be heard, and then the litigation that ensues is a circus. Very tough. And there are places where it is extremely easy to get a temporary observation in place. In PA, for example, all you have to do is have a doctor sign a form and you can be held for up to five days. Your Second Amendment rights also happen to be terminated permanently at that point. You can have your firearms and ability to use them restored by legislative grace, but the actual right ceases to exist.
  18. You ever actually say anything?
  19. I am sorry for your loss. You are remarkably reasonable in discussing these issues given your personal background and that's very impressive.
  20. Okay I will bite. Why is any of this a problem? If they just required a background check for every sale of a firearm, would that satisfy you?
  21. Hey I think I've CR'ed this thread up too much. Anybody want to talk can DM me and I'm happy to discuss further.
  22. lol @ "completely erroneous" I have no idea why you are even TALKING ABOUT the world arms market. I didn't say anything about the world arms market. You did. You asked me if I knew how many were legally exported and I said "no," so that has hardly anything to do with my "gut feelings" on things. If that whole sentence was separate thoughts, like you were insinuating that I do not know about statistics of production or offending rates domestically, NOR do I know anything about the world arms market, then you are wrong on both counts. If you have statistics that show me that gun owners are as a whole less law-abiding than non gun owners, I'd love to see those. It would strike me as pretty amazing, since violent crime has generally fallen over the past 30 years while firearm ownership has generally increased. What situations you just mentioned? Did I miss one of your posts where you listed situations that are not sustainable? What are the issues you want to be aware of and not hide from? Maybe it would be better to start over so you can stop relying on dogma and half-articulated concepts. What are your rights you do not want stepped on? How do you define them?
  23. Got it. Actually they thought no normal person would pay that much and they didn't think they had the power to ban the firearms outright. The original legislative history is interesting. They picked the firearms that were being used during the crime spree at the time by organized crime and tried to get them regulated and registered. Handguns were included in the original proposal but recognition that so many normal people used them for lawful purposes that they were pulled from the legislation. The test has always been whether people who have them tend to use them for lawful purposes. That's why you can ban, say, brass knuckles, but you cannot ban handguns. It has nothing to do with lethality.
×
×
  • Create New...