…but, they sure as Hell will!
(from my friend Kevin @ The Smallest Minority)
I WILL NOT RegisterI discovered in 2003 that the state of New Jersey had outlawed the original Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber rifle as an “assault weapon” because its tubular magazine held “more than 10 rounds.” Now New York City has done something similar, but it’s magazine capacity limit is five. And they’re serious about it:
The only effective use of a firearm registry is to make it easier to take guns away from the law abiding.I will not register. After the first felony, the rest are free.
Days of our Trailers (or as I lovingly refer to them – DOOT) posted recently regarding the hoops some guy had to go through to get a gun in his jurisdiction. (Spoiler Alert – he received one and should not have!)
Guy who makes lots of mistakes in his youth turns his life around and goes straight. Family, honest employment helping people, the works.
But he makes several other mistakes. Big ones.
He changed his name to make things easier to move on, get a good job, not get labelled. Fair enough. But under his new name he is still a prohibited person…. and he went and got a gun.
How, you ask, can he do this with all of the licensing and background checks in place?
Easy… The system screwed up…. again and again.
Background check #1: FOID card. Mandatory for any purchase/possession of a firearm or ammo in the state. 30+ days for the state to conduct a background check. Falsifying information on the application is a class 2 Felony. (question 2)
Background check #2: Firearm purchase. NICS w/ the form 4473. State mandated 72 hr waiting period for handguns. Falsifying information on the form is a felony (question 11c) (assuming he purchased the weapon legally that is)
Background check #3: CCW. 90 days for background check w/ fingerprints, 120 days w/o fingerprints. 3-4 months for a simple court records search.
Him merely having the gun was a felony under any circumstance.
So two or three extended time background checks and waiting periods all failed.
But lets do it again… only harder.
Because, it’s all about CONTROL!
Maybe it’s Dopers to the left of me, Gunnies to the right…?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week decided it was ‘ok’ to deny the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, who happened to possess State-issued medical marijuana cards!
I’m guessing, because BATFE Rules stipulate if one is ‘addicted’ to the maryjane, one is a prohibited possessor. Because while many States have medical mj in place, and some have legalized or decriminalized it’s possession, it’s still against Federal law.
I’ve met some folks who might have medical mj cards. And might own firearms. Who are generally responsible citizens.
As a side note, the same day the Administration reported they are NOT removing mj from the rolls as a Schedule 1 substance, was the same day the President’s daughter was reported smoking a joint.
And, of course, the President himself has been pictured in his youth doing mj and admitted using cocaine. What’s good for the goose is not good for his daughter? Isn’t he in close proximity of many firearms?
I remain a libertarian (small L). As such, I condemn drug laws for adults. As the Left is fond of intoning it’s YOUR body! If you want to eat, shoot, snort (rub-into-your-belly or whatever – G. Carlin) something, it’s your choice!
And just because someone tokes once-in-a-while, should that prohibit them from possessing a firearm? Even if they are doing so LEGALLY in their State?
How many gun folks do you know who drink more than the legally-approved quantity of alcohol and carry? I would guess more than one…
A Right is a Right is a Right. What you put in your body or what you use to protect it should not be up to government bureaucrats!
from Free North Carolina
A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.
The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.More @ Fox
Or, at least, a sniveling 14%!
PoliceOne, a private organization with 450,000 members (380,000 full-time active law enforcement and 70,000 retired), polled its members in 2013 shortly after the Newtown, Conn., massacre. Eighty percent of respondents said allowing legally armed citizens to carry guns in places such as Newtown and Aurora would have reduced the number of casualties. Another 6 percent thought the presence of legally armed civilians would “likely” have prevented the innocent casualties altogether.
According to police and prosecutors, there have been dozens of cases of permit holders clearly stopping what would have been mass public shootings. It’s understandable these killers avoid places where they can’t kill a large number of people.
Because so-called ‘gun free’ zones work so well…
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #16 of 22)
This Administration is (in)famous for the promotion of firearms sales, through it’s attempts to strip rights from the law-abiding. (Better than Clinton through HIS attempts!)
And that’s saying something.
One of the more recent efforts is to deny The Right To Keep And Bear Arms from those relegated to the No-Fly List.
The brilliant, beautiful (and snarky) Tamara says it better:
“Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people. A leak revealed that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.“
So, what other constitutional rights do we think it would be cool to strip from people extrajudicially?
ETA: To put a finer point on it…
“A lot of folks who are screaming to throw all Muslims on to terror watch lists are the same folks who were cheerleading for that assclown Amon Bundy and his band of dipshits. Little do they realize expanding secret lists of “enemies of the state” will be their undoing….” -A Facebook Commenter
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #15 of 22)
“Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. “
–Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000
We did. There are now over 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.
I’m not gay. And, I’m not Black, or a religious minority, or even a Republican!
But, given recent sad, horrifying events it occurred to me that while I believed all law-abiding people have the right to self-defense, I was only promoting Black and Jewish groups on my blog.
And I’m certain this is the first (and perhaps the last) time I’ve quoted Salon on my blog!
I do know some gay folks. And have worked with some when I was in the work force. Like every other minority (or majority member) I encountered, some were excellent at their jobs, some mediocre, and some downright near unemployable (in my opinion).
But all have a Right of Self Defense.
Let’s promote that, accompanied along with the abolition of so-called gun free zones, and bring the fight back to the terrorist and criminal.
We all owe it to each other.
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #11 of 22)
Let’s say your speech from a soapbox in the public park plays well in NYC’s Central Park. But, not as well in rural Missouri.
Should your right to free speech be restricted in Missouri.? But not in New York?
I don’t think so.
A Right is a Right is a Right. PERIOD.
How about your right to practice (or not) a religion? Or freely assemble? Or deny troops access to your home for quartering in peacetime? Or your right to not self-incriminate?
Different in the Big City versus the small town?
You know where I’m going.
(courtesy of David Codrea)
Jeb’s ridiculous and arrogant view of location-based rights is still not enough for Debbie, who expressed no objections when Obama said the same thing. They all know it’s a lie, and the edicts they’re going after, from the baby steps of “universal background checks” to the end game, will have no “home rule” regional limitations. They just use that term for the suckers.
Still, it wouldn’t be out of line to ask Jeb to explain in detail what specifically works for New York City. Matter of fact, those who have given him “A” ratings and endorsements in the past ought to be demanding it…
UPDATE: Not that I expect this will be anything but ignored…
Of course, old-timers like me remember when William Jefferson Clinton’s running mate (you know, the guy who invented the Internet, and global warming) was the guy who roomed at Harvard with Texan actor Tommy Lee Jones. And Mr. Jones (a Texas rancher and gun owner) ascribed to the same beliefs! That it was okay to carry firearms in Texas, but in D.C. and N.Y.C. (the big city) it was a no-no.
That argument didn’t hold for Tommy Lee Jones, and it doesn’t hold for Jeb and Barack, either!
Courtesy of Brock Townsend and the NRA/ILA…
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.The rest @ NRA-ILA
At a cost!
Vets told they can ‘buy back’ 2nd Amendment rights
‘This is illegal and is called extortion’