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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Laconian
03-23-2013, 08:59 AM
It used to be nothing special to see someone carrying a gun. And I'm not talking Civil War days either.

I completely disagree. It's one thing to see a couple .30-30s hanging on a gun rack in a pick-up's rear window. It's a completely different thing for some dude to be walking around a city street with a slung AR. Even in very rural towns that had large portions of the population dedicated to hunting/shooting, that would garner a bunch of WTFs and calls to the sheriff about a man with a gun.

A guy dressed in black wearing a ski mask (or in this case a turtleneck pulled up over his nose and mouth and watch cap pulled down over his head) carrying a long black object near a school. Hmmmm. So a call gets made (which is what people have been told to do since we had phones: if you see something suspicious call the cops), cops and the school respond and in this case it turns out to be a false alarm. Like a fire alarm. No rights trampled, no illegal arrests or searches.

What would have happened if the cops told the caller, "There's nothing wrong with being dressed all in black and carrying something that might be a gun"? Or in the case of those muppets with the AR, "Oh, they're not shooting anybody, just exercising their rights. Call us when you have a body count."?

This isn't 1950. It's 2013 and there have been multiple school shootings that are prevalent in LE and school administrators' minds. "Man with a gun calls" have always generated a police response. This isn't a new phenomenon. I started policing in '89 and a call like that would bring a primary, a secondary and anybody in an adjacent zone who wasn't on a call would start floating that way.

And there are plenty of towns and cities that put the kibosh on open carry long before 1900.

C.Puffs
03-23-2013, 11:48 AM
I completely disagree. It's one thing to see a couple .30-30s hanging on a gun rack in a pick-up's rear window. It's a completely different thing for some dude to be walking around a city street with a slung AR.

Agreed. On the other hand I have seen lots of people with umbrellas without schools getting locked down. Liberal politicians and the media have done everything in their power to turn the fear of guns up to 11 and this is what we get.

James
03-23-2013, 03:27 PM
Agreed. On the other hand I have seen lots of people with umbrellas without schools getting locked down. Liberal politicians and the media have done everything in their power to turn the fear of guns up to 11 and this is what we get.

LE rolled for a man with a gun call, not a man with an umbrella.

Better safe than sorry.

C.Puffs
03-23-2013, 04:18 PM
LE rolled for a man with a gun call, not a man with an umbrella.

Better safe than sorry.

I'm not blaming LE. I'm saying the politicians and the media has the public so wound up that this kind of thing is going to continue to happen.

archibald harry tuttle
03-24-2013, 04:58 AM
Internet in the 1980s? Mmmkay.

FYI the internet was already some 30 years old when Al Gore pretended to invent it. Most people became aware of it in the 90's because of NCSA Mosaic. There were personal computers already in the 80's and then most users had access to the internet thru services like Compuserve and Prodigy. Before that access what thru main frame terminals using custom programs for text browsing.

archibald harry tuttle
03-24-2013, 05:02 AM
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.



Agreed. On the other hand I have seen lots of people with umbrellas without schools getting locked down. Liberal politicians and the media have done everything in their power to turn the fear of guns up to 11 and this is what we get.



He was on his usual route to work, it looks like someone has been successful in promoting mass hysteria.

archibald harry tuttle
03-24-2013, 05:04 AM
I understand completely those guys imo were a couple of as5holes, near the end the police officer shows off his AR-15


You deceive no one, we all know you only watched the video to the end just to have a peek at his rifle (like the rest of us).

archibald harry tuttle
03-24-2013, 05:13 AM
There's an understatement.


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


MrColionNoir: How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec

archibald harry tuttle
03-24-2013, 05:16 AM
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091)

YEAs 53
NAYs 46
Not Voting 1

C.Puffs
03-24-2013, 05:18 PM
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091)

YEAs 53
NAYs 46
Not Voting 1

Scarey that it's that close. Makes you wonder what it'd have been if pols weren't afraid of losing their jobs in 2014.

C.Puffs
03-24-2013, 05:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKk45i9DzDA

Shermbodius
03-24-2013, 05:47 PM
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091)

YEAs 53
NAYs 46
Not Voting 1
Crazy, NRA needs to make a video of all the ones who voted NAY and air it 24/7.

Henry's Fork
03-24-2013, 05:51 PM
Scarey that it's that close. Makes you wonder what it'd have been if pols weren't afraid of losing their jobs in 2014.


Oh color me surprised..........nothing but Democrats voted against upholding the Constitution.

rofl

then a

:cantbeli:

followed by a

:backhand:

C.Puffs
03-24-2013, 06:08 PM
Crazy, NRA needs to make a video of all the ones who voted NAY and air it 24/7.

A whole 8 Democrats voted to side with the Constitution. Not a single Republican opposed it.

http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/vote_zps209ff324.jpg

sgt_G
03-24-2013, 06:10 PM
both parties should be purged IMO...

Henry's Fork
03-24-2013, 06:21 PM
both parties should be purged IMO...

x1000

The elitist extreme in both parties have made them a laffing stock.

Same with the most of the Indie parties, the center left have taken the wheel.

James
03-24-2013, 07:50 PM
A whole 8 Democrats voted to side with the Constitution. Not a single Republican opposed it.

http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/vote_zps209ff324.jpg

The UN Treaty is non binding. I think the title is misleading, even though it does come from the Senate web site. The 2nd Amendment (or any of the others) can't simply be revoked based on a majority vote in Congress.

NeedsABetterName
03-24-2013, 07:52 PM
The UN Treaty is non binding. I think the title is misleading, even though it does come from the Senate web site. The 2nd Amendment (or any of the others) can't simply be revoked based on a majority vote in Congress.

Correct. It's much easier to render it impotent through those same majority votes.

Lugiahua
03-24-2013, 08:35 PM
There's an understatement.


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

People need to realize that media actually wants more shootings and bombings, more violence better sell the paper/commercial.

archibald harry tuttle
03-24-2013, 09:49 PM
Crazy, NRA needs to make a video of all the ones who voted NAY and air it 24/7.

No need, the list has been shared all over the internet.

C.Puffs
03-24-2013, 09:49 PM
The UN Treaty is non binding. I think the title is misleading, even though it does come from the Senate web site. The 2nd Amendment (or any of the others) can't simply be revoked based on a majority vote in Congress.

This is but the latest example of how the Democrats are against the 2nd Amendment.

Ought Six
03-24-2013, 09:57 PM
AMY SCHATZ, The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2013

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578380420530091826.html


New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stepped up his campaign for tougher gun laws Sunday, urging Congress to pass broader background checks on firearm purchases and launching a $12 million ad campaign to put pressure on U.S. senators.

Mr. Bloomberg's gun-lobbying group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, announced plans to persuade a bipartisan group of senators to support legislation that expands the use of background checks on gun buyers. The group plans to spend $12 million of Mr. Bloomberg's personal wealth onto run ads in 13 states—including Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio—to increase pressure on senators to support stricter legislation.

"We're trying to do everything we can to impress upon the senators that this is what the survivors want, this is what the public wants," Mr. Bloomberg said on NBC.

Mr. Bloomberg's campaign is designed to counter what have so far been successful efforts by the National Rifle Association to persuade Congress to reject more restrictive gun laws.

Already, congressional leaders appear to have mostly given up on the idea of passing a ban on so-called assault weapons or limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

On Sunday, NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre rejected Mr. Bloomberg's ad campaign, saying the billionaire mayor "can't buy America." He said the NRA would prefer Congress focus on fixing problems in the existing background check system, such as preventing gun shops from inadvertently selling firearms to the mentally ill.

Mr. Bloomberg, a political independent nearing the end of his third term, and some other gun-control advocates have all but given up on the idea of Congress passing legislation this year to ban so-called assault weapons—once the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's gun-violence plan. Instead, they hope to persuade lawmakers to at least impose stricter background checks.

Although Mr. Bloomberg said gun-control advocates shouldn't give up on the idea of an expanded ban on assault weapons, he acknowledged that such a measure doesn't appear to have enough support in Congress. "Clearly, it is a more difficult issue for a lot of people," than other restrictions, he said in the interview that aired Sunday.

Gun-control advocates want to close loopholes that allow Americans to purchase firearms without undergoing background checks. Background checks are currently required only on gun buyers at licensed dealers. Advocates want background checks expanded to cover sales at gun shows and other places to prevent convicted criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.

The gun-control debate flared after a December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adults.

In January, Mr. Obama advocated gun-control legislation that would expand background checks, reinstate the assault-weapons ban and limit the size of gun magazines, among other measures.

But that proposal has been met with strong resistance by the NRA and its allies, who argue the government instead should focus more on helping people with mental illnesses to prevent mass shootings.

Although there doesn't appear to be enough support in Congress to pass legislation that would reinstate the assault-weapons ban, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has been trying to craft legislation to expand background checks in a way that could gain Republican support.

Last week, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the Senate's gun-control bill would include an expansion of background checks on buyers. The measure is expected to reach the Senate floor for debate after Congress returns from its Easter recess in early April.

Proposals being considered in the Senate would also impose stronger penalties on people who purchase guns on behalf those who aren't allowed to buy them, such as convicted criminals.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, also spoke out Sunday in favor of stricter gun control following a week during which he signed tougher measures into law and a member of his cabinet, prison head Tom Clements, was shot and killed.

The suspect in the shooting is Evan Spencer, the son of a friend the governor has known for 30 years. Mr. Spencer was killed by police in Texas following a high-speed chase.

"The whole week felt like I was caught in a nightmare that I couldn't wake up from," Mr. Hickenlooper said on CNN's "State of the Union."

He suggested that Colorado could be a model for national gun control, saying that his state focused on mental health and background checks—not banning assault weapons—following the mass killings at a movie theater last summer. "If we're going to try to tighten some things up, universal background checks clearly make a significant difference," he said.

C.Puffs
03-24-2013, 10:08 PM
""We're trying to do everything we can to impress upon the senators that this is what the survivors want, this is what the public wants," Mr. Bloomberg said on NBC."

Hey azzhole, if it was what the public wanted Democrats wouldn't be terrified of losing their jobs over it and you wouldn't need to browbeat them with advertising.

TheSandwich
03-24-2013, 10:45 PM
"The whole week felt like I was caught in a nightmare that I couldn't wake up from," Mr. Hickenlooper said on CNN's "State of the Union."How DARE you tiny plebs speak your mind, exercise your right to redress the government and demand your representatives represent you instead of voting the party platform and spitting on the constitution! Get in formation and goosestep for your Führer like the rest of our brownshirts!

Rattfink
03-24-2013, 10:47 PM
How DARE you tiny plebs speak your mind, exercise your right to redress the government and demand your representatives represent you instead of voting the party platform and spitting on the constitution! Get in formation and goosestep for your Führer like the rest of our brownshirts!

That's a bit strong don't you think?

NeedsABetterName
03-24-2013, 10:56 PM
How DARE you tiny plebs speak your mind, exercise your right to redress the government and demand your representatives represent you instead of voting the party platform and spitting on the constitution! Get in formation and goosestep for your Führer like the rest of our brownshirts!

While I'm not exactly sure how Mr. Clements' death figures into the gun control debate (the connection (http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/the-gun-report-march-22-2013/?partner=rss&emc=rss)was made (http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/the-gun-report-march-21-2013/)almost immediately (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/director-of-colorado-prisons-fatally-shot-at-home.html?_r=0&gwh=56E5B6DC98266550B3F3A890DEE3A7EC)in media circles), I'm pretty sure his death, rather than the gun debate, is what Governor Hickenlooper was referring to in his statement.

TheSandwich
03-24-2013, 11:35 PM
That's a bit strong don't you think?Not nearly. I just don't feel like having LEOs knocking on my door or I would have gone farther.

And he wasn't whining about his buddies death. Nothing to gain politically so he couldn't care less. Hes mad at having to hear his constituents that oppose his kingly rule. You see the same attitude every time Obama opens his mouth.

NeedsABetterName
03-24-2013, 11:53 PM
Not nearly. I just don't feel like having LEOs knocking on my door or I would have gone farther.

And he wasn't whining about his buddies death. Nothing to gain politically so he couldn't care less. Hes mad at having to hear his constituents that oppose his kingly rule. You see the same attitude every time Obama opens his mouth.

Context (http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/24/hickenlooper-a-nightmare-i-couldnt-wake-up-from/) says otherwise.

I don't like the game he played with the laws he signed, but I think you're stretching in this case.

Ought Six
03-24-2013, 11:58 PM
Not nearly. I just don't feel like having LEOs knocking on my door or I would have gone farther.

And he wasn't whining about his buddies death. Nothing to gain politically so he couldn't care less. Hes mad at having to hear his constituents that oppose his kingly rule. You see the same attitude every time Obama opens his mouth.We get the point, and most of us probably agree with it, but a word to the wise.... The mods here object strenuously to members 'playing the Nazi card', and can react quite badly to that. I strongly recommend not committing any Godwin's Law violations on this board.

NeedsABetterName
03-25-2013, 12:47 AM
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/24/jim-carreys-cold-dead-hand-hey-heres-a-song-for-heartless-motherfckers-unwilling-to-bend-for-the-safety-of-our-kids/#.UU9LaCNXqO0.reddit

For the children. Cute.

Roebuck
03-25-2013, 01:09 AM
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/24/jim-carreys-cold-dead-hand-hey-heres-a-song-for-heartless-motherfckers-unwilling-to-bend-for-the-safety-of-our-kids/#.UU9LaCNXqO0.reddit

For the children. Cute.

i have a hard time believing that's actually Jim CArrey.

archibald harry tuttle
03-25-2013, 01:15 AM
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/24/jim-carreys-cold-dead-hand-hey-heres-a-song-for-heartless-motherfckers-unwilling-to-bend-for-the-safety-of-our-kids/#.UU9LaCNXqO0.reddit

For the children. Cute.

Thats the same Jim Carrey that in 2008 said the world was going to love America because Obama got elected.

archibald harry tuttle
03-25-2013, 01:20 AM
The UN Treaty is non binding. I think the title is misleading, even though it does come from the Senate web site. The 2nd Amendment (or any of the others) can't simply be revoked based on a majority vote in Congress.

EDITORIAL: Gun control by the U.N.
The White House attempts an end run around the House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/20/gun-control-by-the-un/)



Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

James
03-25-2013, 02:02 AM
EDITORIAL: Gun control by the U.N.
The White House attempts an end run around the House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/20/gun-control-by-the-un/)

The Senate can't turn off a Constitutional Amendment by approving a UN treaty. Other than diplomatic immunity, the UN has no legal authority in the U.S. The UN could declare all guns in civilian hands illegal, and you or I could go piss on the steps with a rifle slung over our shoulder. They couldn't do a thing.

Your reference is to an editorial piece, which is essentially nothing more than an opinion piece. This one doesn't even have an author.

I'll point out yet again that our Senate voted NO to this proposed treaty.

The idiot 2nd Amendment Sheep who post BS on Facebook and here do us more disservice than anything else.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/412/abrahamlincolnp.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/abrahamlincolnp.jpg/)

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1299/thomasjeffersonu.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/16/thomasjeffersonu.jpg/)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4959/georgewashingtonportrai.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/georgewashingtonportrai.jpg/)

James
03-25-2013, 02:06 AM
If I had a dime for every ^ BS statement I've seen on FB in recent months, I'd be able to retire.

Rattfink
03-25-2013, 03:29 PM
Well, he is a moron but at least he'll put his money where his mouth is.

Michael Bloomberg funds $12m US gun law campaign
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21921875

PMI
03-25-2013, 04:10 PM
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4959/georgewashingtonportrai.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/georgewashingtonportrai.jpg/)

Wiser words have never been spoken.

gresh
03-25-2013, 06:39 PM
i have a hard time believing that's actually Jim CArrey.
Such a douchebag. It must be nice having armed bodyguards 24/7.:roll:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBFD5bHeRtI

NeedsABetterName
03-25-2013, 07:33 PM
http://marketdailynews.com/2013/03/25/michael-moore-says-90-of-guns-are-owned-by-scared-white-people/


“Did you realize that over 90% of the guns in this country are owned by white people in the suburbs and in rural areas? Ninety-percent of our guns are not owned by African-Americans, hispanics, minority groups, they’re owned by white people. Now are these white people so afraid of out in the suburbs?

If there's any bright spot in this gun control thing, it's that our opponents are idiots.

FlintHillBilly
03-25-2013, 07:47 PM
Wow, did Carrey really use Ghandi, Lenon, and Lincoln all while mocking gun owners?

panzrman
03-25-2013, 09:10 PM
Wow, did Carrey really use Ghandi, Lenon, and Lincoln all while mocking gun owners?

Meh, another just another ****, and shoddy actor & "comedian".

riderboy
03-25-2013, 09:58 PM
Such a douchebag. It must be nice having armed bodyguards 24/7.:roll:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBFD5bHeRtI
Seems more like desperately seeking publicity for Jim Carrey. Career must be on the skids. In any event, it's nice to know he can play Dumb and Dumber on screen and off.

Lugiahua
03-25-2013, 10:26 PM
http://marketdailynews.com/2013/03/25/michael-moore-says-90-of-guns-are-owned-by-scared-white-people/



If there's any bright spot in this gun control thing, it's that our opponents are idiots.

"Did you realize that over 90% of the guns in this country are owned by white people in the suburbs and in rural areas?"


Michael Moore = White, owns guns and lives in suburbs.
Pretty sure he's talking about himself...

NeedsABetterName
03-25-2013, 11:32 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-and-ted-cruz-threaten-filibuster-on-guns-89299.html#ixzz2OcadcsHG

Paul and Cruz are threatening a fillibuster on any Senate gun control legislation.

Rattfink
03-25-2013, 11:35 PM
I wonder what a comedian would say about these issues...
...Said no one in a voting booth ever.

Ratamacue
03-26-2013, 01:01 AM
I wonder what a comedian would say about these issues...
...Said no one in a voting booth ever.Didn't stop Al Franken from getting elected.

archibald harry tuttle
03-26-2013, 02:07 AM
If I had a dime for every ^ BS statement I've seen on FB in recent months, I'd be able to retire.

James maybe its time you find better friends in FB. Are you not aware Obama is openly and shamelessly trampling the Constitution to please a club of foreign elites? Does it look to you like he and his sheeple realy care about something been constitutional? We, the ones that are not in denial, understand quite well how he was going to exploint the UN Treaty "for the children".

RICHICOQUI
03-26-2013, 10:03 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/miller-mayor-bloombergs-irresponsible-gun-attack-a/#.UVCEJmv7LN0.twitter

Spartan10k
03-26-2013, 10:07 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/miller-mayor-bloombergs-irresponsible-gun-attack-a/#.UVCEJmv7LN0.twitter
That ad played here for the first time over the weekend. My first thought was "he's not demonstrating proper gun safety."

Our opponents are stupid indeed, haha.

Rattfink
03-26-2013, 10:07 AM
Didn't stop Al Franken from getting elected.

Touche! Though that's a little different IMO. I think putting your name on a ballot and taking a risk is not the same as slinging turds from the sidelines.

JasonC
03-26-2013, 10:09 AM
LOL @ Jim Carrey. The irony is Obama is doing the exact same things as Bush. Has the world views of us changed? Hell no. Hope and Change!

gresh
03-26-2013, 10:15 AM
Store owner cancels Mark Kelly gun buy

The owner of a gun store in Tucson, Ariz., has canceled Mark Kelly’s purchase of an AR-15 because the gun control advocate doesn’t plan on keeping the assault weapon.
Kelly, a former astronaut and the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), bought the gun earlier this month to show how easy it was to buy an assault weapon. He said he planned on turning the gun over to Tucson police.

“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons other then for his personal use,” Diamondback Police Supply Doug MacKinlay owner wrote on Facebook on Monday. “In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store to complete the Federal From 4473 and NICS background check required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession this firearm.”
The rifle will instead be raffled off to benefit the Arizona Tactical Officers Association, and the store will donate the cost of the rifle — $1,295 — to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, an NRA effort to teach young children gun safety.





http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mark-kelly-gun-control-tucson-89307.html?hp=r2

Good on the store owner.

gresh
03-26-2013, 10:24 AM
Our opponents are stupid indeed, haha.
Add this to the list of examples. According to Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton , 2a supporters dislike Bloomberg because he's a Jew, not because he tries telling everyone how to live their lives.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yFc46hNnVS8

C.Puffs
03-26-2013, 10:28 AM
Add this to the list of examples. According to Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton , 2a supporters dislike Bloomberg because he's a Jew, not because he tries telling everyone how to live their lives.


These are the same idiots who think people dislike Obama because of his skin rather than his policies. They're so used to playing the race card that can't see anything else.

Shermbodius
03-26-2013, 11:26 AM
A trio of Republican senators on Tuesday warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they plan to filibuster any attempts at bringing new gun control legislation to the floor of the Senate.
The move comes just days after Reid announced plans to push forward on a gun control bill which would expand background checks and penalties on straw purchasers.
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argue in a letter to Reid that the proposed bill amounts to an infringement of Second Amendment rights."We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance," the senators wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/gop-senators-threaten-to-filibuster-gun-control-legislation-after-reid-vows-to/).



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290257-trio-of-gop-senators-threaten-filibuster-of-gun-control-legislation-#ixzz2OeyaAnOB

Once again Tea Party Senators step up to the plate to defend our rights. My guess is the old guard GOP won't support them as usual.
:cantbeli:

Inspector Clusoe
03-26-2013, 11:32 AM
These are the same idiots who think people dislike Obama because of his skin rather than his policies. They're so used to playing the race card that can't see anything else.




No, they are not idiots; they are using the Progressive’s instruction booklet in how to discredit your opponent.
When you can’t have a discussion on the facts, you discredit your opponent. In today’s politically correct society, being labeled a bigot makes you radioactive, shunned and discredited.
It has worked like a charm for them so far. People are too stupid to see through it or afraid to confront them for fear of being labeled bigots and racists. It also helps to have the media on your side.

ISNJH
03-26-2013, 05:43 PM
http://www.*******.com/article/2013/03/26/us-usa-guns-arizona-idUSBRE92P15X20130326?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Arizona gun store cancels assault rifle sale to Giffords' husband



(*******) - An Arizona gun store owner has canceled the sale of an assault rifle to the husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, after discovering that he made the purchase to highlight the need for gun control.
Doug MacKinlay, owner of Diamondback Police Supply, said he sent Mark Kelly a refund last week on the AR-15 type weapon after learning the purchase was not for personal use but meant to highlight the need for gun control.



Kelly, who along with his wife is a top campaigner for curbs to military-style weapon ownership, had not yet taken possession of the semi-automatic rifle.
In a posting on Facebook on Monday, MacKinlay said: "While I support and respect Mark Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the ... rifle from us was for reasons other than for his personal use."
"In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my company's best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store," he added.
Both MacKinlay and Kelly could not be reached for comment.
A constitutional lawyer said there is nothing in the constitution that bars the gun store owner from taking such action.
"The constitution wouldn't apply in this case. This is a private gun store owner," said Paul Bender, dean emeritus and professor at the College of Law at Arizona State University.

Roebuck
03-26-2013, 10:32 PM
A trio of Republican senators on Tuesday warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they plan to filibuster any attempts at bringing new gun control legislation to the floor of the Senate.
The move comes just days after Reid announced plans to push forward on a gun control bill which would expand background checks and penalties on straw purchasers.
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argue in a letter to Reid that the proposed bill amounts to an infringement of Second Amendment rights."We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance," the senators wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/gop-senators-threaten-to-filibuster-gun-control-legislation-after-reid-vows-to/).



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290257-trio-of-gop-senators-threaten-filibuster-of-gun-control-legislation-#ixzz2OeyaAnOB

Once again Tea Party Senators step up to the plate to defend our rights. My guess is the old guard GOP won't support them as usual.
:cantbeli:


The old guard (McCain) went to dinner with Obama while Rand was filibustering last time. bunch of RINO's.

old guards are (democrats). some (r)'s want AWB, mag limits, and UBC. registration.

XJ220
03-26-2013, 10:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yFc46hNnVS8

That ending is crazy as all hell. But that's the sandbox maturity level of politics these days. MEH

Lugiahua
03-27-2013, 12:05 AM
http://www.*******.com/article/2013/03/26/us-usa-guns-arizona-idUSBRE92P15X20130326?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Arizona gun store cancels assault rifle sale to Giffords' husband

Pretty sure it wasn't an Assault Rifle, unless Mr. Kelly had some way to go around 1986 law.

HK in AK
03-27-2013, 01:02 AM
Pretty sure it wasn't an Assault Rifle, unless Mr. Kelly had some way to go around 1986 law.

Wow, how original. An you can buy legally transferable select-fire weapons; I have them in my gun safe.

TheSandwich
03-27-2013, 01:41 AM
The old guard (McCain) went to dinner with Obama while Rand was filibustering last time. bunch of RINO's.An R in front of the name means jack s**t. I mean Bloomberg was a Republican from 2001-2007 for Christs sake.

Deeds not Labels.

cbreedon
03-27-2013, 01:53 AM
That ending is crazy as all hell. But that's the sandbox maturity level of politics these days. MEH
Good lord, what does Bloomberg's religion have to do with gun control?

Lugiahua
03-27-2013, 01:56 AM
Wow, how original. An you can buy legally transferable select-fire weapons; I have them in my gun safe.

true, but it's very unlikely he got a pre-1986 full auto AR with 1,200 bucks...I would get one too with that price p-)

gresh
03-27-2013, 03:30 AM
White House: GOP filibuster on guns would be 'unfortunate'

White House press secretary Jay Carney suggested Tuesday that GOP Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul are out of step with the public on gun-control measures.


The three lawmakers have threatened to filibuster "any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”


Carney said he hasn't spoken with President Obama about the threat, but the White House position is clear.


"Filibusters of efforts to move forward with common-sense measures to reduce gun violence would be unfortunate," he said. "We have worked with Congress, with the Senate, to try to advance the elements of the president’s plan that require legislative action and these again are common-sense measures.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/03/white-house-gop-filibuster-on-guns-would-be-unfortunate-160231.html

riderboy
03-27-2013, 06:56 AM
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/03/white-house-gop-filibuster-on-guns-would-be-unfortunate-160231.html
Common sense? COMMON SENSE?? Obama and the dems leading this charge on gun control wouldn't know common sense if it came up and put their ying-yangs in a blender. To quote the Vice-Idiot Joe Biden, " Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting..." The lies, hypocrisy and distortions from the left on this issue are about as disgusting as the lies, hypocrisy and distortions on....well, take your pick of just about any other important issue out there.

Dan2004
03-27-2013, 01:13 PM
Wow, how original. An you can buy legally transferable select-fire weapons; I have them in my gun safe.

Yes, however with serious legal impediments. IMHO, the '34 NFA and '86 ban are both egregious infringements on the 2nd Amendment rights of the American People. They go against the protection of arms in common use with the militia and standing military, and impedes the maintenance of the militia of the Second Amendment.

gresh
03-27-2013, 03:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5hAvqO-u4

James
03-27-2013, 05:55 PM
James maybe its time you find better friends in FB. Are you not aware Obama is openly and shamelessly trampling the Constitution to please a club of foreign elites? Does it look to you like he and his sheeple realy care about something been constitutional? We, the ones that are not in denial, understand quite well how he was going to exploint the UN Treaty "for the children".

My comment about FB was entirely separate from the UN treaty. I don't believe that using false quotes from the founding fathers in a modern political and moral debate is either effective or honest.

C.Puffs
03-27-2013, 06:03 PM
Christie calls for investigation of New Jersey agency's response to boy-with-gun photo

"TRENTON, N.J. – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is asking the attorney general to probe the state's visit to the home of a man who uploaded a photo on Facebook of his 10-year-old son holding a military-style rifle.

The state child welfare agency and local police went to the Carneys Point home of Shawn Moore on March 14 following what police say were anonymous calls expressing concern about the safety of a child.

Moore has said he believes he was investigated because of the photo he posted online of his son holding the gun he got for his 11th birthday. The weapon was a .22-caliber rifle made to look like an assault rifle.

Moore said that state child welfare workers and police in SWAT gear showed up at his home, the caseworkers were aggressive and the visit was uncalled for."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/27/gov-christie-asks-attorney-general-to-investigate-state-response-in-boy-with/

panzrman
03-27-2013, 06:17 PM
Love this guy. Thanks for adding this one.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d5hAvqO-u4

Shermbodius
03-27-2013, 06:19 PM
State Rep. Joe Mitchell, D-Mobile, had an outlandish exchange via email with a Jefferson County man who asked him and other lawmakers not to pass any laws that would restrict gun ownership.
Eddie Maxwell sent a mass email to state legislators late on Jan. 27, warning them that even attempting to introduce a gun control bill was, in his opinion, a violation of state law.
Mitchell responded from his public, ALHouse.gov email account an hour later, telling Maxwell: "Your folk never used all this sheit (sic) to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed (sic), imported criminal-minded kin folk."
"That’s not the type of reply I expect to receive from a state legislator," Maxwell replied on Feb. 11. "I’m not a racist and I find your reply to be especially offensive considering the position you hold."
Copies of the email exchange were provided to AL.com by state lawmakers who were included in the correspondence. The emails are printed below, edited only to remove the specific addresses.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/post_44.html

ISNJH
03-27-2013, 06:56 PM
movement started to fire police or sheriffs that say they are against gun control or will not enforce gun control in their area's

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures
http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would-fire-sheriffs-for-defying-gun-control-measures/article/2525518


Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.

The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.

C.Puffs
03-27-2013, 07:23 PM
State Rep. Joe Mitchell, D-Mobile, had an outlandish exchange via email with a Jefferson County man who asked him and other lawmakers not to pass any laws that would restrict gun ownership.
Eddie Maxwell sent a mass email to state legislators late on Jan. 27, warning them that even attempting to introduce a gun control bill was, in his opinion, a violation of state law.
Mitchell responded from his public, ALHouse.gov email account an hour later, telling Maxwell: "Your folk never used all this sheit (sic) to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed (sic), imported criminal-minded kin folk."
"That’s not the type of reply I expect to receive from a state legislator," Maxwell replied on Feb. 11. "I’m not a racist and I find your reply to be especially offensive considering the position you hold."
Copies of the email exchange were provided to AL.com by state lawmakers who were included in the correspondence. The emails are printed below, edited only to remove the specific addresses.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/post_44.html



If a Republican said that they'd be interrupting regularly scheduled programming for the "breaking news".

C.Puffs
03-27-2013, 07:25 PM
movement started to fire police or sheriffs that say they are against gun control or will not enforce gun control in their area's

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures
http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would-fire-sheriffs-for-defying-gun-control-measures/article/2525518

Then surely this prize of a politician would be for local law enforcment jumping all over those immigration laws the feds are turning a blind eye to?

James
03-27-2013, 07:30 PM
movement started to fire police or sheriffs that say they are against gun control or will not enforce gun control in their area's

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures
http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would-fire-sheriffs-for-defying-gun-control-measures/article/2525518

I thought that the whole reason the U.S. has Federal LE is to investigate violations of and enforce Federal Law. Is there a Federal Law that requires local LE to obey Federal Special Agents or enforce Federal Law?

The really ironic thing is that the DOJ, not local LE, is the failed link in enforcing insisting Federal Firearms Laws. In 2010, 76,000 people were prevented from buying a firearm as the result of a background check. Upon investigation, BATFE referred 4732 cases to the DOJ for prosecution. Of that number, 44 were prosecuted, and 13 were punished.

From Forbes. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/03/26/proof-the-obama-administration-is-going-after-the-good-guys-with-guns/)

Apparently, when the NRA mentioned this in a WH meeting with Biden and AG Holder, Holder said something along the lines of "We have neither the time nor the resources to prosecute all of those cases." Okay... The DOJ isn't able to enforce existing laws, so the answer is to add more laws?

Lugiahua
03-27-2013, 07:46 PM
Then surely this prize of a politician would be for local law enforcment jumping all over those immigration laws the feds are turning a blind eye to?

and sll CA, CO, WA police would be fired for not enforcing Federal pot ban

PALADIN
03-27-2013, 07:58 PM
movement started to fire police or sheriffs that say they are against gun control or will not enforce gun control in their area's

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures
http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-would-fire-sheriffs-for-defying-gun-control-measures/article/2525518

Can you fire someone that is elected?

Laworkerbee
03-27-2013, 08:02 PM
BATFE referred 4732 cases to the DOJ for prosecution. Of that number, 44 were prosecuted, and 13 were punished.

Just curious as to how much one of these prosecutions might cost the government? That could be an inhibiting factor. I know it is when computer crimes are called to account.

ISNJH
03-27-2013, 08:12 PM
not only that but its an attack on the sheriffs freedom of speech to persecute them for stating their views on a issue.

Also this law could be used not only against sheriffs but since it says police and sheriffs elected to office I cant help but wonder if they have hidden loop holes in the laws to also include elected officials such as state representatives that could also be forced out of office.

ISNJH
03-27-2013, 08:16 PM
Can you fire someone that is elected?

That's what I was wondering as far I can tell there is no way legally they could fire a sheriff since a sheriff elected to office by local county votes and can only be removed from office by vote or conviction of criminal act while in office.

Laconian
03-27-2013, 08:29 PM
Just curious as to how much one of these prosecutions might cost the government? That could be an inhibiting factor. I know it is when computer crimes are called to account.

It definitely is a consideration, especially when you look at exposure for those offenses.

dunemetal
03-27-2013, 08:40 PM
Yes, however with serious legal impediments. IMHO, the '34 NFA and '86 ban are both egregious infringements on the 2nd Amendment rights of the American People. They go against the protection of arms in common use with the militia and standing military, and impedes the maintenance of the militia of the Second Amendment.

I will agree the 34 NFA is an infringement but it is not a ban
$200 tax was an end run but FDR was told an outright ban would not survive judicial challenge.

riderboy
03-27-2013, 08:47 PM
I thought that the whole reason the U.S. has Federal LE is to investigate violations of and enforce Federal Law. Is there a Federal Law that requires local LE to obey Federal Special Agents or enforce Federal Law?

The really ironic thing is that the DOJ, not local LE, is the failed link in enforcing insisting Federal Firearms Laws. In 2010, 76,000 people were prevented from buying a firearm as the result of a background check. Upon investigation, BATFE referred 4732 cases to the DOJ for prosecution. Of that number, 44 were prosecuted, and 13 were punished.

From Forbes. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/03/26/proof-the-obama-administration-is-going-after-the-good-guys-with-guns/)

Apparently, when the NRA mentioned this in a WH meeting with Biden and AG Holder, Holder said something along the lines of "We have neither the time nor the resources to prosecute all of those cases." Okay... The DOJ isn't able to enforce existing laws, so the answer is to add more laws?

By George, I think you have it. And Joe Biden today was quoted as saying that this is just the beginning. Oh boy.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2013/03/biden_says_gun_control_votes_only_the_beginning

Chiptox
03-27-2013, 09:28 PM
It definitely is a consideration, especially when you look at exposure for those offenses.
Very true. But vigorous enforcement would not necessarily be a long term issue as there may be a disinclination to commit these crimes if the criminals actually had a reasonable expectation of being caught and punished. Like what happened to kidnapping after the Lindbergh baby.

archibald harry tuttle
03-27-2013, 09:58 PM
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/03/white-house-gop-filibuster-on-guns-would-be-unfortunate-160231.html


Filibusters of efforts to move forward with common-sense measures to reduce gun violence would be unfortunate

Watching leftist media from around the world I figured out that "move forward" really means "**** everything and everyone lets just have it our way"

archibald harry tuttle
03-27-2013, 10:01 PM
Common sense? COMMON SENSE?? Obama and the dems leading this charge on gun control wouldn't know common sense if it came up and put their ying-yangs in a blender. To quote the Vice-Idiot Joe Biden, " Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting..." The lies, hypocrisy and distortions from the left on this issue are about as disgusting as the lies, hypocrisy and distortions on....well, take your pick of just about any other important issue out there.


I said it before, its an insurrection of false conscience. There is a good documentary about it here. (http://www.mtv.com/videos/aeon-flux-the-purge/1565632/playlist.jhtml)

archibald harry tuttle
03-27-2013, 10:19 PM
State Rep. Joe Mitchell, D-Mobile, had an outlandish exchange via email with a Jefferson County man who asked him and other lawmakers not to pass any laws that would restrict gun ownership.
Eddie Maxwell sent a mass email to state legislators late on Jan. 27, warning them that even attempting to introduce a gun control bill was, in his opinion, a violation of state law.
Mitchell responded from his public, ALHouse.gov email account an hour later, telling Maxwell: "Your folk never used all this sheit (sic) to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed (sic), imported criminal-minded kin folk."
"That’s not the type of reply I expect to receive from a state legislator," Maxwell replied on Feb. 11. "I’m not a racist and I find your reply to be especially offensive considering the position you hold."
Copies of the email exchange were provided to AL.com by state lawmakers who were included in the correspondence. The emails are printed below, edited only to remove the specific addresses.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/post_44.html



From the original e-mail:


You have sworn to support our constitution. You have defined a violation of an oath in an official proceeding as a class C felony (C.O.A. Section 13A-10-101 Perjury in the first degree).


I wonder if this is the case in all states and at the federal level.

ISNJH
03-27-2013, 10:37 PM
news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57576673-71/facebook-boy-with-gun-pic-governor-wants-investigation/

Facebook boy-with-gun pic: Governor wants investigation


You thought it was all done bar the noisy debating. And even that was abating.

But not just yet.

After Shawn Moore posted a Facebook picture of his 11-year-old son, Josh, with a fetching .22 rifle, child-protection experts and police arrived.

Moore, of Carneys Point, N.J., was outraged. So was his lawyer. The police wanted to enter his house and examine the safe where he kept his guns. They wanted to know that his son would be safe.

The police, though, had no warrant.

Subsequently, the authorities explained that there was a heightened sensitivity, after the Newtown massacre.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is, however, not satisfied.

According to Fox News, the governor has asked his state's attorney general, Jeffrey Chiesa, to investigate "whether all applicable laws were appropriately followed, and to take any remedial, investigative, or other actions that may be required."

The governor is disturbed by reports that members of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency offered an excessively assertive attitude. The Department of Youth and Family Services has maintained its silence, citing confidentiality.



The police, it seems, have begun to provide their own details, prior to this investigation.

The Philadelphia Daily News reports today that police described Moore as "ranting" and being both aggressive and arrogant when they visited.

Worse, police said Moore smelled of alcohol and suggested that his wife, Julie, was none too pleased with her husband.

The police report, obtained by the Daily News, reads: "While we were waiting, Julie stood and spoke to us stating, Shawn has not been the same person since President Obama was elected. She stated he is obsessed with gun control, owning weapons, and his right to bear arms. Julie seemed embarrassed at her husband's behavior, however, she did not seem surprised."

Perhaps, then, any investigation by the attorney general might unearth even more polarizing facts and accusations.



A person that is a gun instructor and makes some of his income doing gun training its no wonder this issue is important to him also early reports was that he had been called back home early after stopping to chill with some friends and likely had a few drinks after work, also if they consider ranting being "no you cant enter and search my house without a warrant" and you have to talk to my lawyer on the phone. I am going to wait until final investigation comes out before passing judgement on both parties but the person that acted the worst I felt was the child services agent that refused to give name or show ID or provide any information to the lawyer.

James
03-28-2013, 01:39 AM
Just curious as to how much one of these prosecutions might cost the government? That could be an inhibiting factor. I know it is when computer crimes are called to account.

I'm sure that plays a role, but I also think it's beside the point. The DOJ has a job to do. Failure to prosecute violations of Federal law for whatever reason isn't going to be solved by making new laws or taking away the rights of law abiding citizens. To me, the numbers indicate a problem with the system.

Regardless, outlaws, by definition, are what?

James
03-28-2013, 01:49 AM
By George, I think you have it. And Joe Biden today was quoted as saying that this is just the beginning. Oh boy.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2013/03/biden_says_gun_control_votes_only_the_beginning

I'm all for more effective background checks and prosecution and harsher penalties for gun traffickers. From the numbers I posted in my earlier, I can't figure out how creating more laws (thus creating more potential violations) is going to solve the problem, when it's clear that they can't handle everything that comes their way now.

LineDoggie
03-28-2013, 11:13 AM
The old guard (McCain) went to dinner with Obama while Rand was filibustering last time. bunch of RINO's.
Rand Paul has every right to Filibuster but that doesnt mean he was right in this case. If anyone honestly thinks like Rand that Obama would drone strike average Joe Citizen then you've eaten too many lead paint chips.

RICHICOQUI
03-28-2013, 12:06 PM
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/03/post_44.html