PDA

View Full Version : Thread for everything about American gun laws, mass killings, etc.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

NeedsABetterName
03-06-2013, 04:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMV1hNXt1JM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDjp66NdiNY

I think that we're starting to play a better PR game.

The women and CCW thing outlined above, as well as these, force our opponents into a corner. They have to either admit that disarmament of a woman in a rape situation is what they advocate for (or, in the case of Mr. CN, disarm a group who actually has experienced government tyranny in the not-too-distant past -- and, if certain people are to be believed, systematically today), or they'll have to backpedal. Neither one looks good.

Of course, the above is just the theory. In my experience with college leftists, these types of things are simply ignored. Only the left is allowed to be the champion of the oppressed.

Stefan850
03-07-2013, 06:58 AM
A nice article/interview from an interesting point of view.


Dan Baum is not your typical gun guy. He has a lifelong love of firearms he can trace back to the age of five. But he's also a Jewish Democrat and a former staff writer for The New Yorker and feels like a misfit next to most gun owners, who identify overwhelmingly on the conservative side of the spectrum.
In order to bridge this gap, Baum set off on a cross-country journey, chatting with everyone from a gun store owner in Louisville to a wild boar hunter in Texas to a Hollywood armorer. The result is Gun Guys: A Road Trip. I spoke with Baum about his trek through gun country and why this issue is one of our nation's most complicated and politically divisive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/what-liberals-need-to-understand-about-gun-guys/273736/

wiking
03-07-2013, 09:49 AM
still can't understand what political leanings has to do with guns, rights and self defence.

dunemetal
03-07-2013, 10:12 AM
It shouldn't, I agree. There are are repubs that are anti gun/have supported anti 2nd amendment legislation. There have been more than a few democrats that have been stellar supporters of gun rights. Hell look at Harry Reid. Fact of the matter is that the nutter charge is largely your liberal wing. Any quick review will confirm this.

m4rs75
03-08-2013, 07:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQ1WBb81BE

PALADIN
03-08-2013, 11:34 AM
It shouldn't, I agree. There are are repubs that are anti gun/have supported anti 2nd amendment legislation. There have been more than a few democrats that have been stellar supporters of gun rights. Hell look at Harry Reid. Fact of the matter is that the nutter charge is largely your liberal wing. Any quick review will confirm this.

I wouldn't call Harry Reid pro gun...not even close.

http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm

PALADIN
03-08-2013, 11:37 AM
Bloomberg-backed anti-gun lobbyist enjoys ‘assault weapons,’ photo shows

One of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s top gun-control lobbyists in Colorado appears to enjoy firing the very guns he is working to restrict.
Denver-based Headwaters Strategies lobbyist Adam Eichberg participated at a “watermelon shoot” in September 2012 at the farm of Colorado state Sen. Greg Brophy (R.) where he fired a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine.
A picture obtained by the Washington Free Beacon shows Eichberg smiling broadly as he shoulders a DPMS .308 rifle with a 20-round magazine.
“I really hate watermelons,” Eichberg said via email when asked for comment.
Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, hired (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/01/14/lobbying-firm-headwaters-strategies-hired-york-mayor-michael-bloombergs-guncontrol-group/88648/) Headwater Strategies in January to lobby for several gun-control bills under consideration by the Colorado legislature. Those bills would ban the future sale, transfer, or manufacture of so-called high-capacity magazines in the state.
The Colorado-based company Magpul produces the high-capacity magazine Eichberg used, which would be banned under one proposed Colorado bill. Magpul has threatened (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/company-will-move-if-colo_0_n_2801269.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business) to leave the state if the bill passes.
“It seemed like he had a darn fine time,” state senator Brophy said in an interview with the Free Beacon.
While Colorado Democrats have stopped short of proposing an outright assault weapons ban in the state, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been a high-profile supporter of such bills.
Brophy said it was not just Eichberg who wanted to pop off a few rounds at immobile melon targets. Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper also asked to be invited to the melon shoot, he said.
“To top it all off, a week after we did the watermelon shoot this last year, the governor was out in eastern Colorado doing a bike tour,” Brophy said. “And the governor comes to my house on Friday night and practically begs to come to my melon shoot next year. A few months later he’s in contact with Bloomberg’s group and planning gun-control measures in Colorado.”
Hickenlooper’s office did not return requests for comment.
Brophy said he is a friend of Eichberg, but could not let him or Hickenlooper slide.
“You wonder if they’ve had a change of heart, or if they’re being hypocritical like we see in so many politicians where they don’t want to live under the laws they’re pushing,” Brophy said.
Brophy said he has been holding the annual watermelon shoot for seven or eight years, usually on the third Friday in September.
“We do a bike ride, have dinner then go out to the farm the next day and blow up watermelons with various firearms,” he said. “It’s an absolute blast.”
“Shooting watermelons is one of the most fun things in the world,” Brophy continued. “It makes a great sound … KATHUNK.”
http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2013/03/550372_480133848702310_1725421093_n.jpg
http://freebeacon.com/the-watermelon-hunter/

The hypocrisy knows no bounds...

dunemetal
03-08-2013, 01:21 PM
http://www.thecouriertimes.com/Main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=40&ArticleID=278987

Reid is not a poster boy for 2A by any stretch. He is however far removed from the likes Schumer, Feinstein
That is the point I was making.

Lugiahua
03-08-2013, 02:57 PM
still can't understand what political leanings has to do with guns, rights and self defence.

Because it is convenient for politicians in US to blame guns or video games regarding violent crime, than improve educations, increase jobs or reform social welfare system. (which takes generation to show difference)

Rattfink
03-08-2013, 03:00 PM
Bloomberg-backed anti-gun lobbyist enjoys ‘assault weapons,’ photo shows


The hypocrisy knows no bounds...

He's a ****ing lobyist. He gets paid for his ability to argue someone else's beliefs, not his own.

PALADIN
03-08-2013, 03:18 PM
I just thought they'd be smarter than to let this get out.

C.Puffs
03-08-2013, 04:16 PM
.............

Ought Six
03-08-2013, 04:53 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/nra-embraces-senate-mental-health-bill/


The National Rifle Association (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-rifle-association/), which has opposed virtually all of President Obama’s proposed gun control package, swiftly endorsed a bill rolled out Wednesday intended to strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the hands of those deemed mentally ill.

Four senators — two Republicans and two Democrats — unveiled the legislation that would clarify the circumstances under which someone loses the right to have a gun when they’re judged mentally ill.

The bill introduced by Republicans Lindsey Graham (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lindsey-graham/) of South Carolina and Jeff Flake (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeff-flake/) of Arizona, along with Democrats Mark Pryor (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-pryor/) of Arkansas and Mark Begich (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-begich/) of Alaska, would expand the definition of those adjudicated “mentally incompetent” to include those judged to be a danger to themselves or others, found not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity, and requires involuntary outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital, among other provisions.

“This bill will create accurate definitions of those who pose serious threats and should be barred from the ability to buy or possess a firearm, while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens and veterans,” said Chris W. Cox (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/chris-w-cox/), the National Rifle Association (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-rifle-association/)’s chief lobbyist. “This legislation will significantly improve the National Instant Check System, which is critically needed.”

Mr. Graham (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lindsey-graham/) conceded that there are a lot of emotions surrounding the issue.

“But I am hopeful this is one area where we can find tremendous bipartisan support to fix what I think is a gaping gap in our law,” he said.

Mr. Begich (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mark-begich/) said that not only does the bill create a clear definition on mental incompetence, but it strengthens rights for people with mental health illnesses as well, as the definition only includes individuals who are committed to treatment involuntarily. It does not apply to someone in a mental institution for observation or someone who voluntarily admits themselves to a psychiatric hospital. People can also regain their right to own a firearm once they have recovered from their mental illness.

“Hopefully, as we go on in this debate, this is one of those bills that could move forward and pass the Senate as well as the House and move on,” Mr. Graham (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lindsey-graham/) said.

The announcement comes a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider four gun-related measures, including one on background checks being negotiated by Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, as well as Republicans Mark Kirk of Illinois and Tom Coburn (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tom-coburn/) of Oklahoma.

“Tom Coburn (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tom-coburn/) is a good friend, and anything that Tom Coburn (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tom-coburn/) thinks is a good idea, I will certainly look at closely,” Mr. Graham (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lindsey-graham/) said. “If they can ever reach a bipartisan agreement about the problem with the background checks, I would be open to looking at their work product, but I would say this, as my colleagues have said — we have a background check system that really doesn’t create any deterrent.”

The offices of neither Mr. Schumer, who is carrying the bill, nor Mr. Coburn (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tom-coburn/) immediately responded to a request for comment Wednesday.

Lugiahua
03-08-2013, 09:02 PM
http://youtu.be/ypHaYAv_EEw

According to Diane Feinstein, it's legal to hunt human with 15 round magazine.
I wonder if she smokes pot before attending congress meetings.., guess now we now where did she get those delusional idea on gun control

Spartan10k
03-08-2013, 09:23 PM
I've ceased to be amazed by the stupidity that issues forth out of her mouth. I guess I just take it as a given now that she's a Moron.

dunemetal
03-08-2013, 11:16 PM
http://youtu.be/ypHaYAv_EEw

According to Diane Feinstein, it's legal to hunt human with 15 round magazine.
I wonder if she smokes pot before attending congress meetings.., guess now we now where did she get those delusional idea on gun control

She did mention "the brave bystander"...wow, how the hell did that slip out of her mouth? Before I consider it a glimmer of hope from the darkside, she didn't specifically state the that brave bystander was armed with anything like a firearm, so-

Virus
03-09-2013, 12:55 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/08/feinstein_veterans_may_have_ptsd_and_should_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

This lady just keeps spewing this crap... So sorry all you fellow veterans, we all have PTSD :(

dunemetal
03-09-2013, 04:25 PM
PTSD is a NEW phenomenon(??) from Iraq war?

Wow she needs to pass a competency test to stay in office. As if those glasses aren't bad enough.

Gawd

Arnie100
03-09-2013, 04:28 PM
We're all gonna need some kind of therapy from Feinstein...

TheSandwich
03-09-2013, 04:31 PM
I've ceased to be amazed by the stupidity that issues forth out of her mouth. I guess I just take it as a given now that she's a Moron.She isn't stupid. She knows exactly what she is saying and doing. Confusing stupid with evil is a very dangerous thing to do.

California Joe
03-09-2013, 05:55 PM
She isn't stupid. She knows exactly what she is saying and doing. Confusing stupid with evil is a very dangerous thing to do.

Simmah don nah....She isn't stupid. She's ignorant. Completely ignorant of many of the actual issues that she wants to regulate and control. She is not qualified to speak intelligently on any of these things. Yet she has the power to propose laws about or against them....

TheSandwich
03-09-2013, 06:51 PM
Again, she knows EXACTLY what shes doing. Some of the things she says she may be ignorant of but the acts shes commiting as well as her intent, she is fully aware of. Smart people say stupid crap all the time but that doesn't change the fact that they know what they're doing. Shes flat out admitted if she could take all the guns she would have. She simply didn't have the votes to do it. She knows taking guns will hinder peoples ability to protect themselves. She doesn't care how many people die so long as she get what she wants. Thats a pretty clear cut case of evil. Don't forget, we're talking about a person that set back an investigation of a serial killer for no other reason than to make herself look important.

She doesn't care about peoples lives or the constitution or any of the excuses she espouses. All she cares about is getting a "legacy" pushed through before natural causes catch up with her.

gresh
03-10-2013, 12:50 AM
Man Campaigning to Ban Assault Rifles Caught Buying Assault Rifle

Mark Kelly may not yet be a household name, but he’s the better or worse half of Gabby Giffords, and together with her is the public face of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC funded by a Texas lawyer to ban assault rifles.

On FOX, Kelly said, “In 1934, we banned automatic weapons. You know, I argue the semi-automatic assault weapon with a high capacity magazine is just too dangerous to be on the street where criminals and terrorists and the mentally ill can easily get them.”


Unfortunately Kelly was also caught buying one of weapons too dangerous to be in the hands of mere civilians.


Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, Arizona.


It’s not surprising that Kelly was turned in buying the dreaded weapon of doom. As gun ownership becomes like **********ity in the 90s, coming out as an opponent also means that you may be outed if you combine that with a penchant for guns.


Naturally Kelly has tried to spin his purchase of the AR-15 as some sort of move to get them off the street, “As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.”


So apparently Kelly has a plan to buy up all the assault rifles in America and turn them over to the Tuscon PD. I think that’s a little like Ron Paul’s plan to end slavery.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/man-campaigning-to-ban-assault-rifles-caught-buying-assault-rifle/

Riiight, you were just gonna turn it in. :roll:

Laconian
03-10-2013, 08:51 AM
Maybe that's what Bill Clinton was doing when he said he smoked dope & didn't inhale. He was trying to smoke up all the pot so other folks wouldn't be tempted...

So typical of this "do as I say not as I do" crowd.

IconOfEvi
03-10-2013, 09:00 AM
The Soviets had a lovely word for these kind of people...nomenklatura

dunemetal
03-10-2013, 10:33 AM
Automatic weapons were not Banned in 1934. Joker should be called on that.

Ignorant.

liberal cl
03-11-2013, 12:37 AM
Don't know if this was posted already:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/10/Mark-Kelly-Gave-Pro-Gun-Control-Testimony-In-Col-One-Day-Before-Before-Buying-AR-15-In-AZ


Mark Kelly and his wife (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/mark-kelly-to-testify-for_0_n_2805634.html), former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, testified at the Colorado state capitol in support of more gun control for that state on March 4.

...Ironically, on March 5 (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/09/Gabby-Giffords-Husband-Buys-AR-15-Announces-He-s-Not-Keeping-It-After-News-Leaks-Out)--the day after giving his pro-gun control testimony in Col.--Kelly purchased a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol and an "assault rifle" at Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, AZ.

TheSandwich
03-11-2013, 01:46 AM
Democrats threaten sheriffs over gun-ban testimony (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/red-pill-blue-bill/2013/mar/10/democrats-threaten-sheriffs-over-gun-ban-testimony/)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., March 10, 2013 — In a move reminiscent of Chicago-style mob politics, Democratic senate leadership threatened sheriffs with holding up or stopping legislation that affects sheriff’s pay unless they change their collective position on gun control. Senate leadership is President Sen. John Morse and Majority Leader Sen. Morgan Carroll.

Do as we say or else, Comrade.

NeedsABetterName
03-11-2013, 01:51 AM
Democrats threaten sheriffs over gun-ban testimony (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/red-pill-blue-bill/2013/mar/10/democrats-threaten-sheriffs-over-gun-ban-testimony/)


Do as we say or else, Comrade.

Sheriff's Department pay isn't set by the County there?

m4rs75
03-11-2013, 09:18 AM
Several Maryland Sheriffs showed up in Annapolis to support 2nd Amendment Rights on March 5, 2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPyAudqu220

TheSandwich
03-11-2013, 11:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfH5bVYCLM

"Dear constituents..."
*sticks fingers in his ears*
"LALALALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALALALALA!"
"P.S. F**k off and die!"

gresh
03-12-2013, 12:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BVz2lHODQvs


Published on Mar 11, 2013
A Democrat Illinois congresswoman openly admits that going after Assault Weapons is only the beginning. Banning handguns is also on the agenda.

At least she's honest about their agenda.

Beowulf
03-12-2013, 02:23 AM
Greetings, on behalf of Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr., for whom I work. I am Inspector Edward Bailey, Sheriff Clarke’s Adjutant, or Executive Officer, and a 23-year law enforcement officer here in Milwaukee County who has the privilege of working for a man that it appears, from your recent email to the Sheriff’s Office, that both you and I greatly admire!

In his recently aired and greatly scrutinized and commented upon Public Service Announcement, Sheriff Clarke puts it succinctly:

“I’m Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: Your safety.”

The Sheriff has been appearing on many national news shows discussing what is, to him, something very sacred and profound: The personal safety and rights of citizens for whom he first swore a sacred oath to protect in 1978.

These are not easy issues. Violence in our society seems at times endemic. Firearms and firearms safety issues are indeed serious, as noted by Sheriff Clarke in his call for our citizenry to, “…Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm.”

But ultimately, and I expect that we will agree on this, Sheriff Clarke has observed that, “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now.” A duty indeed…it is a duty that we share, our citizens in their personal lives and our nation’s law enforcement in our professional lives. As Sheriff Clarke has often reminded his Command Staff, we are true partners…and always have been. The police, and the policed. The citizen, and the government. We, the People.

Thank you so much, on behalf of Sheriff Clarke, for your warm words of support. They have been shared with the Sheriff, and he appreciates them…particularly during the media glare of the past week!

Wishing you a safe and, I trust, fruitful 2013,

Approved:

Inspector Edward H. Bailey
Adjutant to Sheriff Clarke
Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
FBINA 223
"Expect The Best"

ronnieraygun
03-12-2013, 02:36 AM
I don't know TheSandwich but he possesses the most satisfying avatar I've seen lately.

TheSandwich
03-12-2013, 03:39 AM
I don't know TheSandwich but he possesses the most satisfying avatar I've seen lately.Its from these guys' videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnikConShow/videos?view=0&flow=grid

Sorry for the derail.

m4rs75
03-12-2013, 09:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQ1WBb81BE

Interview with Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saBdw0VXk6g

Rattfink
03-12-2013, 09:28 AM
If that man ran for mayor I imagine he would make a good run at it.

dunemetal
03-12-2013, 09:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfH5bVYCLM

"Dear constituents..."
*sticks fingers in his ears*
"LALALALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALALALALA!"
"P.S. F**k off and die!"

In light of the fact that we have received Piers Morgan from our good friends across the pond, and he does not appear to be leaving soon,could we send them this Rachel Maddow dude as an even up trade and call a truce?

Rattfink
03-12-2013, 09:43 AM
In light of the fact that we have received Piers Morgan from our good friends across the pond, and he does not appear to be leaving soon,could we send them this Rachel Maddow dude as an even up trade and call a truce?


If someone will write a letter, they will cast a vote. One way or another this man is going to end up paying attention.

m4rs75
03-12-2013, 10:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrOA6vp3DuQ

Nelson, GA city council meeting on March 4, 2013 on the Family Protection Ordinance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xenn0CePC4

Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Rattfink
03-12-2013, 11:03 AM
Do they prescribe a penalty for not owning a firearm?

m4rs75
03-12-2013, 11:15 AM
Do they prescribe a penalty for not owning a firearm?
No.



"Basically this is a deterrent ordinance," Councilman Duane Cronic said at the meeting. "It's no more than putting a sign in your front yard saying that 'ADT protects this home.' Now the person that may be there (checking) your home out to cause harm to you or your family to break into your house has to decide, 'When I break that door down, what's on the other side of that door?'"

The law would give every family the right to protect themselves and their property "without worrying about prosecution for protecting themselves," Cronic told the meeting. He said the proposal was modeled on a similar law in nearby Kennesaw, Georgia, that has been on the books since 1982.

Nelson Police Chief Heath Mitchell told council members the proposal is a great idea.

"I think y'all are showing the people that you're in full support of the Constitution," Mitchell said. "And as far as the Second Amendment goes, that you stand behind it, you stand behind people's rights."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/07/us/georgia-gun-requirement/index.html

snowflakes
03-12-2013, 11:16 AM
Do they prescribe a penalty for not owning a firearm?

According to the News clip felons, kooks, poor and people with a religious or philosophical conviction are exempt. So pretty much everyone who doesn't want to own one, the law is more rhetorical F/O to the DC.... Which actually makes more sense than forcing everyone to own a gun and ammo.

m4rs75
03-12-2013, 11:44 AM
Only in California:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3858/i38qfqremhqk.jpg

California Department of Justice police agents walk towards a house near Ontario, California on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The agents, working for the only state-level program to confiscate illegal firearms from owners, targeted people who’d once legally purchased firearms and lost the right after being convicted of violent crimes, committed to mental institutions or hit with restraining orders. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/1376/iatk9gq7nmak.jpg

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh who coordinates the operations around California, said: “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun. The only people we’re contacting are people who are prohibited from owning guns.” (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9869/iwikvn9q9vgq.jpg

Lynette Phillips, 48, and her husband, David Phillips, 51, sit in their home in Upland, California on March 5, 2013. Lynette, a nurse, had to surrender three guns after spending two days in a mental hospital in December. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7958/iu7zmo3cakp4.jpg

Weapons and ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Philllips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/1650/ijdtai0akdgw.jpg

Weapons with ammunition seized from the home of Lynette and David Phillips by agents with the California Department of Justice police in Upland, California. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2756/iwgftwnm5pbo.jpg

California Department of Justice police agents walk towards a house near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7628/ilpcut8y3ppy.jpg

Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh with the California Department of Justice drives out to seize illegal firearms near Ontario, California on March 5, 2013. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg)

ISNJH
03-12-2013, 05:06 PM
Their house looks very clean and tidy and pulled together from those images.. This is not the type of house you would connect with a dangerous person with mental problems.

C.Puffs
03-12-2013, 05:48 PM
They must be proud. **** I'm glad I don't live in California.

Looks like the gun control lunacy in Colorado was rammed through.

Laconian
03-12-2013, 06:25 PM
Their house looks very clean and tidy and pulled together from those images.. This is not the type of house you would connect with a dangerous person with mental problems.

What exactly do violent criminals look like?

C.Puffs
03-12-2013, 06:28 PM
What exactly do violent criminals look like?


"Lynette Phillips, 48, and her husband, David Phillips, 51, sit in their home in Upland, California on March 5, 2013. Lynette, a nurse, had to surrender three guns after spending two days in a mental hospital in December."

Doesn't exactly shout "violent criminal". On the other hand I'll be the PD knows where the local gangs like to hang. I'm sure they could find a few illegally owned firearms in their possession. Just sayin'.

PMI
03-12-2013, 06:36 PM
What exactly do violent criminals look like?



]http://i46.*******.com/351z3ue.jpg

Laconian
03-12-2013, 07:08 PM
"Lynette Phillips, 48, and her husband, David Phillips, 51, sit in their home in Upland, California on March 5, 2013. Lynette, a nurse, had to surrender three guns after spending two days in a mental hospital in December."

Doesn't exactly shout "violent criminal". On the other hand I'll be the PD knows where the local gangs like to hang. I'm sure they could find a few illegally owned firearms in their possession. Just sayin'.

If they are prohibited, they are prohibited. Or is it that we only want to take guns away from those who look like they are prohibited?

IconOfEvi
03-12-2013, 07:41 PM
]http://i46.*******.com/351z3ue.jpg

Touche, well done ;)

C.Puffs
03-12-2013, 07:56 PM
If they are prohibited, they are prohibited. Or is it that we only want to take guns away from those who look like they are prohibited?

With their limited resources don't they triage this stuff? I'd think they'd have higher priorities than some lady with no criminal history who spent two days in a mental ward. But then I guess it's easier to take the guns from someone who obeyed the law and registered them than some gang-banger who got his illegally. (No snarkiness intended. Just wish there was a way of getting guns out of the hands of people more likely to use them illegally than someone who's probably not a threat.)

gresh
03-12-2013, 09:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfH5bVYCLM

"Dear constituents..."
*sticks fingers in his ears*
"LALALALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALALALALA!"
"P.S. F**k off and die!"

Pro-Gun Control Colorado Senator Faces Recall (VIDEO)

State Senate Democratic President John Morse, of Colorado Springs, is facing a recall effort for his support of controversial gun control laws.


“On Friday the Basic Freedom Defense Fund (BFDF) formed a local committee for recalling Morse, the group claims around sixty-volunteers representing state organizations and local businesses have pledged support for the campaign. The effort was inspired by several laws proposed by democrats that would put tighter restrictions on guns including expanded background checks and limits on ammunition magazines.


“‘That’s why politicians around the country don’t want to stand up for this issue, but this is a political hill in my view that’s worth dying for so that we can make sure others don’t die literally at the point of a gun,’ Morse said on Sunday. ‘I wasn’t expecting things to get this divisive, I really thought that after Sandy Hook even the NRA recognized we’ve got to do something, we can’t leave it exactly where it is with the status quo and claim that’s leadership.’
http://www.guns.com/2013/03/11/pro-gun-control-colorado-senator-faces-recall-video/

:)



Gun-Freedom Areas Should Split CA

John Seiler:


California obviously is a divide state that ought to be divided in two — at least. That clearly is shown in the following map of how easy to get a concealed carry weapon’s permit in California. The map is from California Concealed Carry Weapon, a great group that promotes the right to carry a gun.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/03/map-shows-divide-in-calif-over-guns/

TheSandwich
03-12-2013, 10:11 PM
With their limited resources don't they triage this stuff? I'd think they'd have higher priorities than some lady with no criminal history who spent two days in a mental ward. But then I guess it's easier to take the guns from someone who obeyed the law and registered them than some gang-banger who got his illegally. (No snarkiness intended. Just wish there was a way of getting guns out of the hands of people more likely to use them illegally than someone who's probably not a threat.)No see gangbangers would actually shoot back. Can't have that. Thats why you gotta use the SWAT team outfitted with machine guns and a tank for serving no knock raids at 2am on grandmas with pot(gotta remember to hit the right house this time). Also that caged dog is VERY dangerous. Better shoot it quick.

C.Puffs
03-13-2013, 12:50 PM
Interesting read:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

in response to:

http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/09/where-there-is-open-mind.html


"Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.
Allow me to explain. I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise. Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake. Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934. There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own. So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake. And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again. This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it. Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!) I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise". I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
LawDog"

PALADIN
03-13-2013, 01:57 PM
No see gangbangers would actually shoot back. Can't have that. Thats why you gotta use the SWAT team outfitted with machine guns and a tank for serving no knock raids at 2am on grandmas with pot(gotta remember to hit the right house this time). Also that caged dog is VERY dangerous. Better shoot it quick.

Nice to see we have another new Law Enforcement expert on the forum with years of experience...
:roll:

TheSandwich
03-13-2013, 08:31 PM
Nice to see another person completely ignorant of the goings on in this country. I'm sorry you seem to be incapable of partaking in this new fangled thing called "news". Its understandable though, it requires an ability to read as well as process information so you're excused. Ignorance (https://www.google.com/search?q=police+raid+wrong+house&rlz=1C1GGGE___US509US509&aq=f&oq=police+raid+wrong+house&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j65l2j0l2.4562&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) is not (https://www.google.com/search?q=police+shoot+sleeping&rlz=1C1GGGE___US509US509&aq=f&oq=police+shoot+sleeping&aqs=chrome.0.57j0j62l3.12925&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8$) Bliss (https://www.google.com/search?q=police+shoot+caged+dog&rlz=1C1GGGE___US509US509&aq=f&oq=police+shoot+caged+dog&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j65l2.4443&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

However being Californian is inexcusable. Must have never heard of the LAPD.

Ought Six
03-13-2013, 10:45 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/03/universal_background_check_bil_1.html


A bill that would have imposed universal background checks for gun sales failed to make it out of the Washington House before Wednesday’s 5 p.m. cutoff for legislation to pass in its house of origin.

House Bill 1588 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1588&year=2013) would expand background checks to private sales, including those at gun shows.

This week, House Democrats spent much of the time in caucus. Rep. Jamie Pedersen (http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Representatives/Pages/pedersen.aspx), D-Seattle, sponsor of the universal background check bill, spent the week trying to come up with the 50 votes necessary to pass the measure. Despite his efforts, he still came up a few votes short.

"It died rather spectacularly," he said.

But Pedersen doesn't feel he wasted time pushing his bill, because it's critically important, he said.

"Trying to solve gun violence is never wasteful," he said.

Plus, he said the House passed out more than 300 bills before the cutoff.

Rep. Monica Stonier (http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/pages/stonier.aspx), D-Vancouver, wasn’t too preoccupied with the bill’s failure. Though House Democrats spent a lot of time behind caucus doors, Stonier felt the House members got a lot done before cutoff. (The last bill to pass in the House was the Washington DREAM Act (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1817&year=2013), which makes children of undocumented immigrants eligible for college financial aid.)

A stall in the Legislature before a deadline is typical, she said, especially when a member is very passionate about their bill. Stonier said the House likely would have stalled on a different bill into if it weren’t for the gun control measure.

“That’s what happens when people care about what they’re doing,” she said.

Rep. Liz Pike (http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/pages/pike.aspx), R-Camas, was delighted Democrats spent so much time in caucus.

It kept bad bills from being passed, she said.

"I was doing backflips," she said. "It was a good day for Washington businesses."

But Rep. Paul Harris (http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/pages/harris.aspx), R-Vancouver, was frustrated by the lack of action in the House due to the bill negotiations.

“We lost a day and a half,” he said. “They caucused at least 10 times.”

It made Democrats look dysfunctional, and the long periods of time spent in negotiations took away from time that could have been spent hearing bills, he said.

But Harris said the Democrats hurt themselves more than they hurt Republicans. Because Democrats have the majority in the House, the majority of bills waiting to be heard were sponsored by their party. So most of the bills that didn’t get a hearing in the House were likely Democrat measures.

And Harris felt the negotiations were especially a waste because even if the bill did pass in the House, it doesn’t have a chance in the Republican-controlled Senate.

And unless a referendum is filed to put the issue on the ballot, the bill is dead, at least this year, Harris said.

The only way universal background checks will reenter the arena this year is through an initiative that puts the issue on the November ballot, he said.

At a joint press conference hosted by the Republican leaders and Sen. Rodney Tom (http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/senators/Pages/tom.aspx), D-Medina, leader of the Majority Coalition Caucus in the Senate, Tom made it clear that if the bill died in the House, it wouldn’t have extra help from him in the Senate.

Tom signed on to the bill and said he strongly supports it, but he said he will not use his power as leader of the coalition to pull a parliamentary procedure to revive the policy through the Senate version of the bill (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5625&year=2013), which never received a hearing in the Senate Law and Justice Committee.

If Tom were to resort to extreme action to bring the bill to the Senate floor, it would likely jeopardize his alliance with Senate Republicans and he could lose his leadership position.

Ought Six
03-14-2013, 12:17 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-and-holder-to-announce-new-domestic-violence-initiative-award-grants/2013/03/12/8561a66a-8b5c-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html?hpid=z11


Vice President Biden and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday will unveil a new domestic violence initiative and award $2.3 million in grant money as part of a new effort to reduce gun violence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-unveils-gun-control-proposals/2013/01/16/58cd70ce-5fed-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?wprss=rss_politics), according to a White House official.

At an event in Rockville, Biden and Holder plan to introduce the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative — a Justice Department program modeled after state initiatives in Maryland and Massachusetts and intended to help municipalities monitor high-risk offenders and identify potential victims.

The aim is to identify women who may be in potentially fatal abusive relationships and connect them with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, court personnel and other service providers in a position to protect them. Twelve jurisdictions will get one-year grants of as much as $200,000.

The initiative was detailed by a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because a formal announcement had not been made. Biden and Holder will announce the program at the Montgomery County Executive Office Building.

Forty percent of mass shootings in the past three years started with the gunman targeting his girlfriend, wife or ex-wife, according to the White House official.

Federal law prohibits domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms, but not every state requires background checks for gun purchases, meaning that many offenders are still able to buy guns.

The federal initiative is modeled after the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (http://mnadv.org/), which enlists police, health clinics and faith groups to identify women at the most risk of abuse and connect them to domestic violence services. The homicide rate linked to domestic violence in Maryland has fallen 34 percent in the past five years, the official said.

The federal grants will go to Contra Costa County, Calif.; Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; Rockdale County, Ga.; Winnebago County, Ill.; Boston; Brooklyn; West*chester County, N.Y.; Pitt County, N.C.; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; North Charleston, S.C.; and Rutland, Vt.

ISNJH
03-14-2013, 12:51 AM
@Laconian I was referring to mental state and pulled togetherness, they they used to say a clean and tidy house was good indication of health and mental stability and that houses of people with mental problems houses tended to be less tidy and clean. From the original story I read about the couple was reportedly the wife had been brought to a hospital and a nurse at the hospital had her admitted for mental screening but the reasoning for doing so for having her admitted for the mental screening was reportedly in debate and few days later afterwords the cops came to remove the guns from the house. was there another reason for the guns being confiscated such as criminal records on the couple that was not posted in the first news report that I missed?

If it was only because she was admitted for mental screening but nothing was determined to be wrong with her or that she posed a threat to anyone then the hospital should have filed that.

Chiptox
03-14-2013, 12:53 AM
Good. Now I don't have to move back to Idaho. Y'all are stuck with me.


Also, that Liz Pike is quote-worthy isn't she. She does bring up a good point though. The democrats stalled their own bills so they could attempt to cram through some contentious bill within their own party that never had the slightest chance of passing the state senate. Good work guys. Gold star and A+ for effort.

ISNJH
03-14-2013, 01:01 AM
Reading over more news stories further over reports and there is no mention of the couple having any criminal record or anything only that because she had been admitted to a mental ward for screening but was released the weapons where taken from the home, the fact that the reason for her being admitted was not entirely clear or if it was really needed seems to be in dispute with the hospital..

This is not going to help people and make people that do really need help not go to the hospital. Also lets say someone who has lost someone close in ones family and was feeling sadness and went to see a Psychiatrists to try and cope if that person then goes to the hospital and they ask you have you ever seen a psychiatrists or mental health professional are they going to tick that off and write off ones ability to own and bare arms.

The police admitted in this report that without a search warrant they could not enter the house and relied on talking their way through the door and getting permission from the owner.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22780272/california-raiders-seize-guns

Regarding the hospital it seems there had been tension with the wife and the nurse and it looks like the nurse to get back had her admitted, if that was the case this type of thing really should not be in the hands of a single nurse alone to decide if a person should be committed or not and should be signed off by two or more doctors, Paramedics are not allowed to make some decisions and only a DR can sign off or proscribe prescriptions, so in deciding to have someone committed for screening esp since now it could mean ending their rights to own and bare should be signed off by more then one or two people.

Chiptox
03-14-2013, 02:51 AM
Reading over more news stories further over reports and there is no mention of the couple having any criminal record or anything only that because she had been admitted to a mental ward for screening but was released the weapons where taken from the home, the fact that the reason for her being admitted was not entirely clear or if it was really needed seems to be in dispute with the hospital.
Well, yeah. Hospitals can't go out releasing people's personal medical records to the press, now can they?

It's a weird situation where several rights are running over each other. The smart move by the government would be to let them be because the seizure would not have the proper transparency in the court of public opinion. Instead sent a strongly worded letter perhaps. Plenty of other more clear-cut cases to expend their finite resources on.

But who ever said the government was smart? Let alone political and bureaucratic pressure...

gresh
03-14-2013, 01:34 PM
Michael Moore: Newtown Photos Will End NRA

Filmmaker Michael Moore believes that if photos from December’s Newtown massacre are released, then the National Rifle Association will be finished.


While not explicitly calling for the photos to be published, Moore said on his blog Wednesday that the photos will likely be made public at one point or another. Once they do, Moore said, “it will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end.”


“How on earth could anyone not spring into action the very next moment after seeing the bullet-riddled bodies of these little boys and girls?” Moore wrote.
http://www.talkradionews.com/us/2013/03/13/michael-moore-newtown-photos-will-end-nra.html#.UUIHsxycfVc

What's more important, destroying the NRA or caring for the loved ones of the victims of Newtown? *******.


Michael Moore: 'The NRA Is Doomed' (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/michael-moore-nra-is-doomed-video_n_2552784.html

This conversation is pretty cringeworthy.

'

Rattfink
03-14-2013, 01:40 PM
Michael Moore does not make logical arguments, he makes emotional, manipulative and parasitic ones. He disgusts me with his opportunistic stuntery. Hollywood can have him, Michigan doesn't want him.

C.Puffs
03-14-2013, 01:43 PM
http://www.talkradionews.com/us/2013/03/13/michael-moore-newtown-photos-will-end-nra.html#.UUIHsxycfVc

What's more important, destroying the NRA or caring for the loved ones of the victims of Newtown? *******.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/michael-moore-nra-is-doomed-video_n_2552784.html

This conversation is pretty cringeworthy.

'

On the plus side most of the comments seem to be along the lines of "Moore's a clueless douche" rather than cheering him on.

gresh
03-14-2013, 01:54 PM
DIANNE FEINSTEIN BATTLES TED CRUZ IN HEATED SENATE SHOWDOWN OVER GUNS: ‘I’M NOT A 6TH GRADER’

Senators Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Thursday got into heated exchange while discussing the California congresswoman’s proposed ban on so-called “assault” weapons.


“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” Cruz said, referring to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”


“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” he added.


Apparently, Sen. Feinstein was not amused with the Texas senator’s line of questioning.


“I’m not a sixth grader,” said responded. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/14/ted-cruz-battles-dianne-feinstein-in-heated-senate-showdown-over-guns-im-not-a-6th-grader/#



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYI3MEhegvQ

C.Puffs
03-14-2013, 02:00 PM
If she doesn't want to be mistaken for a 6th grader she should stop using the logic of a 6th grader.

gresh
03-14-2013, 02:03 PM
If she doesn't want to be mistaken for a 6th grader she should stop using the logic of a 6th grader.
Exactly.


U.S. Senate panel backs Obama bid to renew assault weapons ban

(*******) - President Barack Obama's bid to renew a ban against military-style assault weapons narrowly won the backing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday and now goes to the full Senate, where it was expected to fail.


On a party-line vote of 10-8, the Democratic-led panel approved a bill to renew a ban similar to one that expired in 2004. The measure would also limit high-capacity ammunition clips to 10 bullets.


Military-style assault weapons have been the weapon of choice in a number of recent U.S. massacres, including one at a elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14 that left 20 children and six adults dead.


Polls show a majority of Americans back the ban.


But most Senate Republicans and a number of Democrats from rural states oppose it, arguing it would violate the constitutional right to bear arms. Many fear that backing the legislation could cost them re-election.


Obama's call to renew the ban is a centerpiece of his effort to curb U.S. gun violence in the wake of Newtown.


The bill offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California would ban the sale, import and manufacture of 157 specific types of military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons. The prohibition would go into effect the day the bill became law.
http://www.*******.com/article/2013/03/14/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE92D0RI20130314

r.e.u.t.e.r.s.

Rattfink
03-14-2013, 02:05 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/14/threats-gun-legislation/1978683/

Lawmakers who proposed gun laws face threats

LineDoggie
03-14-2013, 02:08 PM
It really amazes me that Feinstein can even function without a Helper Monkey.

Rattfink
03-14-2013, 02:10 PM
It really amazes me that Feinstein can even function without a Helper Monkey.

She probably has several and calls them aids.

C.Puffs
03-14-2013, 02:11 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/14/threats-gun-legislation/1978683/

Lawmakers who proposed gun laws face threats



"But when she also received messages warning of bloodshed and referring to former U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in 2011, Fields says she turned them over to authorities and asked for, and received, increased security from state and local police."

What a ****ing hypocrite. Guns for her protection but **** the little people eh?

riderboy
03-14-2013, 02:52 PM
Michael Moore does not make logical arguments, he makes emotional, manipulative and parasitic ones. He disgusts me with his opportunistic stuntery. Hollywood can have him, Michigan doesn't want him.

I would say Mr Moore is not alone in those leftist tactics. As an aside, I'm liking this Ted Cruz guy more and more.

PMI
03-14-2013, 03:20 PM
Dianne I'd like to see those imploding bullets.

Inspector Clusoe
03-14-2013, 03:33 PM
Moore is still trying to cope with the fact that Cuban medicine was not able to cure his buddy Hugo.
I have sat quietly reading how people who don’t believe that the 2nd amendment is any longer relevant want to negotiate my rights away to own certain magazines, guns, etc. These folks insist that I don’t need a 30 round magazine and an ar15 to hunt and they are right, I don’t; however, the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target practice, underwater basket weaving or any such thing. These are distractions to confuse those not educated on the legislative intent of the 2nd amendment.
The anti-gun lobby has been very successful in capitalizing on tragedies in order to confuse the issues and blame the inanimate objects and release the human perpetrators of any responsibility.
I firmly believe that Ted Cruz is on to something that needs to be expanded on. You want to negotiate restrictions on the 2nd amendment; what concessions will you make on restrictions on the 1st amendment? At the time of the enactment of the 1st amendment printing presses were the only media covered by free speech. Conversely, using the progressive logic on firearms, Radio, TV, the internet and all other social media are not covered by the 1st amendment as they had not been invented at the point of inception.
Which one of those do you want to forego in exchange?
Same thing with the 4th Amendment, throw out the Carol Doctrine, there were no cars back then, actually, with the have lost a number of these rights since September 11 in exchange for security from big brother and will continue to if we don’t take a serious stand now. Its time to play hardball if we want to retain these rights for our children.

RICHICOQUI
03-14-2013, 03:39 PM
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/shadow-of-gun.html

Ought Six
03-14-2013, 03:48 PM
DiFi:
"I’ve seen the bullets that implode."Kewl! I want some of those imploding bullets. When they implode in on themselves, do they create a singularity and suck in the miscreant, thus disposing of the unwanted carcass? Just think how cool that would be! woot

Dianne Feinstein, educating the people on all gun-related matters. :cantbeli:

Shermbodius
03-14-2013, 03:58 PM
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/shadow-of-gun.html

This isn’t a precautionary attitude, but a pacifist one. Gun horror is not a productive emotion, but learned helplessness disguised as moral superiority. Rather than teaching children to hate killers, schools are instead teaching them to hate guns. And reducing murders to instruments rather than morals, children are left with no sense of right and wrong, only an instinctive horror of violence.Great post.....

C.Puffs
03-14-2013, 04:11 PM
Kewl! I want some of those imploding bullets. When they implode in on themselves, do they create a singularity and suck in the miscreant, thus disposing of the unwanted carcass? Just think how cool that would be! woot

Dianne Feinstein, educating the people on all gun-related matters. :cantbeli:

It's the thing that goes up.

NeedsABetterName
03-15-2013, 12:19 AM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599221_10151396472148710_1068782410_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/67381_10151396472028710_932960661_n.jpg

Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords posted two photos today in response to criticisms leveled against a cropped version of the first photo published by Breitbart. Both were taken before her injury. Here is her statement:


Here are two photos of me that a conservative blog has dug up. I remember both of these days *****y. The first is at the Tucson Police Department firing range. They invited me to test rifles and tasers that they bought with federal funds, which I helped secure. The second was in Afghanistan while I was visiting with our troops serving abroad. My work as Southern Arizona's Congresswoman frequently put me in close contact with some of the world's most powerful and deadly weapons - supporting police departments, advocating for the Border Patrol, standing up for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting my constituents' and my own Second Amendment rights.

I grew up with guns, and I like owning them. So does my husband Mark. It's an interest we've shared ever since we met. It's part of my heritage as an Arizonan and it's my right as an American. Being able to shoot a gun is something I haven't been able to do since I was shot - because my right arm is paralyzed, and I'm less mobile than I was.

As I member of the House Armed Services Committee, I proudly spent a lot of time with our military, border patrol and state and local law enforcement. I guess the intention of those who have publicized these photos is to somehow call into question my belief that military style assault weapons should be more strongly regulated with background checks and other safeguards. I have never wavered in my support for those who serve our country. I fought to make sure they have the weapons and safety gear needed to carry out their mission, and proper health and mental care when their service ends.

Both sides of the gun violence debate usually miss the point. We don't have to choose between owning, using, and enjoying guns, on one hand, and preventing gun violence, on the other. Both sides need to come together to support commonsense solutions to gun violence, like keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people like the young man who shot me. That's why I'm fighting this fight. That's why I'm working to bring people together to support gun rights and reduce gun violence. I hope you join me.


Here is the Breitbart article she is responding to:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/Mark-Kelly-s-AR-15-Stunt-Provokes-Giffords-Photo-Leak

Zoomie
03-15-2013, 10:31 AM
Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords posted two photos today in response to criticisms leveled against a cropped version of the first photo published by Breitbart. Both were taken before her injury. Here is her statement:

Here is the Breitbart article she is responding to:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/14/Mark-Kelly-s-AR-15-Stunt-Provokes-Giffords-Photo-Leak

*waves hand* These aren't the photos you're looking for.

wiking
03-15-2013, 11:25 AM
aparently someone's discovered NFA firearms, so now there's a "Machine Gun Loophole"

I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing http://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/1982057/

C.Puffs
03-15-2013, 11:28 AM
I'm amazed any of them figured out there's a difference between what they think is an "assault rifle" and a "machine gun".

Spartan10k
03-15-2013, 12:12 PM
I'm amazed any of them figured out there's a difference between what they think is an "assault rifle" and a "machine gun".
But they're so easy to get!!11

I mean, everyone just has $16 grand + just sitting around waiting to buy machine guns. And ammo's so cheap right now it's just so easy to get tons of ammo for them too... /sarcasm

PALADIN
03-15-2013, 12:26 PM
But they're so easy to get!!11

I mean, everyone just has $16 grand + just sitting around waiting to buy machine guns. And ammo's so cheap right now it's just so easy to get tons of ammo for them too... /sarcasm

You forget the equally easy to attain $200 NFA Tax Stamp.

wiking
03-15-2013, 12:50 PM
You forget the equally easy to attain $200 NFA Tax Stamp.

And the breeze of a full background check. Not to mention the, what is it now, 6+ months backlog on NFA paperwork? Probably no one who filed paperwork after this 'issue' went critical has received it back yet!

dunemetal
03-15-2013, 01:20 PM
aparently someone's discovered NFA firearms, so now there's a "Machine Gun Loophole"

I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing http://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/1982057/

The video will not play for me, so I'm speculating about this but...
I think the loophole, as mentioned in several earlier pieces is the trust or corporation some have set up to acquire title 2 weapons. IIRC, the reason corps were an initial effort was the fact that some unfortunate individuals who lived in C3 friendly states happened to have local law enforcement who would not sign off on the form 4. The CLEO sign off was always a questionable requirement. Filing papers was a way to by pass the stubborn CLEO. I think the form allowed also local prosecuting attorney or state police to sign off also. I was lucky when I made all my purchases that my local chief of police was my next door neighbor. He told me to bring the forms into the office and he'd sign them at his desk which he did. The form 4 still has to undergo federal scrutiny NO MATTER WHAT.

As much as the anti gunners would like to point out NFA weapons regulation as a good example of gun control, they don't because the elephant in the living room is the fact that private civilians own "dreaded weapons of war"...and there aren't out of control firefights between owners. The common quote from them and the MSM is "machine guns are outlawed/illegal." This, in of itself is not a completely true statement.

gresh
03-15-2013, 08:37 PM
The video will not play for me, so I'm speculating about this but...
I think the loophole, as mentioned in several earlier pieces is the trust or corporation some have set up to acquire title 2 weapons. IIRC, the reason corps were an initial effort was the fact that some unfortunate individuals who lived in C3 friendly states happened to have local law enforcement who would not sign off on the form 4. The CLEO sign off was always a questionable requirement. Filing papers was a way to by pass the stubborn CLEO. I think the form allowed also local prosecuting attorney or state police to sign off also. I was lucky when I made all my purchases that my local chief of police was my next door neighbor. He told me to bring the forms into the office and he'd sign them at his desk which he did. The form 4 still has to undergo federal scrutiny NO MATTER WHAT.

As much as the anti gunners would like to point out NFA weapons regulation as a good example of gun control, they don't because the elephant in the living room is the fact that private civilians own "dreaded weapons of war"...and there aren't out of control firefights between owners. The common quote from them and the MSM is "machine guns are outlawed/illegal." This, in of itself is not a completely true statement.
Here ya go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ1WwVO5CRA


San Jose Rejects Effort to Confiscate Semi-Auto Firearms in City

On January 23, 2013, the City of San Jose’s Rules and Open Government Committee considered a proposed ordinance that would have required owners of so-called "assault weapons" to register and store such firearms with the police department, and to provide the department with a reasonable explanation of "need" before their firearms could be released to them.


The National Rifle Association (NRA) and CRPA Foundation (CRPAF), as part of their joint Local Ordinance Project effort, had attorneys from the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. submit a letter to the Committee opposing the proposed ordinance. The letter explained how the proposal is preempted by state law on various grounds and would be struck down in court. The Committee decided not to take any further action on the ordinance.


This is not the first local effort of this type. NRA and CRPAF previously had attorneys from Michel & Associates contact the City of Berkeley to encourage the city to repeal its "assault weapon" ordinance. Before that, NRA's attorneys received official confirmation from various cities that their "assault weapon" ordinances were considered preempted and unenforceable.


San Jose's rejection of the proposed ordinance marks the latest example of local governments understanding their limits when it comes to gun laws. Recently, the City of Capitola also thoughtfully rejected an ill-conceived package of gun control ordinances after receiving a letter from NRA/CRPAF attorneys.
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=92959323d7&e=f61596cd7e

TheSandwich
03-16-2013, 01:19 AM
The best thing us gun guys can do is take people neutral on guns(younger the better)/a gun grabber shooting. I've taken a handful of grabbers shooting and every one of them changed their tune afterwards. Not only is it a great way to change opinions by removing the air of mysteriousness of guns for them but it will also help stop stupid s**t like what I had to put up with today.

I live in a bad area so my Glock 19 is always within reach of me at home. At the time it was on my coffee table as I was watching TV. A neighbor friend came by to ask me if I could fix something on her computer later and for some reason brought her 16 year old nephew along. Three separate times while her and I are talking he leans over and whispers something in her ear. After the third time she rolls her eyes and says "YES that is a real gun, geez." Instantly he cried out "'IM SCARED!" and ducked behind his aunt(hes also more than a foot taller than her which made it even funnier). She and I exchange looks and I said "Are you serious? Its an inanimate object kid, its not going to jump up and start doing things on its own."

Still not sure whether he is retarded or just a pansy.

NeedsABetterName
03-16-2013, 03:26 AM
http://www.armslist.com/

Good on them (scroll down slightly).

gresh
03-16-2013, 06:05 AM
http://www.armslist.com/

Good on them (scroll down slightly).
Haha, nice.


Arizona Senate votes in favor of letting school personnel carry guns

State senators voted Wednesday to allow a teacher, administrator, custodian or even cafeteria worker at rural and some suburban schools to be armed.
Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, said SB 1325 would improve student safety. He said while better mental health screening and more police officers at schools are important, it is also necessary to provide schools with a "self-defense component.''


But Crandall joined with other Republicans to beat back an effort to require that whoever is designated to carry a gun must report to police if the weapon is lost or stolen. That brought derision from Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.
"The only reason that gun owners do not want to report they lost their gun or they misplaced it is because they're too embarrassed,'' Gallardo said. "They don't want people to know that they're an irresponsible firearm holder.''
And Gallardo said that notice of an errant gun really should not be limited to police.
"At the very least, I would believe every parent would want to know that their child is going to a school that may have a gun roaming around,'' he said.
Crandall's legislation needs a final roll-call vote before going to the House.
The measure is limited to schools with fewer than 600 students which also are more than 30 minutes and 20 miles from the closest law enforcement facility. He said the most isolated schools, like those in Crown King and Wikieup are far too far away from anything to be able to depend on prompt police response.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_2733d354-8d0c-11e2-b3bf-001a4bcf887a.html

gresh
03-16-2013, 07:27 AM
Colt shuts plant, workers talk to Conn. lawmakers

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The president of one of the nation's oldest gun manufacturers closed down his Connecticut factory Thursday morning and bused 400 of his workers to the state Capitol so they could personally urge lawmakers not to pass gun control legislation that they say could risk their livelihoods.
Dennis Veilleux, president of the Hartford-based Colt's Manufacturing Co., said even though he has spoken with legislators and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's staff about his trepidations several times, he believes they don't truly understand the financial ramifications of the legislation being proposed in the wake of the deadly Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
State officials have listened to the concerns he and other Connecticut gun company officials have voiced, "but I would say it's more pacifying us," Veilleux said. That's why he decided to rent 10 buses and bring over his first shift workers, plus some second- and third-shift ones, and some suppliers.
"These are the faces of the jobs at Colt," Veilleux said in an interview with The Associated Press while riding on a bus back to the factory. "Each of these people represents other people in the state. They represent the community and, in a lot of cases, they're the breadwinners of their families. And more and more, manufacturing jobs are hard to come by."
Colt has been operating in Connecticut for the past 175 years.
The Colt workers packed the Legislative Office Building, many holding signs that read "Save Our Jobs," as legislative leaders continued to meet behind closed doors, trying to craft a bipartisan response to the school massacre. They're scheduled to meet again on Friday.


http://news.yahoo.com/colt-shuts-plant-workers-talk-113403810.html

PALADIN
03-18-2013, 04:37 PM
UCF believes attack was planned by dead student

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A University of Central Florida drop-out planned an attack on campus but committed suicide in a dorm before carrying it out, authorities said Monday.
Materials found in his dorm room made it appear that 30-year-old James Oliver Seevakumaran planned a wider attack, authorities said a news conference.
Seevakumaran pulled a gun on another student, who then called police, said University of Central Florida Police Chief Richard Beary. He then killed himself with a shot to the head moments later as police officers were responding to the call.
"His timeline got off," Beary said. "We think the rapid response of law enforcement may have changed his ability to think quickly on his feet."
UCF spokesman Grant Heston said the university was in the process of removing Seevakumaran from the dorm before Monday. Four makeshift explosive devices were found in a back pack, and Beary said he believes that Seevakumaran pulled a fire alarm in the dorm to get other students out in the open for an attack.
Seevakumaran's roommates told detectives that he had shown anti-social behavior but had never expressed any violent tendencies, Beary said.
According to Florida records, his only adult arrest in the state was in 2006 for driving with a suspended license. He pleaded no contest. He was fined $105 and assigned court costs of $223.
University police were called to the Tower I building around 12:20 a.m. after a fire alarm went off. Around the same time, the 911 call came in about a man with a gun.
Investigators said they discovered two guns and the makeshift explosives in the room where Seevakumaran was found dead.
About 500 students were evacuated from the building and morning classes were canceled.
Associated Press (http://www.ap.org)

Lugiahua
03-18-2013, 06:11 PM
A fire alarm had gone off less than an hour earlier, and as campus police responded, a 911 call came in reporting a man with a gun, police said. When police went to investigate, they discovered the man’s body as well as a .45 caliber handgun, a .22 caliber tactical weapon and four homemade explosive devices. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition were also found, police said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/18/17359872-student-found-dead-in-florida-dorm-room-planned-campus-attack-police-say?lite

Good this guy killed himself, but...

.22 is now a "tactical weapon"? A new US anti-gun phrase after "Assault Weapon"?
I guess even UK citizens could now own "Tactical Weapons" p-)

Gumiman
03-18-2013, 06:53 PM
.22 is now a "tactical weapon"?
Could be: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?75829-Tac-Ops-Sniper-Rifle

Practical for shooting security cameras, lights, tires, game, ect.

Lugiahua
03-18-2013, 07:07 PM
Could be: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?75829-Tac-Ops-Sniper-Rifle
Practical for shooting security cameras, lights, tires, game, ect.

Actually, NBC facebook page already calls it "assault weapon", while the article says it is a .22

A man found dead in a University of Central Florida dorm room planned a campus attack, police say. Makeshift explosives were discovered in a backpack near the body of James Oliver Seevakumaran (pictured below), officials said. A handgun and an assault weapon were also found in the room.

Death.
03-18-2013, 07:15 PM
Could be: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?75829-Tac-Ops-Sniper-Rifle

Practical for shooting security cameras, lights, tires, game, ect.

Err, not likely.

It's probably a .22lr POS version of an AR15 rifle, and since it looks like an AR15 and is black with a high capacity magazine they added "tactical" into the terminology.


I'd kill myself if I was still in college at 30, too.

Lugiahua
03-18-2013, 07:19 PM
Err, not likely.

It's probably a .22lr POS version of an AR15 rifle, and since it looks like an AR15 and is black with a high capacity magazine they added "tactical" into the terminology.
I'd kill myself if I was still in college at 30, too.

or it could just be a Ruger 10/22 or Savage 64 with a pistol grip stock...we all know media thinks pistol grip = assault weapon = bad guns.

Chiptox
03-18-2013, 07:34 PM
or it could just be a Ruger 10/22 or Savage 64 with a pistol grip stock...we all know media thinks pistol grip = assault weapon = bad guns.
I'm guessing AR-7 survival rifle. It has the scary AR in it's name.

Laconian
03-18-2013, 08:24 PM
Looks like it was the .22 clone of an MP5SD.

TheSandwich
03-19-2013, 11:39 AM
Yeah, according to photos from a press release yesterday it was a GSG-5 pice of s**t and a Hi Point in .45acp(also a piece of s**t). I'm amazed either of them managed to fire.

NeedsABetterName
03-19-2013, 12:18 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/assault-weapon-ban-for-gun-control-loses-steam-89046.html

Feinstein's AWB will not be part of Reid's gun control package. She may or may not add it as an amendment. The universal background checks provision that Schumer offered will probably not be included either, though a watered-down portion may be. Unknown on any mag bans.

Keep watching.

NeedsABetterName
03-19-2013, 12:47 PM
Strange happenings (http://shr.elpasoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/4B024591-8629-4A3B-BD60-83906DD4264B/0/Email_Exchanges_Concerning_the_Salary_Proposal.pdf) from Colorado re: Sheriff pay tied to gun control support. Here (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/03/12/dem-leadership-knows-who-made-sheriff-salary-comment/)'s the Dem spin on it, though surprisingly, they don't out this unknown "individual stating their own opinion."

Remember the days when our opponents had a conscience? Yeah, me neither.

LineDoggie
03-19-2013, 12:58 PM
Strange happenings (http://shr.elpasoco.com/NR/rdonlyres/4B024591-8629-4A3B-BD60-83906DD4264B/0/Email_Exchanges_Concerning_the_Salary_Proposal.pdf) from Colorado re: Sheriff pay tied to gun control support. Here (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/03/12/dem-leadership-knows-who-made-sheriff-salary-comment/)'s the Dem spin on it, though surprisingly, they don't out this unknown "individual stating their own opinion."

Remember the days when our opponents had a conscience? Yeah, me neither.Frank Nitti's got nothing over the Democrats.....

LineDoggie
03-19-2013, 02:23 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Apologies is posted previously

Son poses with .22LR copy of Ar-15, picture on FB. New Jersey Youth Services demand entry to house without warrant to search for gun and threaten to take children.

panzrman
03-19-2013, 02:26 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Apologies is posted previously

Son poses with .22LR copy of Ar-15, picture on FB. New Jersey Youth Services demand entry to house without warrant to search for gun and threaten to take children.

Might be a good thing I don't live in NJ, as I would have all kinds knocking on my door with all the pics I have posted of my kiddos on the range doing more than posing.

panzrman
03-19-2013, 02:28 PM
I'd kill myself if I was still in college at 30, too.

I'm 45, and in college. Should I shoot myself? :)

PALADIN
03-19-2013, 02:34 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Apologies is posted previously

Son poses with .22LR copy of Ar-15, picture on FB. New Jersey Youth Services demand entry to house without warrant to search for gun and threaten to take children.

What in the actual FU**.

riderboy
03-19-2013, 02:43 PM
C'mon guys, seriously?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294225/SWAT-officer-attracts-ridicule-s-pictured-rifle-sight-backwards.html
http://http://i.imgur.com/LrofIRI.jpg
Aimpoint on backwards.
http://http://i.imgur.com/37PmPGv.jpg
Annd magazine in backwards. Tough to do, actually.
http://http://i.imgur.com/lHDcBTO.jpg

California Joe
03-19-2013, 02:53 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Apologies is posted previously

Son poses with .22LR copy of Ar-15, picture on FB. New Jersey Youth Services demand entry to house without warrant to search for gun and threaten to take children.

That is some crazy overzealous ***** right there...Although in the pic it looks like the cops really don't seem to care all that much.

Rattfink
03-19-2013, 02:56 PM
The kid's got trigger discipline.

C.Puffs
03-19-2013, 02:59 PM
That is some crazy overzealous ***** right there...Although in the pic it looks like the cops really don't seem to care all that much.

I didn't know you could just call the cops up and request they come with you when you go to harrass your neighbor. :cantbeli:

Henry's Fork
03-19-2013, 03:08 PM
What in the actual FU**.

Hoplophobes and common sense are like oil and water.

These cops are just lucky as he11 that the father didnt pull a BuckShot Biden when they knocked on the door.

California Joe
03-19-2013, 03:31 PM
I didn't know you could just call the cops up and request they come with you when you go to harrass your neighbor. :cantbeli:

Pretty sure in most states, family services type employees can request police escorts...Which is apparently what she did after she got everyone wound up about "assault weapons" and "child endangerment" etc....

XJ220
03-19-2013, 03:32 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Apologies is posted previously

Son poses with .22LR copy of Ar-15, picture on FB. New Jersey Youth Services demand entry to house without warrant to search for gun and threaten to take children.

Wow that is some scary stuff. The article offers the following citation in part:

New Jersey’s Code of Criminal Justice, specifically, 2C:58-6.1 Possession of firearms by minors; exceptions (http://statutes.laws.com/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-58/2c-58-6-1).
b.No person under the age of 18 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a firearm except as provided under paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection; and, unless authorized in connection with the performance of official duties under the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, no person under the age of 21 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a handgunexcept under the following circumstances:

(1)In the actual presence or under the direct supervision of his father, mother or guardian, or some other person who holds a permit to carry a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, as the case may be; or

______________


If the purported violation of that statute is the basis for the referral, it doesn't make sense. It was the dad who posted the picture of his kid on his (dad's) FB page. One would think he was the picture taker. That being the case, it falls squarely into the excpetion boldfaced above. WTF is the deal here?

C.Puffs
03-19-2013, 03:35 PM
Pretty sure in most states, family services type employees can request police escorts...Which is apparently what she did after she got everyone wound up about "assault weapons" and "child endangerment" etc....

I can see the point from a legal/safety point of view, it just seems like a d1ckish thing to do. Comes across like the nieghborhood busybody sticking their nose into other people's business with the police to assist.

PALADIN
03-19-2013, 03:41 PM
I wonder who the douchebag is that didn't have anything better to do than troll facebook and happen upon the photo in question, and decide to start a sh**storm over it.

bababooey
03-19-2013, 03:46 PM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b8_1363709142

It can happen.

Shermbodius
03-19-2013, 03:56 PM
I wonder who the douchebag is that didn't have anything better to do than troll facebook and happen upon the photo in question, and decide to start a sh**storm over it.
Pretty much. Slow day I guess.

TheSandwich
03-19-2013, 03:56 PM
That is some crazy overzealous ***** right there...One thing you got to remember is that we're talking about a nanny state that bans hollow points for christs sake.

harryc
03-19-2013, 04:40 PM
How f---n retarded - I may not approve of the parenting style, but it is worlds above the non-parenting norm.

(on closer look I don't see anything wrong with the parenting style either)

Laconian
03-19-2013, 04:46 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Apologies is posted previously

Son poses with .22LR copy of Ar-15, picture on FB. New Jersey Youth Services demand entry to house without warrant to search for gun and threaten to take children.

One of the reasons, not to post pics of yourself or others on the net.


I didn't know you could just call the cops up and request they come with you when you go to harrass your neighbor. :cantbeli:

Children & Family Services does it all the times. Not every house is a nice suburban home.


Pretty sure in most states, family services type employees can request police escorts...Which is apparently what she did after she got everyone wound up about "assault weapons" and "child endangerment" etc....

Yup.


Wow that is some scary stuff. The article offers the following citation in part:

New Jersey’s Code of Criminal Justice, specifically, 2C:58-6.1 Possession of firearms by minors; exceptions (http://statutes.laws.com/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-58/2c-58-6-1).
b.No person under the age of 18 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a firearm except as provided under paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection; and, unless authorized in connection with the performance of official duties under the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, no person under the age of 21 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a handgunexcept under the following circumstances:

(1)In the actual presence or under the direct supervision of his father, mother or guardian, or some other person who holds a permit to carry a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, as the case may be; or

______________


If the purported violation of that statute is the basis for the referral, it doesn't make sense. It was the dad who posted the picture of his kid on his (dad's) FB page. One would think he was the picture taker. That being the case, it falls squarely into the excpetion boldfaced above. WTF is the deal here?



Nobody looking at the pic would know whether dad or the responsible adult had either a conceal carry permit or wpn ID card. 'bangers and other thugs post pics of themselves posing with guns all the time. We call that evidence. Was this an over reaction by DYFS, certainly seems like it. On the other hand the guy in the story says the cops were professional.

I liked how the article made an issue that the cops showed up wearing body armor. ****ing really? In most agencies it's mandatory that uniform patrol wears body armor. I wore body armor every day I was in uniform. Off-duty jobs, court, every day. Any smart cop would. I don't care if you work in Mayberry or Fort Apache or South Central, you wear your body armor.

California Joe
03-19-2013, 04:54 PM
That's why I mentioned the pic, those cops seem to have already assessed the situation and figured out that the excitable woman from DYFS was overreacting...

Yeah, mentioning body armor as if it was an abnormality was retarded.

I'm glad that the police were deemed to be "professional" otherwise we'd have a whole different kind of thread going already...

Laconian
03-19-2013, 04:59 PM
That's why I mentioned the pic, those cops seem to have already assessed the situation and figured out that the excitable woman from DYFS was overreacting...

Yeah, mentioning body armor as if it was an abnormality was retarded.

I'm glad that the police were deemed to be "professional" otherwise we'd have a whole different kind of thread going already...

Yeah, the pic had that, "Where you wanna go have dinner at?" vibe.

California Joe
03-19-2013, 05:00 PM
Hahaha yeah, exactly...

Lugiahua
03-19-2013, 05:24 PM
Wow that is some scary stuff. The article offers the following citation in part:

New Jersey’s Code of Criminal Justice, specifically, 2C:58-6.1 Possession of firearms by minors; exceptions (http://statutes.laws.com/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-58/2c-58-6-1).
b.No person under the age of 18 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a firearm except as provided under paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection; and, unless authorized in connection with the performance of official duties under the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, no person under the age of 21 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a handgunexcept under the following circumstances:

(1)In the actual presence or under the direct supervision of his father, mother or guardian, or some other person who holds a permit to carry a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, as the case may be; or

______________


If the purported violation of that statute is the basis for the referral, it doesn't make sense. It was the dad who posted the picture of his kid on his (dad's) FB page. One would think he was the picture taker. That being the case, it falls squarely into the excpetion boldfaced above. WTF is the deal here?




You shouldn't expect some family service employees to know detail of gun laws.
people usually just call police when they weren't sure about it.
(happens a lot on open carriers)

I once had a shotgun locked through the action and bed in my hotel room (which is complete legal). When I return from breakfast, there were five police outside my room because the room service didn't know it was legal.

panzrman
03-19-2013, 05:49 PM
All joking aside from my end, isn't this sort of thing that many people want to see? Police taking an open, investigative preventive action that potentially prevents a tragedy later instead of being merely reactionary to one? Sure seem to be an awful lot of folks who ask "how did this happen, how did this get by the police, why wasn't he stopped sooner?" after such. Didn't realize being clairvoyant was a job prerequisite for law enforcement.

PALADIN
03-19-2013, 05:54 PM
All joking aside from my end, isn't this sort of thing that many people want to see? Police taking an open, investigative preventive action that potentially prevents a tragedy later instead of being merely reactionary to one? Sure seem to be an awful lot of folks who ask "how did this happen, how did this get by the police, why wasn't he stopped sooner?" after such. Didn't realize being clairvoyant was a job prerequisite for law enforcement.

Are you referring to the nutjob that offed himself at that Florida University, or the father whose son posed with the .22LR AR-15?

NeedsABetterName
03-19-2013, 05:56 PM
All joking aside from my end, isn't this sort of thing that many people want to see? Police taking an open, investigative preventive action that potentially prevents a tragedy later instead of being merely reactionary to one? Sure seem to be an awful lot of folks who ask "how did this happen, how did this get by the police, why wasn't he stopped sooner?" after such. Didn't realize being clairvoyant was a job prerequisite for law enforcement.

Yes and no.

I'd like to see people speaking out when there appears to be an actual threat/potential of one. A picture of a child holding his dad's rifle doesn't equate to that. To the best of my knowledge, this picture alone wouldn't even equal to PC for a search.

What happened here looks to be an ignorant tool of a DCS worker seeing a gun, which triggered every alarm in her hoplophobic soccer mom brain. I'd actually describe this as an abuse of power, rather than "what we want to see."

One question I do have:
- Why was Child Services involved in the first place? Was there a history of involvement prior to this, or was she just trolling Facebook looking for the next Dylan Klebold?

XJ220
03-19-2013, 05:59 PM
Yeah, the pic had that, "Where you wanna go have dinner at?" vibe.

I thought the same thing.

Not blaming the police on this one. This does smack of a "guilty until proven innocent" position by DYFS though. Could have been airsoft FFS.

Perhaps the lesson is to not post **** on the Internet, a policy I try to steadfastly adhere to.

gresh
03-19-2013, 06:46 PM
Dear Mr. Ennis,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about gun laws.


We all agree on the need to keep our communities safe. Many Americans responsibly own guns to protect their families and homes, and I recognize the long history and family values associated with hunting and fishing. I believe we must respect our Constitution's second amendment and the rights of responsible gun owners, just as we respect the right to free speech and a fair trial.


As a medical doctor, I know first-hand that we must strengthen our mental health services to better protect our families. I believe we can also protect the rights of responsible gun owners while taking common sense steps to prevent gun violence - steps supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners. We should continue to work together to find a comprehensive set of policies that will both prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, and preserve the 2nd Amendment for responsible owners.


I respect your views on this complicated issue. This is just the beginning of a long-overdue conversation, but where we must take a comprehensive approach to protect both our Constitution and our children.


I remain optimistic that we can make Congress work for the American people and find common ground to move our country forward.


Be Well,




Ami Bera, M.D.
Member of Congress

*eye twitch*

Dan2004
03-19-2013, 09:55 PM
Piers Morgan and Michael Moore just threw a joint tantrum on CNN. I decided to ***** and clean my M4 and do a gear inspection and watch these yammering collectivist ninnies.

panzrman
03-19-2013, 11:17 PM
Are you referring to the nutjob that offed himself at that Florida University, or the father whose son posed with the .22LR AR-15?

More towards the kid holding the rifle, but in general I refer to the uproar we often here from people when bad things happen. Usually the crowd that bestows upon you guys the derogatory names, but yet you guys are the first they call for when the brown stuff hits the fan. The kinds who scream police state, fascists, etc.. when cops are being proactive and investigating but yet scream in wonder of why or how bad guys were "allowed" to commit the horrific crimes because no one caught on to the perp before he committed the act.

gresh
03-19-2013, 11:41 PM
NY considers changes in new gun control law

ALBANY, N.Y. — Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders are considering changes in New York's new gun control law involving the new limit of seven bullets in magazines.


Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says leaders are discussing returning to a 10-bullet limit, which is standard in the industry that doesn't make seven-bullet magazines.


Soon after, Cuomo said no such proposal was discussed in the closed-door meeting with Silver and other legislative leaders.


Instead, Cuomo says changes are being considered to allow the purchase of 10-bullet magazines. But the law would still prohibit more than seven bullets in magazines except at shooting ranges and in competitions.


http://online.wsj.com/article/AP36cf63a169e74b188dd285dc97acd5f8.html

Spartan10k
03-19-2013, 11:50 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP36cf63a169e74b188dd285dc97acd5f8.html
Do they even know what the Hell they're doing up there?

NeedsABetterName
03-19-2013, 11:52 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP36cf63a169e74b188dd285dc97acd5f8.html

Very generous. New Yorkers should applaud their benevolence.

gresh
03-20-2013, 12:02 AM
Do they even know what the Hell they're doing up there?
Is that a rhetorical question?

Spartan10k
03-20-2013, 12:03 AM
Is that a rhetorical question?
Delete.

Didn't have my glasses on and I swore your reply said theoretical instead of rhetorical. :)

Lugiahua
03-20-2013, 12:42 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP36cf63a169e74b188dd285dc97acd5f8.html

They afraid that their laws got toss out by the Supreme Court, hence the change.
Since no one is making 7 round magazines, that would make most guns useless/illegal in NY, which is bluntly unconstitutional (banning common guns for self defense) according to Heller v. DC.

TheSandwich
03-20-2013, 01:06 AM
10-bullet limit, which is standard in the industryIt says industry standard but also says 10rds. Did they make a typo trying to write 30 or what? IDGI.

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 01:46 AM
They afraid that their laws got toss out by the Supreme Court, hence the change.
Since no one is making 7 round magazines, that would make most guns useless/illegal in NY, which is bluntly unconstitutional (banning common guns for self defense) according to Heller v. DC.

That's what I think is going on. An assault weapons ban has not yet been tested at the Supreme Court. Tactically, it's better to point out that "hey, other people have done this for years." I think at least some of what they've got (getting rid of >10 mags, for example) would almost certainly be thrown out under ex post facto, however.

I only hope that this stuff gets pushed through RFN, as opposed to down the line; remember, four of the nine justices on the Court don't even believe we have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Four more years and several near-retirement judges almost certainly spell another Sotomayor or two.

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 02:43 AM
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1293474!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/dailynewsfront-0320.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/assault-weapons-ban-dropped-gun-package-article-1.1292862#bmb=1

People used their First Amendment rights to defend their Second Amendment rights, to the point that Reid was afraid an AWB would taint a broader gun control package. What a crying shame.

These cowards will never learn...

thounaojamtom
03-20-2013, 08:26 AM
The ruddy-cheeked, camouflage-clad boy in the photo smiles out from behind a pair of glasses, proudly holding a gun his father gave him as a present for his upcoming 11th birthday.


The weapon in the photo, posted by his dad on Facebook, resembles a military-style assault rifle but, his father says, is actually just a .22-caliber copy. And that, the family believes, is why child welfare case workers and police officers visited the home in Carneys Point last Friday and asked to see his guns.


New Jersey's Department of Children and Families declined to comment specifically on the case but says it often follows up on tips. The family and an attorney say father Shawn Moore's Second Amendment rights to bear arms were threatened in a state that already has some of the nation's strictest gun laws and is considering strengthening them after December's schoolhouse massacre in Connecticut.


In this case, the family believes someone called New Jersey's anonymous child abuse hot line.


Shawn Moore said he gave his son Josh the gun as a present to use on hunting trips. The elder Moore was at a friend's house when his wife called, saying state child welfare investigators, along with four local police officers, were at the house, asking to inspect the family's guns.


Moore said he called his lawyer Evan Nappen, who specializes in Second Amendment cases, and had him on speaker phone as he arrived at his house in Carneys Point, just across the Delaware River from Wilmington, Del.


"They said they wanted to see into my safe and see if my guns were registered," Moore said. "I said no; in New Jersey, your guns don't have to be registered with the state; it's voluntary. I knew once I opened that safe, there was no going back."


With the lawyer listening in on the phone, Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave. One of the child welfare officials would not identify herself when Moore asked for her name, he said.


The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.


"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."


State child welfare spokeswoman Kristine Brown said that when it receives a report of suspected abuse of neglect, it assigns a caseworker to follow up. She said law enforcement officers are asked to accompany caseworkers only if the caseworkers feel their safety could be compromised.


"It's the caseworker's call," she said. "It is important to note the way an investigation begins is through the child abuse hotline. Someone has to call to let us know there is a concern."


Carneys Point Police Chief Robert DiGregorio did not answer a call late today to his office, which said only he would be able to comment.
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1113/7a3u2uzu.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/7a3u2uzu.jpg/)


News source:http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/nj_family_facebook_photo_of_bo.html
picture source:http://deloc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8175
Looking at the shell ejection port, the cops should have been able to figured it out.

IconOfEvi
03-20-2013, 08:48 AM
So much child abuse there, lock up his parents for life and throw away the key, and for good measure send him to California to be adopted by some obviously loving liberal parents

FlintHillBilly
03-20-2013, 08:53 AM
I do believe this article was posted in the larger thread of American Gun Laws etc.

Xaito
03-20-2013, 09:05 AM
a gun his father gave him as a present for his upcoming 11th birthday

Are children allowed to have weapons? If not, then they were right to go and check. Weapons aren't toys.


They said they wanted to see into my safe and see if my guns were registered," Moore said. "I said no; in New Jersey, your guns don't have to be registered with the state; it's voluntary. [...] Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave. [...]

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

[...] If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."
where does the tyranny come into this?

TG211
03-20-2013, 09:13 AM
Kid learnt finger discipline, that should tell them he's responsible and that his parents explained him decently in gun care.

Spartan10k
03-20-2013, 09:15 AM
Are children allowed to have weapons? If not, then they were right to go and check. Weapons aren't toys.
Technically no, but actually yes with their parents permission. We live in such a pussified society now. My grandfather bought a Winchester Model 37 shotgun out of a Sears catalogue when he was 12 years old with his own money, and no background checks.

Flagg
03-20-2013, 09:26 AM
Technically no, but actually yes with their parents permission. We live in such a pussified society now. My grandfather bought a Winchester Model 37 shotgun out of a Sears catalogue when he was 12 years old with his own money, and no background checks.

My grandfather bought me my first firearm, without telling my parents, when I was 6.....best Christmas ever.

I still remember the look of horror on my parents faces and Pops laughing and smiling.

Locked up properly of course, unless shooting under supervision.

If Pops were alive today, he would probably call 90% of the general population a bunch of frightened sissies.

Which coming from him, would be a thousand times worse than being called a weak p*ssy.

My boys got their first shared Anschutz 22 sigle shot bolt action when they were 5 and 6 respectively. :)

Troubadour
03-20-2013, 09:52 AM
I hate people so much. Calling the cops because the child is holding a gun. Jesus...

JCR
03-20-2013, 09:55 AM
In NJ I expect 11 year olds to pose with far worse ;)

sgt_G
03-20-2013, 10:11 AM
where does the tyranny come into this?

There's this funny thing in America called the 4th amendment...

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 11:03 AM
Are children allowed to have weapons? If not, then they were right to go and check. Weapons aren't toys.


where does the tyranny come into this?

Yes, because a picture posted on a father's Facebook (note: not some sixteen year-old taking thug pictures of himself with a borrowed Hi Point and $34 in assorted small bills) gives PC for an unwarranted search of a man's property and threats of further social services involvement (to include the removal of custody rights of the child). Child services was definitely in the right here.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1113/7a3u2uzu.jpg

is just as bad as this:

http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/constrain/500/500/80/2012/12/12/12/7a/na/po0uhflfk0.jpg

Actually, the first one is worse. He has an assault weapon provided by is father, which obviously makes him the next Dylan Klebold wannabe.

Spartan10k
03-20-2013, 11:19 AM
Just got an update from my AP app that the Colorado governor just signed that magazine limiting bill into law....

Rattfink
03-20-2013, 11:21 AM
Just got an update from my AP app that the Colorado governor just signed that magazine limiting bill into law....

Brace yourselves Colorado...for no measurable impact on crime.

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 11:34 AM
Just got an update from my AP app that the Colorado governor just signed that magazine limiting bill into law....

Any word on Magpul?

Edit, nevermind:


Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said:

We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees.

It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.

Statement from them posted Monday.

Spartan10k
03-20-2013, 11:41 AM
So they're going to go through with it then. Good. That should give the anti-2nd Amendment nutters something to think about.

Looks like magpul's Facebook page is being inundated with sympathetic comments, and lobbying efforts to get magpul to come to x or y state. :)

Laconian
03-20-2013, 11:49 AM
Yes, because a picture posted on a father's Facebook (note: not some sixteen year-old taking thug pictures of himself with a borrowed Hi Point and $34 in assorted small bills) gives PC for an unwarranted search of a man's property and threats of further social services involvement (to include the removal of custody rights of the child). Child services was definitely in the right here.

{Photo}
is just as bad as this:

{Photo}

Actually, the first one is worse. He has an assault weapon provided by is father, which obviously makes him the next Dylan Klebold wannabe.

But there was no warrantless search in this case. The social worker and the cops showed up. The wife allowed them entry to the residence, and texted her husband who returned home. They asked him to open the gun safe; he declined. He had access to an attorney during the encounter. They explained their position and requested to see the guns; he declined. They left. There was no search; there was no trampling of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 2nd or any other amendment.

Corrupt
03-20-2013, 11:49 AM
There's this funny thing in America called the 4th amendment...

If I read the piece right, they asked to look in his safe, the homeowner said no and the officers left when they were refused a peek, which indicates they can't "just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house"

Lac beat me to it and said the same thing more eloquently. Apparantly I'm learning a bit about how 'Murica works on this forum woot

Shermbodius
03-20-2013, 11:49 AM
So they're going to go through with it then. Good. That should give the anti-2nd Amendment nutters something to think about.

Looks like magpul's Facebook page is being inundated with sympathetic comments, and lobbying efforts to get magpul to come to x or y state. :)Good on Magpul. Great to hear that they are going through with this.woot

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 11:59 AM
But there was no warrantless search in this case. The social worker and the cops showed up. The wife allowed them entry to the residence, and texted her husband who returned home. They asked him to open the gun safe; he declined. He had access to an attorney during the encounter. They explained their position and requested to see the guns; he declined. They left. There was no search; there was no trampling of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 2nd or any other amendment.

You're correct. I guess this is what you would call a "knock and talk."

However, if we go back to his original statement (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/):


They had no warrant, no charges, nothing. I didn’t budge. I was told I was being “unreasonable” and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe. Told me they were gonna get a search warrant. Told em go ahead. Nappen (my lawyer) asked me for the dyfs workers name. she wouldnt give it. i asked for credentials and she wouldnt show em. i tried to take a pic of her and she turned around real fast and walked away. After a while of them threatening to take my kids, get warrants and intimidation they left. Empty handed and seeing nothing.

I'm still not seeing any reasonable justification for her (the case worker's) threats or intimidation. Even with the NJ law requiring that a minor in possession of a firearm be accompanied by a responsible adult, I'm still failing to see how this even warranted an investigation (the picture was on his dad's Facebook. Is it standard to post pictures of your kids doing illegal ***** on Facebook?). A modicum of common sense on the part of DYCS would have said "this is a waste of time." Judging from their posture, it looks like the LEOs caught on to that pretty quickly.

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 12:01 PM
If I read the piece right, they asked to look in his safe, the homeowner said no and the officers left when they were refused a peek, which indicates they can't "just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house"

Lac beat me to it and said the same thing more eloquently. Apparantly I'm learning a bit about how 'Murica works on this forum woot

From the case worker's alleged statements, it certainly would appear that she thinks she has that ability.

Laconian
03-20-2013, 12:27 PM
You're correct. I guess this is what you would call a "knock and talk."

I wouldn't call it a 'knock & talk'; more like 'assist other agency.' Knock and talks are LE in nature and nothing in this incident (as reported) leads me to believe this was an LE op. Rather, the social worker went out there and asked for the PD to accompany her in case. This is a pretty common occurrence, state agency folks with non-police powers ask cops to assist at a location.


However, if we go back to his original statement (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/):



I'm still not seeing any reasonable justification for her (the case worker's) threats or intimidation. Even with the NJ law requiring that a minor in possession of a firearm be accompanied by a responsible adult, I'm still failing to see how this even warranted an investigation (the picture was on his dad's Facebook. Is it standard to post pictures of your kids doing illegal ***** on Facebook?). A modicum of common sense on the part of DYCS would have said "this is a waste of time." Judging from their posture, it looks like the LEOs caught on to that pretty quickly.

I have been on calls with DYCS people. They tend to be be aggressive in child safety matters, mainly because if they blow something the hue and cry that they should have known better is thrown out there pretty quickly. I'm not agreeing or supporting the mind set, I just recognize it from having worked around them.

XJ220
03-20-2013, 12:40 PM
Laconian is correct on all fronts. However, I would wager that many citizens (that aren't a certified gun instructor for the NRA) when, confronted with 4 police officers and officials from a State Agency demanding warrantless access accompanied by threats, may well comply out of intimidation or otherwise. On one hand, needless compliance would be out of their own ignorance of the law, so their own fault. On the other hand, it is disappointing to see a state actor, acting under the color of law and accompanied by LE, demanding unconstitutional access, leveraging such access on the potential ignorance of the citizen involved as opposed to any legal justification.

C.Puffs
03-20-2013, 12:46 PM
Laconian is correct on all fronts. However, I would wager that many citizens (that aren't a certified gun instructor for the NRA) when, confronted with 4 police officers and officials from a State Agency demanding warrantless access accompanied by threats, may well comply out of intimidation or otherwise. On one hand, needless compliance would be out of their own ignorance of the law, so their own fault. On the other hand, it is disappointing to see a state actor, acting under the color of law and accompanied by LE, demanding unconstitutional access, leveraging such access on the potential ignorance of the citizen involved as opposed to any legal justification.


This. Just because the citizen doesn't know their rights how does it make an illegal search legal?

Rattfink
03-20-2013, 12:51 PM
I know this has been posted before but I'm going to remind folks that communicating with your elected officials is still relevant and important.
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

I did this last night and have found I recieved prompt and encouraging replies from most of my reps.

Laconian
03-20-2013, 12:51 PM
This. Just because the citizen doesn't know their rights how does it make an illegal search legal?

What illegal search?

And there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule; so there are instances in which evidence, obtained illegally is still allowed to be offered as evidence.

But none of that happened here. There was no search.

XJ220
03-20-2013, 12:59 PM
What illegal search?

And there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule; so there are instances in which evidence, obtained illegally is still allowed to be offered as evidence.

But none of that happened here. There was no search.

I understand what you are saying. No search because the state agency's demands were denied here. If the person had consented to an otherwise illegal search, it is then transformed into a legal search due to consent.

In these circumstances, fishing expedition comes to mind.

California Joe
03-20-2013, 01:01 PM
If I ask you if I can search, and you say yes, then it is legal...

Rattfink
03-20-2013, 01:09 PM
What illegal search?

And there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule; so there are instances in which evidence, obtained illegally is still allowed to be offered as evidence.

But none of that happened here. There was no search.

I believe you 100%. But it still rubs people. I would like to know what the officers said to his wife before he arrived. Did they say "We would like..." or did they say "We need to.." or "We are going to.."

The SCOTUS says police are allowed to lie and misrepresent in order to find information (The courts have drawn the line on anything bordering on coercion). Sadly, most of us are not legal/ law enforcement experts as it is commonly pointed out on this forum so if folks in the situation this mother found herself in I would understand if she was very frustrated trying to know if she has to call a LEO's bluff to protect her rights, or if there will be serious legal repercussions for not cooperating.

But then again for all I know she invited them in for tea.


If I ask you if I can search, and you say yes, then it is legal...
Someone please correct me if I am wrong but if they say "I have to.." or "I am going to.." giving an illusion of no choice and you don't stop them, its also legal.

Laconian
03-20-2013, 01:12 PM
I understand what you are saying. No search because the state agency's demands were denied here. If the person had consented to an otherwise illegal search, it is then transformed into a legal search due to consent.

In these circumstances, fishing expedition comes to mind.

Yes and there is absolutley nothing illegal about it. Consent searches require no warrant and no PC, there is absolutley nothing illegal or underhanded about them. I've done quite a few consent searches and the ones where we actually got stuff were scrutinized by the prosecution and judges to make sure the consent was knowingly and freely given. I can't think of any I lost.

Just look at how many people consent to making a statement after being given the Miranda warnings. We tell you not to talk to us. We tell you that if you do talk to us, we're going to use any and everything you tell us against you. We tell you if you talk to us (even after we told you not to) you can stop talking whenever you want. We tell you to get an attorney, who will tell you not to talk to us; and if you don't have an attorney to tell you not to talk to us, we'll pay for an attorney to come in and tell you to not talk to us. We then ask if you understand everything we told you that tells you not to talk to us. Then we ask if you want to talk to us and you agree. And sign a paper that says we told you not to talk to us and you want to anyway. And somehow it's my fault you confess?

XJ220
03-20-2013, 01:26 PM
Yes and there is absolutley nothing illegal about it. Consent searches require no warrant and no PC, there is absolutley nothing illegal or underhanded about them. I've done quite a few consent searches and the ones where we actually got stuff were scrutinized by the prosecution and judges to make sure the consent was knowingly and freely given. I can't think of any I lost.

Just look at how many people consent to making a statement after being given the Miranda warnings. We tell you not to talk to us. We tell you that if you do talk to us, we're going to use any and everything you tell us against you. We tell you if you talk to us (even after we told you not to) you can stop talking whenever you want. We tell you to get an attorney, who will tell you not to talk to us; and if you don't have an attorney to tell you not to talk to us, we'll pay for an attorney to come in and tell you to not talk to us. We then ask if you understand everything we told you that tells you not to talk to us. Then we ask if you want to talk to us and you agree. And sign a paper that says we told you not to talk to us and you want to anyway. And somehow it's my fault you confess?

Not laying blame at all. There are plenty of legal tactics to induce a citizen to light their constitutional rights on fire. It is the citizen's job to apprise themselves of their rights.

My opinion is that unknowingly waiving these rights disproportionately occurs among those with low socio-economic standing due to lack of education and/or access to a legal counsel.

NeedsABetterName
03-20-2013, 01:27 PM
I have been on calls with DYCS people. They tend to be be aggressive in child safety matters, mainly because if they blow something the hue and cry that they should have known better is thrown out there pretty quickly. I'm not agreeing or supporting the mind set, I just recognize it from having worked around them.

Since you've worked with them:

What authority does DYCS have to conduct an investigation? I assume they don't have police powers (hence the presence of uniformed LEOs). I guess what I'm asking is, how do they get from an anonymous tip to being able to knock on doors and be all aggressive? Does there have to be any independent evidence of wrongdoing?

It legitimately seems to me that the worker here, ignorant of the laws that she was dealing with, heard the words "gun" and "child" next to each other, flipped her *****, and went on to "aggressively" harass somebody without any real evidence of wrongdoing (for the children, of course). The probes about cataloging/registering the man's firearms are concerning -- she's coming across as either very ignorant of the law or intentionally misrepresenting it (for what purpose, I'm still not sure).

C.Puffs
03-20-2013, 01:38 PM
If I ask you if I can search, and you say yes, then it is legal...3

As others have pointed out, the presence of the police, how they may have presented themselves, etc. may leave the person at the door with the impression that they don't have a choice. If they didn't know that saying "no" was an option, and let them in to perform their search, how is that any different effectively than a warrantless search? Sure, you have the letter of the law saying "it's legal" but it seems pretty damned heavy-handed to me.

Laconian
03-20-2013, 01:47 PM
I have no idea what is necessary for NJ DYCS folks to initiate an investigation; whether an anonymous complaint or sworn affadavit. I have no idea if anyone did any research before they went out or what databases the agency even has access to (i.e. the NJSP maintain a record of who possesses a state firearms ID card). Most people (state workers or not) think firearms are registered because they filled out a 4473 when they bought the gun or that it was their dad's/grandpa's, etc. gun and it was legally owned so it must be registered. Most people (and many in LE) don't know every law on the books of their states in regard to firearms.

I'm not justifying any of what happened. I think it was an overeaction by this investigator, but it's NJ - the place has very strict gun laws. All of this could have been avoided if the pic wasn't posted on FaceBook. You took a cool pic of your kid with a rifle, cool. E-mail it to whom you want to show it to. You put it out there in the cyber universe, and voila.

XJ220
03-20-2013, 02:01 PM
All of this could have been avoided if the pic wasn't posted on FaceBook. You took a cool pic of your kid with a rifle, cool. E-mail it to whom you want to show it to. You put it out there in the cyber universe, and voila.


Pretty much where I come out on this one.

Laconian
03-20-2013, 02:02 PM
3

As others have pointed out, the presence of the police, how they may have presented themselves, etc. may leave the person at the door with the impression that they don't have a choice. If they didn't know that saying "no" was an option, and let them in to perform their search, how is that any different effectively than a warrantless search? Sure, you have the letter of the law saying "it's legal" but it seems pretty damned heavy-handed to me.

You're starting to aggravate me. If this had been some picture of a thug holding the exact same rifle, but flashing gansta signs and when the cops went over there they found an indoor meth lab and a couple of pit bulls munching on a femur. It would all be okay. In fact, we'd all be e-high-fiving ourselves that a bad guy got caught. But it wasn't a thug posting a pic on his facebook page, it was some gun-stroke from NJ letting his kid get his picture took. And a complaint is made. And then the complaint is investigated (which is really what is supposed to happen with complaints). And yes, the DYCS investigator knows jack squat about gun laws and asks (demands?) to see all the guns. And she is denied. And the cops (who showed up in body armor of all things) do nothing. And nothing illegal happens; nobody is charged; no property seized; no kids wrenched away from there loving parents and suburban home.

But because the cops followed the letter of the law, by not taking/seizing/arresting/searching anybody or anything, it seems heavy handed to you? You've got to be kidding me.

C.Puffs
03-20-2013, 02:52 PM
You're starting to aggravate me. If this had been some picture of a thug holding the exact same rifle, but flashing gansta signs and when the cops went over there they found an indoor meth lab and a couple of pit bulls munching on a femur. It would all be okay. In fact, we'd all be e-high-fiving ourselves that a bad guy got caught. But it wasn't a thug posting a pic on his facebook page, it was some gun-stroke from NJ letting his kid get his picture took. And a complaint is made. And then the complaint is investigated (which is really what is supposed to happen with complaints). And yes, the DYCS investigator knows jack squat about gun laws and asks (demands?) to see all the guns. And she is denied. And the cops (who showed up in body armor of all things) do nothing. And nothing illegal happens; nobody is charged; no property seized; no kids wrenched away from there loving parents and suburban home.

But because the cops followed the letter of the law, by not taking/seizing/arresting/searching anybody or anything, it seems heavy handed to you? You've got to be kidding me.

I'd have hoped all parties in question would have the sense to recognize the difference between a "gun wielding thug flashing gangsta signs" and a little kid having his picture taken by his dad. YMMV.

Lugiahua
03-20-2013, 05:09 PM
Just wondering,
how can a social workers refuse to show any credential or names when requested? I am pretty sure police have to badge if asked.
without proper credential, how could people even sure they are legit, not some home invaders impersonating?

Lugiahua
03-20-2013, 05:16 PM
Are children allowed to have weapons? If not, then they were right to go and check. Weapons aren't toys.
where does the tyranny come into this?

I am pretty sure in all states, children are allow to use firearm under supervision of an adult.
Some states actually allows minors to possess firearms transferred from parents

how can one even tell just by one picture, that was a real rifle, not some non-firing replica? Or if the picture was shot in NJ, not in other states?

Hell, I shot guns first time in the age of 14...and it was in New Zealand.

FlintHillBilly
03-20-2013, 08:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MikFuMyrKfU

What in the ****? How both of them still get air time boggles my mind. :roll:

riderboy
03-20-2013, 09:16 PM
Colorado Dem. Gov. John Hickenlooper signed new gun control measures into law today. The democrat controlled legislature had passed the measures without a single Republican vote. More here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/colo-governor-to-sign-lan_n_2914925.html

Ratamacue
03-20-2013, 10:51 PM
Colorado Dem. Gov. John Hickenlooper signed new gun control measures into law today. The democrat controlled legislature had passed the measures without a single Republican vote. More here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/colo-governor-to-sign-lan_n_2914925.htmlThe Dems are seriously going to feel the hurt in Colorado in the 2014 elections.

gresh
03-20-2013, 11:46 PM
New York State Sets Up Gun Snitch Line With $500 Award

New York State is now offering $500 to people who snitch on gun owners.
Menrec has the story.


And, The Troy Record also has news on the tip line on their Facebook page – It is real. There is actually someone there to take your tips… So that state officials can come take your guns.


NY State has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip then contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500.


This is like something you’d read about in China or Cuba, not America.


Pat Bailey from CBS6 has more on the snitch line.


A program aimed at rewarding people who blow the whistle on illegal gun owners has yet to show significant results, says three police agencies in the New York.


In February of 2012, 11 months before the passage of the NY SAFE Act, Governor Cuomo’s office announced a four ****ged initiative to curb gun violence. One of the programs was a cash reward for citizens who lead police to the arrest and confiscation of illegal fire arms.



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/new-york-state-sets-up-gun-snitch-line/

I've heard of Crime Stoppers, but what the ****?

James
03-21-2013, 12:25 AM
From the case worker's alleged statements, it certainly would appear that she thinks she has that ability.

In the original article, the father said he thought someone called the child abuse hot line. In many (maybe all) States, this triggers an automatic investigation. Regardless, the social worker and police showed up, dad got home, they asked to inspect his safe, and he said no. They accused him of being unreasonable and acting suspicious, and he stood his ground. The social worker and cops left, no one was hurt. Based on the article it does sound like the social worker and perhaps the cops were trying to intimidate the father, but kudos to him for knowing his rights and putting his foot down.

This really is how our legal system is supposed to work.

James
03-21-2013, 12:31 AM
This. Just because the citizen doesn't know their rights how does it make an illegal search legal?

If you give up your rights and agree to the search, it isn't illegal.

C.Puffs
03-21-2013, 09:23 AM
If you give up your rights and agree to the search, it isn't illegal.

If you don't know you have the right to say no what's the difference? I'm not talking legally, obviously it's "legal" that's never been a question. People trust that government entities won't abuse their power though and assume if they're there for a search they have to comply. I know ten years ago if cops had showed up at my door wanting to look around I'd have assumed they had the right, and let them, whether they had a warrant or not. What's to keep law enforcement/government from abusing that trust? Personally I think there ought to be something like a Miranda ANY time citizens are approached like that. Something as simple as "you don't have to let us in but we'd like to take a look around because "X" if it's okay with you" would go a long way. Maybe I expect too much though.

Laconian
03-21-2013, 11:25 AM
In the various local, state and federal jurisdictions I have worked LEOs that conduct consent searches inform the person of their right not to consent to the search, advise that if consent is given it can be pulled at any time and sign a form or declaration saying they have been advised of their rights and that they still consent to the search. I have seen countless numbers of people sign the form knowing there is eveidence that the cops will find. Also, in every one of those jurisdiction that consent is scrutinized by the prosecutor, the defense counsel and a judge to ensure the consent was properly given and waived. Cops aren't running around willy-nilly conducting warrantless searches or even consent searches w/o scrutiny.

If you're not smart enough to know that w/o a search warrant the cops need permission to search you or your premises (there are certain execptions where warrantless searches are completely legal) and after you are told by an LEO that you have the right to refuse a search but agree and sign a form giving up that right, the burden is no longer on the LEO but on you. Miranda attaches at a certain point, not before. Every encounter with LE does not warrant Miranda.

What you ought to do, C. Puffs, is actually learn what LE is expected to do and compare that to what is being done, vs. pontificating about what ought to be according to your apparent very limited knowledge and unlimited opinion.

harryc
03-21-2013, 11:33 AM
If you don't know you have the right to say no what's the difference? I'm not talking legally, obviously it's "legal" that's never been a question. People trust that government entities won't abuse their power though and assume if they're there for a search they have to comply. I know ten years ago if cops had showed up at my door wanting to look around I'd have assumed they had the right, and let them, whether they had a warrant or not. What's to keep law enforcement/government from abusing that trust? Personally I think there ought to be something like a Miranda ANY time citizens are approached like that. Something as simple as "you don't have to let us in but we'd like to take a look around because "X" if it's okay with you" would go a long way. Maybe I expect too much though.

The classic exchange from my teenage years was "You can give us permission to search your vehicle, or we can book you and then search it - your choice" we quickly learned that you can ALWAYS be booked for something.

C.Puffs
03-21-2013, 11:34 AM
In the various local, state and federal jurisdictions I have worked LEOs that conduct consent searches inform the person of their right not to consent to the search, advise that if consent is given it can be pulled at any time and sign a form or declaration saying they have been advised of their rights and that they still consent to the search.

Great. That obviously didn't happen here or they wouldn't have needed to get the lawyer on the phone to intervene.

"With the lawyer listening in on the phone, Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave. One of the child welfare officials would not identify herself when Moore asked for her name, he said."

If they'd already informed the home owner that they didn't have to allow a search why the need to ask if they had a warrant?



If you're not smart enough to know that w/o a search warrant the cops need permission to search you or your premises (there are certain execptions where warrantless searches are completely legal) and after you are told by an LEO that you have the right to refuse a search but agree and sign a form giving up that right, the burden is no longer on the LEO but on you. Miranda attaches at a certain point, not before. Every encounter with LE does not warrant Miranda.

Again, putting words in my mouth that were never said. If they were told in this instance they could refuse the search why the need to get the lawyer involved?


What you ought to do, C. Puffs, is actually learn what LE is expected to do and compare that to what is being done, vs. pontificating about what ought to be according to your apparent very limited knowledge and unlimited opinion.

Way to read in more than I said. Furthermore, if they ALREADY DO what I suggested, why get bent out of shape over it? Honestly, you'd think it was asking the world to hope for considerate, clear, law enforcement. Why get so defensive about it?

riderboy
03-21-2013, 12:23 PM
The classic exchange from my teenage years was "You can give us permission to search your vehicle, or we can book you and then search it - your choice" we quickly learned that you can ALWAYS be booked for something.

Yes, the difference between the real and the ideal.

shuredgefan
03-21-2013, 06:04 PM
Colt's Manufacturing, the company that has made the iconic gun dubbed "The Peacemaker" for more than a century, could pull up its Connecticut stakes after coming under fire in the national debate over the Second Amendment.

President and CEO Dennis Veilleux said the pro-gun control climate that has taken hold in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre and other firearm attacks has left him feeling unwelcome in the state his company has called home for 175 years. Proposed laws being debated by the Legislature and pushed by Gov. Dannel Malloy include a new gun offender registry, an expanded assault weapons ban, ammunition restrictions and a ban on bulk purchases of handguns. Veilleux said those measures have put Colt and its nearly 700 employees in the crosshairs.

“At some point, if you can’t sell your products … then you can’t run your business," Veilleux told FoxNews.com. "You need customers to buy your products to stay in business.”

...

Veilleux, 47, said Colt is “constantly approached” by other states to relocate. Several red state governors have made no secret of the fact they covet firearms makers, an industry that by some measures contributes $1.7 billion annually to Connecticut's economy.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/colt-ceo-says-no-definite-plans-to-stay-or-flee-connecticut-amid-gun/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2ODLSok00

Wouldn't be surprised if other gun companies move out of New England.

C.Puffs
03-21-2013, 06:13 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if other gun companies move out of New England.

It would be the height of hypocrisy for the pols who passed the laws to try to keep them in state. They don't want those evil black rifles but they damn sure want the money they bring in.

Shermbodius
03-21-2013, 06:16 PM
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the pols who passed the laws to try to keep them in state. They don't want those evil black rifles but they damn sure want the money they bring in.
That is exactly the point. The Pols are just parasites.

Ratamacue
03-21-2013, 06:20 PM
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the pols who passed the laws to try to keep them in state. They don't want those evil black rifles but they damn sure want the money they bring in.That's exactly what happened in Colorado. When Magpul approached Gov. Hickenlooper and Democratic leaders to tell them that passing a magazine ban would force them to leave Colorado and take their $85 million business with them, the response was "Oh, that's no problem, we'll just add a clause to allow manufacturers to stay in the state. Of course, you won't be able to sell to Colorado residents and you'll have to serialize all magazines you manufacture henceforth..." Now that the bill has passed and been signed by the Governor, Magpul is making arrangements to move elsewhere.

But it's okay, because you know, the children and all.

shuredgefan
03-21-2013, 06:47 PM
The Senate’s upcoming vote on the assault weapons ban is going to put vulnerable Democrats in a difficult spot.

Democrats facing tough reelection races will either attract the ire of the National Rifle Association or prominent gun control activists such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I). A vote against the ban could spark primary challenges that could weaken Democrats in the general election.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week decided to remove the ban from firearms legislation scheduled for the floor. However, he has promised Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) a floor vote on her assault weapons amendment.

Reid said Tuesday the proposal would not muster 40 votes, and interviews with rank-and-file lawmakers show that seems accurate.
A wave of Democratic defections on the assault weapons ban would not sit well with gun-control and liberal advocacy groups. They warn Democratic senators who vote to kill one of President Obama’s biggest priorities will suffer political repercussions.




Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/289459-vulnerable-senators-face-lose-lose-scenario-on-assault-weapons-vote#ixzz2ODVfT5PM
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=thehill) | TheHill on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=TheHill)


The AWB only getting 40 votes! woot

Anyone know how many solid votes the mag ban has?

If the worst laws are shot down, maybe gun, mag and ammo (especially ammo!) prices will return to normal levels.

Inspector Clusoe
03-21-2013, 07:18 PM
That is exactly the point. The Pols are just parasites.



The two phrases that should not exist:
Career Criminal
Career Politician.
That is, if you can tell the difference.

riderboy
03-21-2013, 09:04 PM
The AWB only getting 40 votes! woot

Anyone know how many solid votes the mag ban has?

If the worst laws are shot down, maybe gun, mag and ammo (especially ammo!) prices will return to normal levels.
I don't know, but I don't trust any of those bastards. It is interesting how the gun control issue has settled pretty solidly in the democrat base. Im '94, there was a good mix of democrats and republicans on both sides, doesn't seem to be that way now, with obvious exceptions on the republican side. The misleading, false and Oscar worthy dramatic performances for banning guns and magazines seem to be almost all democrats.

commanding
03-21-2013, 09:26 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if other gun companies move out of New England. I sure would welcome Colt firearms to set up their shop in the state of Texas...I am quite sure that tax incentives on land, eager workforce, low cost of living and year round good weather would enhance their employees outlook on life. And the govt. of Texas is very friendly to guns and gun makers and gun owners.

Rattfink
03-21-2013, 09:32 PM
I sure would welcome Colt firearms to set up their shop in the state of Texas...I am quite sure that tax incentives on land, eager workforce, low cost of living and year round good weather would enhance their employees outlook on life. And the govt. of Texas is very friendly to guns and gun makers and gun owners.

you sure have a funny definition of good weather ;) There is no reason for the temperature to ever exceed 75 degrees and ideally, not above 65.

James
03-21-2013, 09:45 PM
If you don't know you have the right to say no what's the difference? I'm not talking legally, obviously it's "legal" that's never been a question. People trust that government entities won't abuse their power though and assume if they're there for a search they have to comply. I know ten years ago if cops had showed up at my door wanting to look around I'd have assumed they had the right, and let them, whether they had a warrant or not. What's to keep law enforcement/government from abusing that trust? Personally I think there ought to be something like a Miranda ANY time citizens are approached like that. Something as simple as "you don't have to let us in but we'd like to take a look around because "X" if it's okay with you" would go a long way. Maybe I expect too much though.

I guess the main thing I will say is shame on you if you don't know your own legal rights. I have little sympathy for anyone who says "Sure, come on and search. What are you looking for?"

The whole system was set up to allow us to protect ourselves, not to have someone else hold our hand and protect us. I'm sure that some LE will take advantage of a person's ignorance, but that might lead to big trouble down the road. "Did you inform the subject that they didn't need to consent to a search?" "Well, no, I assumed they had the same knowledge of the law that I did."

I guess I really don't understand why you are so bent out of shape about this episode. As I said earlier, cops and social worker showed up, dad got home, said "No, you can't search w/o a warrant." Dad knew his rights and wasn't intimidated when accused of acting suspicious and being difficult. Social worker and cops then left, w/o conducting a search. This is how it's supposed to work.

C.Puffs
03-21-2013, 10:02 PM
I guess the main thing I will say is shame on you if you don't know your own legal rights. I have little sympathy for anyone who says "Sure, come on and search. What are you looking for?"

Not everybody does.


The whole system was set up to allow us to protect ourselves, not to have someone else hold our hand and protect us. I'm sure that some LE will take advantage of a person's ignorance, but that might lead to big trouble down the road. "Did you inform the subject that they didn't need to consent to a search?" "Well, no, I assumed they had the same knowledge of the law that I did."

Why would Joe Blow citizen, who's likely had no reason to ever have the cops show up on their porch, have the same depth of knowledge of the law as a police officer?



I guess I really don't understand why you are so bent out of shape about this episode. As I said earlier, cops and social worker showed up, dad got home, said "No, you can't search w/o a warrant." Dad knew his rights and wasn't intimidated when accused of acting suspicious and being difficult. Social worker and cops then left, w/o conducting a search. This is how it's supposed to work.

After he consulted with a lawyer he told them they couldn't search. I guess this episode pisses me off because somebody sees a picture a father took of his kid holding a gun (which may not even have been real for all the social worker knew) and they take it upon themselves to go harass the guy with cops in tow. When did it become illegal for someone to let their kid hold a gun? (God help the poor guy if he'd posted a picture of his kid actually *shooting* a gun.)

James
03-21-2013, 10:13 PM
Not everybody does.

I understand that, but shame on them. Our freedom requires responsibility as well.


Why would Joe Blow citizen, who's likely had no reason to ever have the cops show up on their porch, have the same depth of knowledge of the law as a police officer?

I've never been a cop, but I know. Perhaps I expect too much from my fellow citizens. Again, shame on them.


After he consulted with a lawyer he told them they couldn't search. I guess this episode pisses me off because somebody sees a picture a father took of his kid holding a gun (which may not even have been real for all the social worker knew) and they take it upon themselves to go harass the guy with cops in tow. When did it become illegal for someone to let their kid hold a gun? (God help the poor guy if he'd posted a picture of his kid actually *shooting* a gun.)

The father said that he thought someone had called an anonymous child abuse hot line. As I said in an earlier post, I think this triggers an automatic investigation. I haven't actually read anything that links the pic of the boy holding a rifle to the cause of the anonymous phone call the father suspected.

If cops show up to your house and demand to search, ask for a warrant. If they don't have one and get insistent, just sit still with your hands up while they do their thing. If it ever gets to court, it will look bad for them, not you. A badge and a gun is no reason to not argue or be intimidated, just be smart about it.

shuredgefan
03-22-2013, 12:04 AM
http://www.blackriflecounter.com/index.html


This website seems to have been created to convey a sense of the truly horrific numbers of ebil AR-15s produced in the USA.

woot

I can't find out who owns the url because they bought it through a proxy service and can't find any references to "FDCC" that are pertinent.

Chiptox
03-22-2013, 01:57 AM
you sure have a funny definition of good weather ;) There is no reason for the temperature to ever exceed 75 degrees and ideally, not above 65.
Damn straight. The only place in Texas that is tolerable weather-wise is Amarillo... and only just. But then again I complain about Vermont's July weather. I have zero tolerance for humidity.


Just move all US firearm companies to Utah. It's where they belong and the weather and scenery are awesome.

archibald harry tuttle
03-22-2013, 05:36 AM
http://www.blackriflecounter.com/index.html


This website seems to have been created to convey a sense of the truly horrific numbers of ebil AR-15s produced in the USA.



I can't find out who owns the url because they bought it through a proxy service and can't find any references to "FDCC" that are pertinent.


From the about page (http://www.blackriflecounter.com/about.html)


AR-15s are manufactured and aggressively marketed by many different companies.



They are using an Amazon Cloud but they registered thru GoDaddy.


Website main IP address : 184.168.221.26
Visit this Website : www.blackriflecounter.com (http://www.blackriflecounter.com)
Last website information update : 2013-03-08 21:57:22

Country : United States
State or Province : Arizona
City : Scottsdale
Location : 33.6119 latitude / -111.891 longitude



They only registered for .com so if anyone feels like hijacking it all available domains can be bought from GoDaddy (http://www.godaddy.com/) (.org, .info, .biz, etc) before they realize their mistake. Then upload something else and flood the search engines to divert the traffic. A one upper could be to register blackriflecounter as a trademark and ask them to change the name of the page.

Inspector Clusoe
03-22-2013, 06:57 AM
Damn straight. The only place in Texas that is tolerable weather-wise is Amarillo... and only just. But then again I complain about Vermont's July weather. I have zero tolerance for humidity.


Just move all US firearm companies to Utah. It's where they belong and the weather and scenery are awesome.



I really hate to burst your bubble, but they are coming to Florida.
We know how to take care of them here and we have better weather than Texas. (No offense meant to that great state)

C.Puffs
03-22-2013, 08:26 AM
Damn straight. The only place in Texas that is tolerable weather-wise is Amarillo... and only just. But then again I complain about Vermont's July weather. I have zero tolerance for humidity.


Just move all US firearm companies to Utah. It's where they belong and the weather and scenery are awesome.

No lie. I spent two years in Texas (between Dallas/Irving and Lufkin) and that humidity was a killer. Not to mention 95 degrees at eight in the morning? @#$! that noise. And those goddamn cicadas where like chainsaws. All firearms companies should move to Utah. Lots of talent in the manufacturing sector, good weather, lots of outdoor stuff (great skiing in the winter, lots of outdoor stuff to do in the summer).

Spartan10k
03-22-2013, 09:35 AM
This was just reported this morning here in local news, but the story already has 1400+ comments on the CNN website. Some of them are.........well, read them yourself at the end of the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed/?hpt=hp_t2



Brunswick, Georgia (CNN) -- A woman says she was taking her 13-month-old son for a walk in this Georgia town when they were approached by two boys who demanded money, then fatally shot her boy and wounded her.

"He said, 'I'm gonna kill you if you don't give me your money,' and I said, 'I swear, I don't have any,'" Sherry West told CNN affiliate WAWS (http://www.actionnewsjax.com/default.aspx). "I put my arms over my baby and he shoves me and he shot my baby right in the head."

Both boys then ran into a residential neighborhood of this seaside Georgia town some 30 miles north of Florida, she told police.

Police responding to a 911 call found the baby shot dead and his mother with a leg wound.

The mother told reporters she was pushing her son in a stroller around 9 a.m. Thursday when she was approached by the two boys. One appeared to be 13 to 15 years of age while the other was as young as 10, she said.

Authorities were checking attendance records Friday at schools in an attempt to identify suspects.
City Manager Bill Weeks said no other witnesses have come forward.

"But why my little one?" asked Louis Santiago, the father, in an interview with WAWS. "You know, you should have just taken the pocketbook and go."

No weapon has been recovered, Police Chief Tobe Green told reporters.

Police have offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the killer.

Asked about what angles authorities were pursuing, police spokesman Todd Rhodes said, "Anything and everything."

"This is obviously just a terrible day in the city of Brunswick," Mayor Bryan Thompson told reporters on Thursday, "and made even more terrible by the senseless killing of a young child. And it appears perpetrated by children themselves."

Ought Six
03-22-2013, 10:15 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/obama-campaign-arm-retweets-yoko-ono-photo-lennon-bloody-glasses/


President Obama's campaign arm retweeted Yoko Ono's photo of her murdered husband John Lennon's bloody glasses Thursday night, just as the Senate was preparing a new gun-control package.

The picture was published on Yoko Ono's account a day earlier. The tweet contained the text: "Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was shot and killed on 8 Dec 1980."

The photo, which could be viewed Thursday night on the @BarackObama Twitter account, showed a close-up of Lennon's blood-splattered glasses.

The image was retweeted by Obama's Organizing for Action account, which is the grassroots group that pushes the president's policies. OFA circulated the image around the same time that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he was moving forward with bringing a gun-control package to the floor.

The base bill will include expanded background checks, and other provisions dealing with school safety and gun trafficking. In a blow to sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that bill will not include an assault-weapons ban, but Reid said the ban would get a vote as an amendment.

The Organizing for Action account, shortly after retweeting Yoko Ono's statement and photo, also quoted Reid on the importance of universal background checks. "In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks," Reid said, in a comment posted on the OFA account.

Meanwhile, the gun-control push at the federal and state levels continues to run into stiff resistance. The National Rifle Association joined the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and other groups Thursday in a lawsuit against New York's strict new gun laws. The NRA has aggressively lobbied against a renewed assault-weapons ban or a ban on high-capacity magazines at the federal level.

C.Puffs
03-22-2013, 10:20 AM
Well we all knew Barry was a class act.

Ought Six
03-22-2013, 10:44 AM
Upholds ‘good and substantial reason’ requirement

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/federal-appeals-court-restores-marylands-concealed/


A federal appeals court has ruled that Maryland can require concealed-carry handgun permit applicants to provide a "good and substantial reason" for wanting to carry a gun outside the home, leaving state officials feeling vindicated and Second Amendment advocates vowing to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion Thursday overturning a March 2012 U.S. District Court ruling that struck down the permit law as unconstitutional.

The plaintiff in the case, Raymond Woollard, had argued that the state violated the Constitution when it denied renewal of his permit because he could not provide documents to "verify a threat beyond his residence."

Legal analysts and groups on both sides of the gun control debate have pointed to the case as an important precedent in the battle over whether the right to bear arms extends beyond one's home, and while gun control advocates claimed a victory on Thursday the case appears to be far from decided.

"It's not much of a right if the police can demand that you satisfy their vision of a good and substantial reason to exercise it," gun rights attorney Alan Gura, who represented Mr. Woollard, said in a statement Thursday. "The next step is for courts to tell Americans that they need a good and substantial reason to speak, worship, or be secure from unreasonable searches unless the Supreme Court ends this sort of thinking about our fundamental rights."

The appeals court's decision means Maryland — one of 10 so-called "may-issue" states where the government can deny a concealed-carry permit even if certain criteria are met — can continue requiring permit seekers to show that they face a specific danger outside the home or that they need a gun as a retired law enforcement officer or to perform workplace duties.

Attorneys for Mr. Woollard are expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which would decide whether or not to hear the case.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said that if the court takes up the case it will have the difficult task of parsing what have been at times contradictory rulings by lower federal courts and deciding definitively what constitutes a reasonable regulation on the Second Amendment.

He said there is currently a vast gray area and pointed out that while the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland's restrictions, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided in December to strike down Illinois' outright ban on concealed weapons in public.

"I'm not sure the court is ready to take it up," Mr. Tobias said. "They like to let an issue like this percolate and see what a number of courts do."

The court's eventual decision would weigh heavily on states with tighter gun laws, as a ruling in their favor would affirm many of their policies while one against them could force the states to dial back on some regulations.

Many states are looking to tighten gun laws due to recent high-profile incidents, including Maryland where lawmakers are considering a sweeping gun bill that would require residents to obtain a license before buying a handgun. Such a restriction already exists in nine states.

In Maryland, state police say that residents filed 5,216 permit requests in 2011, of which 251 were rejected. Of those, 179 were denied because applicants did not cite a good and substantial reason.

There are currently about 14,000 active concealed-carry permits, according to state officials.

The state has contended that its policy is just as reasonable as other restrictions on the Second Amendment, such as laws prohibiting handguns in certain public places or gun ownership by people with histories of violence.

A District Court judge ruled last year that the law acts as an illegal rationing system and that citizens should not need a reason to exercise a right, but the three-judge appeals panel ruled unanimously on Thursday that the law is a reasonable way to protect public safety.

The panel based its opinion on testimony provided in October.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, whose office represented the state in the case, applauded their ruling in a statement.

"Today's ruling reaffirms the considered view of the General Assembly that carrying handguns in public without a good and substantial reason poses unique safety risks that the state may address through sensible laws," said Mr. Gansler, a Democrat.

NeedsABetterName
03-22-2013, 11:08 AM
This was just reported this morning here in local news, but the story already has 1400+ comments on the CNN website. Some of them are.........well, read them yourself at the end of the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed/?hpt=hp_t2

To draw from one of the comments,

¿Viva la generación Honey Boo Boo?

No, viva la generación Nancy Grace...

I'm not sure why all those commenters aren't lining up outside the police department, you know, since they know everything and all.

Laconian
03-22-2013, 11:11 AM
This was just reported this morning here in local news, but the story already has 1400+ comments on the CNN website. Some of them are.........well, read them yourself at the end of the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/georgia-baby-killed/?hpt=hp_t2

I lived in that area and spent a good bit of time working there. It can be a violent little city...

May the little one rest in peace...

NeedsABetterName
03-22-2013, 11:20 AM
Upholds ‘good and substantial reason’ requirement

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/federal-appeals-court-restores-marylands-concealed/

I think that this is going to go to the Supreme Court fairly soon, given the semi-conflicting rulings in Illinois and Maryland. Gura needs to keep pushing. Kachalsky v. Carcase out of New York deals with the same subject matter as well. The Supreme Court needs to identify what level of scrutiny that they're going to give restrictions on the Second Amendment, and they need to do it soon. That amendment has been a case law grey area since the 1930s and they know it. I'm honestly surprised that they didn't do it in Heller or MacDonald.

Class act from Chicago going on right now as well.


“We have very little interest in political pitfalls. We’re here to save lives,” Goodman said.
David Borris, president of Chicago Area Peace Action said, “believe me, there’s going to be all the Dirty Harry wannabes that are gonna see that purse get snatched, and they’re going to want to drop to one knee, and start shooting.”

Madigan has until late May to decide whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/21/protesters-urge-madigan-to-take-concealed-carry-case-to-supreme-court/

ISNJH
03-22-2013, 11:59 AM
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/police-departments-beg-and-barter-ammo-while-dhs-buys-16-billion


Police Chief Cameron Arthur of Jenks, Oklahoma says (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/jenks/Jenks-Police-Deparment-supplements-weapons-costs-ammunition-shortage-with-donations), "Ammunition and assault weapons in general have skyrocketed...In addition to the fact, not only is it a lot more expensive, but the time to get it could be six months to a year, or in some cases even longer."

Arthur says he is waiting on an order placed last October and that many departments have begun to trade and barter with each other because of the high demand.
"Most police departments are having a very difficult time even getting the necessary ammunition for handguns, shotguns and especially rifles," Arthur said.





Police Chief Cameron Arthur of Jenks, Oklahoma says (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/jenks/Jenks-Police-Deparment-supplements-weapons-costs-ammunition-shortage-with-donations), "Ammunition and assault weapons in general have skyrocketed...In addition to the fact, not only is it a lot more expensive, but the time to get it could be six months to a year, or in some cases even longer."
Arthur says he is waiting on an order placed last October and that many departments have begun to trade and barter with each other because of the high demand.
"Most police departments are having a very difficult time even getting the necessary ammunition for handguns, shotguns and especially rifles," Arthur said.




So if this keeps up the only main law enforcement agency that would have ammo is HLS.. Perhaps its time HLS started to contribute some of their supplies to agencies that are having a hard time getting any ammunition.

C.Puffs
03-22-2013, 12:03 PM
Upholds ‘good and substantial reason’ requirement

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/federal-appeals-court-restores-marylands-concealed/

So if someone applied for a permit and denied, was subsequently harmed because they were unable to defend themselves, would they be able to sue the state? (Or better yet the people who impossed the requirement personally.)

thounaojamtom
03-22-2013, 12:40 PM
Police Departments Beg And Barter For Ammo While DHS Buys Up 1.6 Billion Rounds In Past Year

The nationwide shortage of ammunition has left many police departments scrambling to get their hands on the necessary rounds - with some even bartering among each other.


Meanwhile, Rep. Timothy Huelskamp (R-Kansas) says the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has failed to respond to multiple members of Congress asking why DHS bought more than 1.6 billion rounds in the past year.


Police Chief Cameron Arthur of Jenks, Oklahoma says, "Ammunition and assault weapons in general have skyrocketed...In addition to the fact, not only is it a lot more expensive, but the time to get it could be six months to a year, or in some cases even longer."


Arthur says he is waiting on an order placed last October and that many departments have begun to trade and barter with each other because of the high demand.


"Most police departments are having a very difficult time even getting the necessary ammunition for handguns, shotguns and especially rifles," Arthur said.


"With the delay in ammunition, some departments are limiting the number of rounds they carry in their handgun because of the shortage of ammunition. We get to the point where it is difficult to have enough ammo to train and also equip the officers."


Chief Pryor of Rollingwood, Texas says of the shortage:


"We started making phone calls and realized there is a waiting list up to a year. We have to limit the amount of times we go and train because we want to keep an adequate stock."


"Nobody can get us ammunition at this point," says Sgt. Jason LaCross of the Bozeman, Montana police department.


LaCross says that manufacturers are so far behind that they won't even give him a quote for an order.


"We have no estimated time on when it will even be available," LaCross says.


He worries that when ammunition is finally available the high price will squeeze the department's budget.


"The other options are to reduce the amount of training and things like that," he said.


The Hamilton County Sheriff's Department has also cut down on firearm training due to the high cost and low supply of ammunition.


"The concern over firearms availability and ammunition availability and potentials of gun control certainly has impacted the availability of ammunition purchased locally," Sgt. Jody Mays says.


He says the department has cut a third of their normal in service firearm training:


"It's forced us...to use ammunition more economically."


Police Chief John Mabry in Marinette, Wisconsin says, "Ammo is expensive and lot tougher to get. People don't have it in stock and it's back-ordered."


His colleague, Menominee Chief, Brett Botbyl agrees: "We're looking at a four to nine-month wait."


Some departments have even applied for grants to pay for the high-priced ammunition.


"The Florence Police Department is looking for some help filling its clips," reports Cincinnati.com


Chief Tom Szurlinski says the grant would go a long way given the price and limited supply of ammunition.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/police-departments-beg-and-barter-ammo-while-dhs-buys-16-billion

Laconian
03-22-2013, 12:47 PM
Police Departments Beg And Barter For Ammo While DHS Buys Up 1.6 Billion Rounds In Past Year

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/police-departments-beg-and-barter-ammo-while-dhs-buys-16-billion

Maybe the good Mr. Huelskamp should get a lesson on the federal contract process.

California Joe
03-22-2013, 01:36 PM
Why are people go goddamned pigheadedly stupid?

Shermbodius
03-22-2013, 01:59 PM
LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Gun stores in areas that Comcast Cable serves are looking for new ways to advertise after the cable provider said it would not accept firearm and ammunition commercials (http://www.jconline.com/article/20130320/NEWS/303200039/Comcast-changes-its-advertising-policy-leaving-gun-stores-out-cold).
Comcast (CMCSA (http://www.usatoday.com/money/lookup/stocks/CMCSA/)), the nation's largest cable-TV company, made the decision last month after it finalized its purchase of media company NBCUniversal, which Adweek magazine (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/20/entertainment/la-et-ct-comcast-guns-20130220) said has had a long-standing in place banning those items and fireworks

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/22/comcast-gun-ads/2009717/

shuredgefan
03-22-2013, 02:37 PM
LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Gun stores in areas that Comcast Cable serves are looking for new ways to advertise after the cable provider said it would not accept firearm and ammunition commercials (http://www.jconline.com/article/20130320/NEWS/303200039/Comcast-changes-its-advertising-policy-leaving-gun-stores-out-cold).
Comcast (CMCSA (http://www.usatoday.com/money/lookup/stocks/CMCSA/)), the nation's largest cable-TV company, made the decision last month after it finalized its purchase of media company NBCUniversal, which Adweek magazine (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/20/entertainment/la-et-ct-comcast-guns-20130220) said has had a long-standing in place banning those items and fireworks

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/22/comcast-gun-ads/2009717/


“This is a really brave move for Comcast, and I give them a standing ovation,” said Julia Chester, Midwest regional coordinator for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense (http://momsdemandaction.org/). “Advertising has such a huge impact on public opinion, and we’re really at a tipping point in the gun violence conversation.”

They admit that they can only win the argument by limiting the free speech rights of their opponents. What does that make them?

James
03-22-2013, 02:56 PM
[/FONT]

They admit that they can only win the argument by limiting the free speech rights of their opponents. What does that make them?
[/COLOR]

I believe that Free Speech in the form most of think about it is only protected between government and the people. Businesses have a lot more leeway in what they can choose to say (advertise) or not.

James
03-22-2013, 02:58 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/obama-campaign-arm-retweets-yoko-ono-photo-lennon-bloody-glasses/


The tweet contained the text: "Over 1,057,000 people have been killed by guns in the USA since John Lennon was shot and killed on 8 Dec 1980."

2/3 of that number were suicides. I think including them in a discussion about gun violence is disingenuous.

C.Puffs
03-22-2013, 02:59 PM
I believe that Free Speech in the form most of think about it is only protected between government and the people. Businesses have a lot more leeway in what they can choose to say (advertise) or not.

Hasn't tobacco been banned from TV for sometime?

Arnie100
03-22-2013, 04:41 PM
[/FONT]They admit that they can only win the argument by limiting the free speech rights of their opponents. What does that make them? [/COLOR]Hypocrites?

James
03-22-2013, 04:59 PM
The First Amendment protects people from the government telling us what we can and can't say. It's got nothing to do with business. Comcast isn't abridging anyone's right to free speech, they're just saying "We will not take your money, nor will we advertise certain products." Comcast isn't required by any law to advertise everything for everyone.

I think it's lame, but it isn't illegal.

Siempre_Leal
03-22-2013, 05:43 PM
A Very good & interesting vid IMO.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=757_1363823390

This is one cool police officer.

Ratamacue
03-22-2013, 06:04 PM
I could only watch for a few minutes before I was too annoyed by that dude's lisp and his insistence on making the cop's job more difficult.

shuredgefan
03-22-2013, 06:26 PM
I'm for open carry, but political theater with guns will cause state legislators to pass laws against it.

FlintHillBilly
03-22-2013, 06:31 PM
I could only watch for a few minutes before I was too annoyed by that dude's lisp and his insistence on making the cop's job more difficult.
It's rather annoying when people try to go make videos in the name of Freedom at the expense of wasting the public/police's time. FFS.


I'm for open carry, but political theater with guns will cause state legislators to pass laws against it.
And the way these guys go about it just makes all the rest of us look like dip*****s.

archibald harry tuttle
03-22-2013, 07:55 PM
So if someone applied for a permit and denied, was subsequently harmed because they were unable to defend themselves, would they be able to sue the state? (Or better yet the people who impossed the requirement personally.)

A "good and substantial reason" for wanting to carry a gun outside the home : Security can not be presumed.

archibald harry tuttle
03-22-2013, 08:02 PM
I believe that Free Speech in the form most of think about it is only protected between government and the people. Businesses have a lot more leeway in what they can choose to say (advertise) or not.

It so happens those in the internet hosting bussiness have been claiming since the 80's they can not control content in order to avoid liabilities. Deciding on their own accord what is safe or unsafe for people to see in a web page is likely to backfire.

HK in AK
03-22-2013, 08:37 PM
list of ammunition currently held by Homeland Security.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9cde768f-bb3a-4fd9-8176-1745c21519c2

archibald harry tuttle
03-22-2013, 10:15 PM
Man carrying umbrella, not rifle, was on his usual route (http://www.theolympian.com/2013/03/20/2469526/man-mistaken-for-wielding-gun.html)




A typical Tuesday morning for 42-year-old Michael Di Marzo quickly became a citywide multi-jurisdictional manhunt for him and what witnesses thought was a assault rifle in his hand.

Three schools were locked down and delayed as police scoured the area by ground and air, looking for a man described by a teenage tipster as wearing black clothes and a ski mask.

It wasn’t realized until hours later what was believed to be something along the lines of an AR-15 or AK-47 was more of a AU-15: a 15-inch compact “assault umbrella.”

C.Puffs
03-22-2013, 10:53 PM
Man carrying umbrella, not rifle, was on his usual route (http://www.theolympian.com/2013/03/20/2469526/man-mistaken-for-wielding-gun.html)

"Lock down, lock down! A teenager reports a man on the loose with an assault umbrella and it's BLACK! Hide the chillens!!!" FFS. :cantbeli:

James
03-22-2013, 11:02 PM
It so happens those in the internet hosting bussiness have been claiming since the 80's they can not control content in order to avoid liabilities. Deciding on their own accord what is safe or unsafe for people to see in a web page is likely to backfire.

Internet in the 1980s? Mmmkay.

Zoomie
03-22-2013, 11:07 PM
Internet in the 1980s? Mmmkay.


Haven't you seen War Games??? ;)

Arnie100
03-22-2013, 11:10 PM
Man carrying umbrella, not rifle, was on his usual route (http://www.theolympian.com/2013/03/20/2469526/man-mistaken-for-wielding-gun.html)Are people so paranoid they can't tell the difference between a rifle and a freaking umbrella!?

HK in AK
03-22-2013, 11:15 PM
I could only watch for a few minutes before I was too annoyed by that dude's lisp and his insistence on making the cop's job more difficult.

I agree..........In the meantime, $225 an hour, just burned about $52.50 in labor and admin costs. Should bill the ****er!

James
03-22-2013, 11:16 PM
"Lock down, lock down! A teenager reports a man on the loose with an assault umbrella and it's BLACK! Hide the chillens!!!" FFS. :cantbeli:

A kid said he/she thought she saw an armed man near a school. I'm starting to believe that you are neither a parent nor someone with a grasp of basic security. Any LE agency that didn't investigate this should be shut down. What's the downside of what happened today? Some kids were distracted?

Being a good parent = you vs. planet earth to protect your kid.

Being a security professional = knowing that 99% is really 0% with a lot of spin.

Never ever compromise or get complacent, especially when it comes to your own children.

James
03-22-2013, 11:17 PM
Are people so paranoid they can't tell the difference between a rifle and a freaking umbrella!?

It seems that some kids, not subject matter experts, might in fact be confused.

C.Puffs
03-22-2013, 11:32 PM
A kid said he/she thought she saw an armed man near a school. I'm starting to believe that you are neither a parent nor someone with a grasp of basic security. Any LE agency that didn't investigate this should be shut down. What's the downside of what happened today? Some kids were distracted?

Being a good parent = you vs. planet earth to protect your kid.

Being a security professional = knowing that 99% is really 0% with a lot of spin.

Never ever compromise or get complacent, especially when it comes to your own children.

People carried umbrellas when I was a kid and I don't ever recall the town completely losing it's $hit over it.


It seems that some kids, not subject matter experts, might in fact be confused.

If it weren't for liberal politicians, talking heads, and a complicit media doing it's damnedest to generate fear and create an environment where people are scared of firearms to the point where anything cylindrical is a gun, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The kid wouldn't have given it a second thought.

Siempre_Leal
03-22-2013, 11:40 PM
I could only watch for a few minutes before I was too annoyed by that dude's lisp and his insistence on making the cop's job more difficult.

I understand completely those guys imo were a couple of as5holes, near the end the police officer shows off his AR-15

James
03-22-2013, 11:54 PM
People carried umbrellas when I was a kid and I don't ever recall the town completely losing it's $hit over it.

Me too, but we weren't worried about mass school shootings. I went to grade school at a DOD elementary school in Germany in the 80s, where we had frequent bomb scares and a lingering notion in the back of our minds that the WP might attack. Then, a decade later, I am a USMC grunt. Then, 9/11 happens. A couple of years after that I'm paranoid. Then, I become a father.

C.Puffs
03-23-2013, 12:01 AM
Me too, but we weren't worried about mass school shootings. I went to grade school at a DOD elementary school in Germany in the 80s, where we had frequent bomb scares and a lingering notion in the back of our minds that the WP might attack. Then, a decade later, I am a USMC grunt. Then, 9/11 happens. A couple of years after that I'm paranoid. Then, I become a father.

I guess part of it is different backgrounds, locals, etc. You have to admit though the constant fear mongering of the media isn't exactly helping things.

Chiptox
03-23-2013, 12:14 AM
I guess part of it is different backgrounds, locals, etc. You have to admit though the constant fear mongering of the media isn't exactly helping things.
There's an understatement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjLetL-0RPI

Smite18
03-23-2013, 01:36 AM
Couple weeks back, one of my divisions had a "Man w/ a rifle or shotgun walking down the street", so of course everybody rolls. First one on scene verifies it was a camera on a tripod on his back. True story, not sure if it was a "Canon" though, teehee

So yeah, normal peeps freak out at anything pretty much, but that is not anything new

C.Puffs
03-23-2013, 08:23 AM
So yeah, normal peeps freak out at anything pretty much, but that is not anything new

It used to be nothing special to see someone carrying a gun. And I'm not talking Civil War days either.