In Ks if you purchase a new gun via a licensed dealer... a regesistration of sorts (all the paperwork crap for background check). However if you buy a gun from a private individual you can opt to register with local authority. I have a dealer I buy through that only charges me $25 over the cost of the equipment. Transfer fee...
If he is only charging $25 you be sure to remember him on Christmas and if he smokes cigars a gift once in awhile would be nice. There is so much gauging going on by FFL holders it makes me want to scream.
Its not really registering that is the problem. He needed a permit/license to even buy one in NYC. Background checks are, don't let anyone tell you different, is defacto(?) registration.
For those that justify not registering despite the law requiring them to do so, I have to ask. Is your fear of confiscation big enough to overcome the risk of fines, prison, loss of job, etc? I find it amazing that the answer could be yes. I realize the government confiscated guns from Japanese - Americans after Pearl Harbor, but do you actually view it as a credible threat worthy of that much risk? I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
Several thousand people, possible in the 6-digits, in Connecticut think its a credible threat. Check out what is going on there right now.
jd50ae:
macs-smokes:
In Ks if you purchase a new gun via a licensed dealer... a regesistration of sorts (all the paperwork crap for background check). However if you buy a gun from a private individual you can opt to register with local authority. I have a dealer I buy through that only charges me $25 over the cost of the equipment. Transfer fee...
If he is only charging $25 you be sure to remember him on Christmas and if he smokes cigars a gift once in awhile would be nice. There is so much gauging going on by FFL holders it makes me want to scream.
That's pretty much the going rate in Texas, too. There are a couple that charge $30, but most of the places around where I am charge $25.
Does unlicensed mean that it was not registered or that like the serial number was scratched off? I'm not a gun guy either.
Scratching or otherwise removing a SN is a Federal crime as well as a state crime.
You need a license in NYC to buy a firearm and registration is a misused word. If he was caught with the unlicensed firearm on his person and charged, it means he did not have a carry permit either, which is 2 different laws.
the law he is in most trouble for is possessing a gun he was not registered to have. So buying a firearm and not registering it.
which again, makes no sense to me.
isn't it against the 2nd amendment for authorities to confiscate legal weapons?
My state does not require a firearm to be registered. Even the ones that I have purchased from a dealer and filled out the forms for the ATF. When I purchase a firearm (Lets say pistol) in KY from a dealer, the forms are filled out, the dealer calls the ATF gives them my info for a background check and the ATF asks if it is a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. So all they know is on a given date I applied to purchase a pistol from X dealer. The forms have more info, but that stays at the dealer for record keeping. The ATF has the ability to check that the dealer is keeping proper records, however that doesn't happen very often.
Now if you want to talk person to person sales. As long as both the seller and the buyer are residents of the state of KY, the most that is needed is a bill of sale and it isn't a requirement. Just a insurance for both parties in case the firearm wasis used in a crime.
Only firearms that I know of that require a form of registration are the Full auto, destructive weapons like grenades and rockets, and Short Barrel RifleShotguns.
A background check is defacto registration even though the paperwork stays at the dealers place of business. I say this because on more then one occasion I have know the police to visit someone for a completely non gun related reason and the first thing they ask is about his firearms.
A little bit related: More then once we had local police come in and want all the records of so and sos firearm purchases, and they were denied. Only if they have a particular firearm in mind and a good reason can they have a look. Blanket "looks" are not allowed and we let them know it, very nicely of course.
You need a license to own a class III firearm or destructive devise. The license is also registration. And I believe, like in NYC, you need the license before you can make the purchase.
the law he is in most trouble for is possessing a gun he was not registered to have. So buying a firearm and not registering it.
which again, makes no sense to me.
isn't it against the 2nd amendment for authorities to confiscate legal weapons?
I guess that depends on how you interpret the second amendment. The way I interpret it, yes, it is against the 2nd amendment to confiscate legal weapons. However, the definition of legal not only varies state-to-state, but it can also change. Let's say my state, Texas, passes a law banning all firearms with magazine capacity higher than 5. At that point, they could confiscate my weapons.
Look at California, where they are constantly dropping handguns off their approved list. There are even many revolvers that are not on the approved handgun list there. You could purchase a handgun there today, and a few months down the road they drop it off the list. When they do that, your handgun is no longer legal, and therefore subject to confiscation. On top of that, they just recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of semi automatic handguns that do not include the microstamping (the pistol stamps its make, model, and serial number on the casing as it fires) feature. I believe that currently citizens who already own non-microstamping pistols are grandfathered in, but that is as easy as a bill passing in state legislature to revoke.
I don't understand what is wrong with that........all of the legislative branch of the government is elected by a majority of the people. Those law makers instituted laws that the majority of the people in the state want......otherwise the people who live there wouldn't have voted them into office.
If the majority of the people don't feel that handguns or guns with a magazine capacity higher than 5 are safe, isn't it OK within our democratic system to allow them to make laws to restrict them? Isn't that democracy at work? Same thing with people in colorado and washington.......the majority felt that marijuana wasn't dangerous so they put in officials that felt the same way.
the law he is in most trouble for is possessing a gun he was not registered to have. So buying a firearm and not registering it.
which again, makes no sense to me.
isn't it against the 2nd amendment for authorities to confiscate legal weapons?
I guess that depends on how you interpret the second amendment. The way I interpret it, yes, it is against the 2nd amendment to confiscate legal weapons. However, the definition of legal not only varies state-to-state, but it can also change. Let's say my state, Texas, passes a law banning all firearms with magazine capacity higher than 5. At that point, they could confiscate my weapons.
Look at California, where they are constantly dropping handguns off their approved list. There are even many revolvers that are not on the approved handgun list there. You could purchase a handgun there today, and a few months down the road they drop it off the list. When they do that, your handgun is no longer legal, and therefore subject to confiscation. On top of that, they just recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of semi automatic handguns that do not include the microstamping (the pistol stamps its make, model, and serial number on the casing as it fires) feature. I believe that currently citizens who already own non-microstamping pistols are grandfathered in, but that is as easy as a bill passing in state legislature to revoke.
I don't understand what is wrong with that........all of the legislative branch of the government is elected by a majority of the people. Those law makers instituted laws that the majority of the people in the state want......otherwise the people who live there wouldn't have voted them into office.
If the majority of the people don't feel that handguns or guns with a magazine capacity higher than 5 are safe, isn't it OK within our democratic system to allow them to make laws to restrict them? Isn't that democracy at work? Same thing with people in colorado and washington.......the majority felt that marijuana wasn't dangerous so they put in officials that felt the same way.
isn't that what the american way is all about?
Not so fast. Can you think of any laws that were passed by a majority of elected officials or by referendum of a majority of the voters that was later ruled unconstitutional? Wasn't gay marriage in California voted down by a referendum of the voters themselves, only to be overturned later by some high court ruling? I know that's an entirely different subject and I'm not even addressing the subject of gun legislation but my point is that majority rule isn't necessarily how things always work.
Hoping not to thread jack------but anyone else here not own a gun, never own a gun, and never fired a gun?
No, never, only if you count bb/pellet/paintball/potato/rubber-band. Never even got to shoot a .22 in scouts; they made the camp I went to stop, so we stuck with the pellet guns.
I'm not opposed to it and would probably enjoy it, but my dad's not a hunter so he never taught me growing up. One grandpa had enough of guns in the army during WWII, and the other hated hunting after having to do it during the depression. My wife hates 'em (and has good reasons), so no. That and I don't have the $$$$$.
Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot. I will smoke anything, though.
the law he is in most trouble for is possessing a gun he was not registered to have. So buying a firearm and not registering it.
which again, makes no sense to me.
isn't it against the 2nd amendment for authorities to confiscate legal weapons?
I guess that depends on how you interpret the second amendment. The way I interpret it, yes, it is against the 2nd amendment to confiscate legal weapons. However, the definition of legal not only varies state-to-state, but it can also change. Let's say my state, Texas, passes a law banning all firearms with magazine capacity higher than 5. At that point, they could confiscate my weapons.
Look at California, where they are constantly dropping handguns off their approved list. There are even many revolvers that are not on the approved handgun list there. You could purchase a handgun there today, and a few months down the road they drop it off the list. When they do that, your handgun is no longer legal, and therefore subject to confiscation. On top of that, they just recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of semi automatic handguns that do not include the microstamping (the pistol stamps its make, model, and serial number on the casing as it fires) feature. I believe that currently citizens who already own non-microstamping pistols are grandfathered in, but that is as easy as a bill passing in state legislature to revoke.
I don't understand what is wrong with that........all of the legislative branch of the government is elected by a majority of the people. Those law makers instituted laws that the majority of the people in the state want......otherwise the people who live there wouldn't have voted them into office.
If the majority of the people don't feel that handguns or guns with a magazine capacity higher than 5 are safe, isn't it OK within our democratic system to allow them to make laws to restrict them? Isn't that democracy at work? Same thing with people in colorado and washington.......the majority felt that marijuana wasn't dangerous so they put in officials that felt the same way.
isn't that what the american way is all about?
Not so fast. Can you think of any laws that were passed by a majority of elected officials or by referendum of a majority of the voters that was later ruled unconstitutional? Wasn't gay marriage in California voted down by a referendum of the voters themselves, only to be overturned later by some high court ruling? I know that's an entirely different subject and I'm not even addressing the subject of gun legislation but my point is that majority rule isn't necessarily how things always work.
isn't that how the process works though? People elect officials or referendum. Legislatures enact laws or the public passes the law. Law is challenged in a court of law. Courts weigh the law against the constitution. Declare it unconstitutional if it is
For those that justify not registering despite the law requiring them to do so, I have to ask. Is your fear of confiscation big enough to overcome the risk of fines, prison, loss of job, etc? I find it amazing that the answer could be yes. I realize the government confiscated guns from Japanese - Americans after Pearl Harbor, but do you actually view it as a credible threat worthy of that much risk? I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
Several thousand people, possible in the 6-digits, in Connecticut think its a credible threat. Check out what is going on there right now.
Exactly! Do you really think the government is going to take your guns if you register them? Wouldn't you have a greater chance of that happening if you don't register them (i.e. break the law)? People realize you can't use your unregistered guns if you are in jail for breaking the law, right? I just don't get it. The laws say you can have them, they just have to be registered. You know, just like your car. No one seems to mind registering that. No one is taking away your car because you registered it. It really seems like a lot of unnecessary fear.
I'm in the market for a handgun right now. Kansas is "Open Carry". No license, no registration...just your standard paperwork at the shop. So...when I move? I check the laws there, register if needed...etc. Easy pesy. Eventually, I'd like to get my federal CCP. However, that's in due time...and with due cash...lol
Im in the same boat... like to get one, learn how to use it. KY is open carry, but I'd like to do the classes and get the CCDW permit too. Not real sure on the registration process, besides background checks before you buy
For those that justify not registering despite the law requiring them to do so, I have to ask. Is your fear of confiscation big enough to overcome the risk of fines, prison, loss of job, etc? I find it amazing that the answer could be yes. I realize the government confiscated guns from Japanese - Americans after Pearl Harbor, but do you actually view it as a credible threat worthy of that much risk? I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
Several thousand people, possible in the 6-digits, in Connecticut think its a credible threat. Check out what is going on there right now.
Exactly! Do you really think the government is going to take your guns if you register them? Wouldn't you have a greater chance of that happening if you don't register them (i.e. break the law)? People realize you can't use your unregistered guns if you are in jail for breaking the law, right? I just don't get it. The laws say you can have them, they just have to be registered. You know, just like your car. No one seems to mind registering that. No one is taking away your car because you registered it. It really seems like a lot of unnecessary fear.
So we already know about the confiscation of the Japanese-Americans guns and the gun confiscations in New Orleans post Katrina and the situation in Conneticut Here's some more: Those in New York who own rifles and shotguns capable of holding over 5 rounds recieved a letter in the mail last Novemeber informing them to turn their guns into their local police station. This was followed on with an option to either sell the firearm outside the state and provide proof or have it professionally altered by a gunsmith and provide proof...or face confiscation as referenced in the letter. Even Here in CA we have the Armed Prohibited Persons Act that the original intent was to disarm those with felonies or who had been found to be seriously mentally ill. This has since been expanded to anyone with a general felony, has been to a psychiatraist or had taken drugs to improve mental state. They took this a step further and now the Act applies to anyone with a domestic dispute or convicted of a misdemeanor. Additionally back in 99(also in CA) californians in possesion of what the government deemed as assault weapons were given a 90 day grace period to turn in said weapons or face confiscation. How did all of the above even know who had what weapon so that it could be confiscated...registration. New York is a perfect example of how all the legislation has to do is outlaw certain features of a gun such as a detachable mag, telescoping stock, ammo capacity to slowly clamp down on the gun owning community. What if we went to Australias laws and banned all handguns and all non single shot bolt action long guns? How would they know who had the illegal weapons? I stated before in my fisrt post, the only reason you register something is so it can be taxed, regulated or confiscated. You gave the example of a car. Lets relate the above scenarios to that. If you own an older car your registration fees will vary greater than if you had a newer model or god forbid youre in CA and buy an F-250 and get hit with a weight fee. Why? Own a hybrid and you dont have to get it smogged. Why? Ever stop and wonder why....i mean really why we have to register our vehicles in the first place.
Back to the original subject, a car is not a means of personal defense. A car can be used for hobby and sport but not my cup of joe. Who determined that the magical number of 10 rounds is "standard" capacity. What if they decided "standard capacity is now 5 rounds...or 3... and any gun capable of holding more is considered hi-capacity and now illegal. All of this rhetoric does nothing...zip,zilch,nada...to keep the guns of of the hands of thugs and gangsters. Nor will any amount of regulation on the gun and ammo industry or on legal gun owners.
Hoping not to thread jack------but anyone else here not own a gun, never own a gun, and never fired a gun?
Me. I don't own one, and have never owned one, and, other than doing rifle firing at camp as a kid, have never fired a gun as an adult. Since the gun ownership rules in MA are some of the toughest in the nation (which I applaud), I would like to, at some time, take a gun training/safety course from a reputable non-NRA-affiliated entity just so I can become more familiar with them, in case I ever decide to buy one for home protection purposes only.
Hoping not to thread jack------but anyone else here not own a gun, never own a gun, and never fired a gun?
Me. I don't own one, and have never owned one, and, other than doing rifle firing at camp as a kid, have never fired a gun as an adult. Since the gun ownership rules in MA are some of the toughest in the nation (which I applaud), I would like to, at some time, take a gun training/safety course from a reputable non-NRA-affiliated entity just so I can become more familiar with them, in case I ever decide to buy one for home protection purposes only.
Why a non NRA entity? just curious... i seem to hear people say this alot.
For those that justify not registering despite the law requiring them to do so, I have to ask. Is your fear of confiscation big enough to overcome the risk of fines, prison, loss of job, etc? I find it amazing that the answer could be yes. I realize the government confiscated guns from Japanese - Americans after Pearl Harbor, but do you actually view it as a credible threat worthy of that much risk? I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
Several thousand people, possible in the 6-digits, in Connecticut think its a credible threat. Check out what is going on there right now.
Exactly! Do you really think the government is going to take your guns if you register them? Wouldn't you have a greater chance of that happening if you don't register them (i.e. break the law)? People realize you can't use your unregistered guns if you are in jail for breaking the law, right? I just don't get it. The laws say you can have them, they just have to be registered. You know, just like your car. No one seems to mind registering that. No one is taking away your car because you registered it. It really seems like a lot of unnecessary fear.
So we already know about the confiscation of the Japanese-Americans guns and the gun confiscations in New Orleans post Katrina and the situation in Conneticut Here's some more: Those in New York who own rifles and shotguns capable of holding over 5 rounds recieved a letter in the mail last Novemeber informing them to turn their guns into their local police station. This was followed on with an option to either sell the firearm outside the state and provide proof or have it professionally altered by a gunsmith and provide proof...or face confiscation as referenced in the letter. Even Here in CA we have the Armed Prohibited Persons Act that the original intent was to disarm those with felonies or who had been found to be seriously mentally ill. This has since been expanded to anyone with a general felony, has been to a psychiatraist or had taken drugs to improve mental state. They took this a step further and now the Act applies to anyone with a domestic dispute or convicted of a misdemeanor. Additionally back in 99(also in CA) californians in possesion of what the government deemed as assault weapons were given a 90 day grace period to turn in said weapons or face confiscation. How did all of the above even know who had what weapon so that it could be confiscated...registration. New York is a perfect example of how all the legislation has to do is outlaw certain features of a gun such as a detachable mag, telescoping stock, ammo capacity to slowly clamp down on the gun owning community. What if we went to Australias laws and banned all handguns and all non single shot bolt action long guns? How would they know who had the illegal weapons? I stated before in my fisrt post, the only reason you register something is so it can be taxed, regulated or confiscated. You gave the example of a car. Lets relate the above scenarios to that. If you own an older car your registration fees will vary greater than if you had a newer model or god forbid youre in CA and buy an F-250 and get hit with a weight fee. Why? Own a hybrid and you dont have to get it smogged. Why? Ever stop and wonder why....i mean really why we have to register our vehicles in the first place.
Back to the original subject, a car is not a means of personal defense. A car can be used for hobby and sport but not my cup of joe. Who determined that the magical number of 10 rounds is "standard" capacity. What if they decided "standard capacity is now 5 rounds...or 3... and any gun capable of holding more is considered hi-capacity and now illegal. All of this rhetoric does nothing...zip,zilch,nada...to keep the guns of of the hands of thugs and gangsters. Nor will any amount of regulation on the gun and ammo industry or on legal gun owners.
Gonna quote this since it's awesome. My standard magazine in the Army is 30.
For those that justify not registering despite the law requiring them to do so, I have to ask. Is your fear of confiscation big enough to overcome the risk of fines, prison, loss of job, etc? I find it amazing that the answer could be yes. I realize the government confiscated guns from Japanese - Americans after Pearl Harbor, but do you actually view it as a credible threat worthy of that much risk? I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
Several thousand people, possible in the 6-digits, in Connecticut think its a credible threat. Check out what is going on there right now.
Exactly! Do you really think the government is going to take your guns if you register them? Wouldn't you have a greater chance of that happening if you don't register them (i.e. break the law)? People realize you can't use your unregistered guns if you are in jail for breaking the law, right? I just don't get it. The laws say you can have them, they just have to be registered. You know, just like your car. No one seems to mind registering that. No one is taking away your car because you registered it. It really seems like a lot of unnecessary fear.
So we already know about the confiscation of the Japanese-Americans guns and the gun confiscations in New Orleans post Katrina and the situation in Conneticut Here's some more: Those in New York who own rifles and shotguns capable of holding over 5 rounds recieved a letter in the mail last Novemeber informing them to turn their guns into their local police station. This was followed on with an option to either sell the firearm outside the state and provide proof or have it professionally altered by a gunsmith and provide proof...or face confiscation as referenced in the letter. Even Here in CA we have the Armed Prohibited Persons Act that the original intent was to disarm those with felonies or who had been found to be seriously mentally ill. This has since been expanded to anyone with a general felony, has been to a psychiatraist or had taken drugs to improve mental state. They took this a step further and now the Act applies to anyone with a domestic dispute or convicted of a misdemeanor. Additionally back in 99(also in CA) californians in possesion of what the government deemed as assault weapons were given a 90 day grace period to turn in said weapons or face confiscation. How did all of the above even know who had what weapon so that it could be confiscated...registration. New York is a perfect example of how all the legislation has to do is outlaw certain features of a gun such as a detachable mag, telescoping stock, ammo capacity to slowly clamp down on the gun owning community. What if we went to Australias laws and banned all handguns and all non single shot bolt action long guns? How would they know who had the illegal weapons? I stated before in my fisrt post, the only reason you register something is so it can be taxed, regulated or confiscated. You gave the example of a car. Lets relate the above scenarios to that. If you own an older car your registration fees will vary greater than if you had a newer model or god forbid youre in CA and buy an F-250 and get hit with a weight fee. Why? Own a hybrid and you dont have to get it smogged. Why? Ever stop and wonder why....i mean really why we have to register our vehicles in the first place.
Back to the original subject, a car is not a means of personal defense. A car can be used for hobby and sport but not my cup of joe. Who determined that the magical number of 10 rounds is "standard" capacity. What if they decided "standard capacity is now 5 rounds...or 3... and any gun capable of holding more is considered hi-capacity and now illegal. All of this rhetoric does nothing...zip,zilch,nada...to keep the guns of of the hands of thugs and gangsters. Nor will any amount of regulation on the gun and ammo industry or on legal gun owners.
Gonna quote this since it's awesome. My standard magazine in the Army is 30.
Yup yup, I have a ton of 30rd mags laying around for an M4/M16/AR15. The .40 I just got yesterday, came with a 10rd and a 12rd mag.
I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
This view is naive, at best. There are large, well-funded, powerful, growing forces in our country that want exactly that thing to happen. And, just like when Hitler marched into France, one day they will go into your local sherrifs office, get the list, and start doing so. Also, just like then, 99% of the gun owners will look out their doors, see that they're seriously out-gunned, and turn them over. Ask an Australian. Ask a Brit. Germans can have guns, not at their home, of course, unless they're rich, but you can own one that's kept in a locker at the firing range. You check it out during hours of operation, count your ammo with a witness, fire under supervised conditions.
Step by step, year after year, decade after decade, Americans are trained to be dependent. The time for rugged individualism has been declared "over", the masters do not want a population that can take care of itself, solve it's own problems, feed itself from their own efforts. So, be a good little slave, give up your freedom, and we'll keep you safe, fat, dumb, and happy.
As long as you obey, and make money/power for the chosen few.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I just don't envision anyone going door to door collecting our guns.
This view is naive, at best. There are large, well-funded, powerful, growing forces in our country that want exactly that thing to happen. And, just like when Hitler marched into France, one day they will go into your local sherrifs office, get the list, and start doing so. Also, just like then, 99% of the gun owners will look out their doors, see that they're seriously out-gunned, and turn them over. Ask an Australian. Ask a Brit. Germans can have guns, not at their home, of course, unless they're rich, but you can own one that's kept in a locker at the firing range. You check it out during hours of operation, count your ammo with a witness, fire under supervised conditions.
Step by step, year after year, decade after decade, Americans are trained to be dependent. The time for rugged individualism has been declared "over", the masters do not want a population that can take care of itself, solve it's own problems, feed itself from their own efforts. So, be a good little slave, give up your freedom, and we'll keep you safe, fat, dumb, and happy.
As long as you obey, and make money/power for the chosen few.
Exactly! The second amendment was put in the Constitution by men who knew all too well the tendency of men to seek uncontested dominance over other men. The right to bear arms was never about being able to hunt or shoot skeet... It was about citizens being equipped to defend themselves against a despotic and oppressive government. Any government that seeks to limit, diminish or eliminate that right should be suspected of ill motives.
"When I have found intense pain relieved, a weary brain soothed, and calm, refreshing sleep obtained by a cigar, I have felt grateful to God, and have blessed His name." - Charles Haddon Spurgeon
If I purchase my weapon LEGALLY, proper paperwork is filed. So, now the state is aware of my purchase. I'm fine with this. The weapon is legal, and background check completed. That is all they need to know.
Now, if I go register it, after a legal purchase, that does a few things. Generally speaking, the registration process is federal. So, now the federal govt. is aware of my purchase. Also, the "registration" process, is not free. However, registering federally now means that wherever I go...they can track that gun. They want to take them back, they know where to look. I pay good money, for a legal weapon, and they want to take them back.
Is there a legal motion being put forth, to go confiscate truck fulls of illegal guns? Nah...those are fine. We can keep them around. They are to hard to "legally" take. The ones that are purchased legally, by law abiding citizens however, those are easy to take.
This is why people don't register guns. You may as well shove a GPS tracker in the housing, so they can find you faster.
Hoping not to thread jack------but anyone else here not own a gun, never own a gun, and never fired a gun?
Me. I don't own one, and have never owned one, and, other than doing rifle firing at camp as a kid, have never fired a gun as an adult. Since the gun ownership rules in MA are some of the toughest in the nation (which I applaud), I would like to, at some time, take a gun training/safety course from a reputable non-NRA-affiliated entity just so I can become more familiar with them, in case I ever decide to buy one for home protection purposes only.
Why a non NRA entity? just curious... i seem to hear people say this alot.
Aj
Because while I do support 2nd Amendments rights in general--not because I believe it was written specifically to allow citizens to own guns for whatever purpose they wanted but because the courts have interpreted it to mean that way and I do want to have the ability to own a gun--for me the NRA's reprehensible stance supporting unlimited and unchecked access to guns at any cost, its horrible stance after the massacre in CT, and its general right-wing politics offends me. Although I fully understand that many people support its stance. I do believe that there must be gun clubs out there that don't embrace the NRA's politics or support it.
I was going to type a response, but it is clear that it is pointless. I'll stick to convincing people to think about their political and religious views instead. Lol.
Surprise surprise. Who'da thunk this thread would evolve/devolve into an over-reaching all-encompassing second amendment debate? LOL. Here's an offer. In the spirit of this thread title. "Question for the Gun people" I'd be willing to give a simple answer to a simple question. I'm "gun people". So ask me an honest question. I'll give you an honest answer. I'll tell you what I think. Not what other people think. I will not demonize opposing views. It'll be just my thoughts and opinions, nothing more. Big can of worms? We'll see.
Just to touch on initial part of the thread Felton had an unregistered handgun in NYC because it was impossible to register it. Handguns are illegal in NYC, everywhere else in the state you can own a handgun and register it.
Just to touch on initial part of the thread Felton had an unregistered handgun in NYC because it was impossible to register it. Handguns are illegal in NYC, everywhere else in the state you can own a handgun and register it.
that's exactly what i don't get.....you are making millions of dollars playing basketball why can't you just follow the damn law? Hell even if you are making 30K why can you just follow the law?
Just to touch on initial part of the thread Felton had an unregistered handgun in NYC because it was impossible to register it. Handguns are illegal in NYC, everywhere else in the state you can own a handgun and register it.
that's exactly what i don't get.....you are making millions of dollars playing basketball why can't you just follow the damn law? Hell even if you are making 30K why can you just follow the law?
What I don't get. You're a law abiding citizen, why can't you own a gun without having the simple fact of owning it turning you into a "criminal"?
I think the underlying mistake here is in believing that because there's a law, the law is right. Lots and lots of things have been against the law, and the law was wrong. Plain and simple, wrong! So, how about we exercise our true right, the right to un-make wrongful laws? Instead of turning honest people into criminals with the stroke of a self-serving pen?
Before people who can't understand the points I'm making turn my words into some cliched talking points, I do believe in licensing of gun owners. I think that once you're past your check points, though, you should be able to own / carry firearms, everywhere, period. If I'm already known to be able to own guns in my state, that should automatically apply across the entire country, unless I commit some infraction that causes me to lose that privilege.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I was going to type a response, but it is clear that it is pointless. I'll stick to convincing people to think about their political and religious views instead. Lol.
You have any idea how many paragraphs I have written and deleted in regards to this thread?
I will simply say this. I do not need a reason to excercise my freedoms. If you do not like guns don't buy them. There is just so much to say I will overwhlem you and most won't read it all. So do me a favor. Before anyone here spouts off talking points and makes yourself look uneducated look at real facts and have some basic knowledge of firearms. These gun grabbing liberals on television talking about fully automatic assault rifles, which none of us can own, and how you put 30 clips into a magazine makes them lose all credibility with anyone who has some knowledge. Listening to them drives me mad because they have no idea what they are talking about and then all the sheep with no firearm knowledge believe all the lies and inaccuracies. When I say you in this paragraph it is generalizing. Not directed at anyone. No matter how many laws you pass for the good of the People, criminals will continue to break the law and do evil things.
As to the original question here is my thoughts. Be a responsible gun owner. Lock them up. Train. Teach safety and practice safety. And if you have children educate them and lock them up. Lock up your firearms people. Also know the laws. Like them or not you need to be a responsible gun owner so you do not become a criminal. I do not support gun confiscation or registration but that is a different topic.
I was going to type a response, but it is clear that it is pointless. I'll stick to convincing people to think about their political and religious views instead. Lol.
You have any idea how many paragraphs I have written and deleted in regards to this thread?
Me too. I'm not trying to attack anyone here. Heck, people were just recently complaining that we don't have enough debate around here, but no one will actually engage in real debate. It is the same rhetoric over and over. I asked a simple question. Is your fear of the government and possible confiscation great enough to risk being fined a huge sum, possibly lose your job, going to prison, etc? Isn't it less of a risk to just follow the laws? I'm not saying the laws are right or wrong, but I do know what happens when I break them regardless of what I think about them. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to change them. This is much like the anti-smoking laws that are hurting our "other" hobby. I'm not going to light up a stogie in the teacher break room on Monday. I want to and think I should be able to, but obviously I'm not.
Comments
If he is only charging $25 you be sure to remember him on Christmas and if he smokes cigars a gift once in awhile would be nice. There is so much gauging going on by FFL holders it makes me want to scream.
Several thousand people, possible in the 6-digits, in Connecticut think its a credible threat. Check out what is going on there right now.
That's pretty much the going rate in Texas, too. There are a couple that charge $30, but most of the places around where I am charge $25.
Scratching or otherwise removing a SN is a Federal crime as well as a state crime.
You need a license in NYC to buy a firearm and registration is a misused word. If he was caught with the unlicensed firearm on his person and charged, it means he did not have a carry permit either, which is 2 different laws.
A background check is defacto registration even though the paperwork stays at the dealers place of business. I say this because on more then one occasion I have know the police to visit someone for a completely non gun related reason and the first thing they ask is about his firearms.
A little bit related:
More then once we had local police come in and want all the records of so and sos firearm purchases, and they were denied. Only if they have a particular firearm in mind and a good reason can they have a look. Blanket "looks" are not allowed and we let them know it, very nicely of course.
You need a license to own a class III firearm or destructive devise. The license is also registration. And I believe, like in NYC, you need the license before you can make the purchase.
If the majority of the people don't feel that handguns or guns with a magazine capacity higher than 5 are safe, isn't it OK within our democratic system to allow them to make laws to restrict them? Isn't that democracy at work? Same thing with people in colorado and washington.......the majority felt that marijuana wasn't dangerous so they put in officials that felt the same way.
isn't that what the american way is all about?
I'm not opposed to it and would probably enjoy it, but my dad's not a hunter so he never taught me growing up. One grandpa had enough of guns in the army during WWII, and the other hated hunting after having to do it during the depression. My wife hates 'em (and has good reasons), so no. That and I don't have the $$$$$.
I like Oliva and Quesada (including Regius) a lot. I will smoke anything, though.
I was reading that a bunch of sheriffs in Colordo have openly stated that they refuse to enforce the new gun laws though, right?
So we already know about the confiscation of the Japanese-Americans guns and the gun confiscations in New Orleans post Katrina and the situation in Conneticut Here's some more: Those in New York who own rifles and shotguns capable of holding over 5 rounds recieved a letter in the mail last Novemeber informing them to turn their guns into their local police station. This was followed on with an option to either sell the firearm outside the state and provide proof or have it professionally altered by a gunsmith and provide proof...or face confiscation as referenced in the letter. Even Here in CA we have the Armed Prohibited Persons Act that the original intent was to disarm those with felonies or who had been found to be seriously mentally ill. This has since been expanded to anyone with a general felony, has been to a psychiatraist or had taken drugs to improve mental state. They took this a step further and now the Act applies to anyone with a domestic dispute or convicted of a misdemeanor. Additionally back in 99(also in CA) californians in possesion of what the government deemed as assault weapons were given a 90 day grace period to turn in said weapons or face confiscation. How did all of the above even know who had what weapon so that it could be confiscated...registration. New York is a perfect example of how all the legislation has to do is outlaw certain features of a gun such as a detachable mag, telescoping stock, ammo capacity to slowly clamp down on the gun owning community. What if we went to Australias laws and banned all handguns and all non single shot bolt action long guns? How would they know who had the illegal weapons? I stated before in my fisrt post, the only reason you register something is so it can be taxed, regulated or confiscated. You gave the example of a car. Lets relate the above scenarios to that. If you own an older car your registration fees will vary greater than if you had a newer model or god forbid youre in CA and buy an F-250 and get hit with a weight fee. Why? Own a hybrid and you dont have to get it smogged. Why? Ever stop and wonder why....i mean really why we have to register our vehicles in the first place.
Back to the original subject, a car is not a means of personal defense. A car can be used for hobby and sport but not my cup of joe. Who determined that the magical number of 10 rounds is "standard" capacity. What if they decided "standard capacity is now 5 rounds...or 3... and any gun capable of holding more is considered hi-capacity and now illegal. All of this rhetoric does nothing...zip,zilch,nada...to keep the guns of of the hands of thugs and gangsters. Nor will any amount of regulation on the gun and ammo industry or on legal gun owners.
Aj
Step by step, year after year, decade after decade, Americans are trained to be dependent. The time for rugged individualism has been declared "over", the masters do not want a population that can take care of itself, solve it's own problems, feed itself from their own efforts. So, be a good little slave, give up your freedom, and we'll keep you safe, fat, dumb, and happy.
As long as you obey, and make money/power for the chosen few.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
If I purchase my weapon LEGALLY, proper paperwork is filed. So, now the state is aware of my purchase. I'm fine with this. The weapon is legal, and background check completed. That is all they need to know.
Now, if I go register it, after a legal purchase, that does a few things. Generally speaking, the registration process is federal. So, now the federal govt. is aware of my purchase. Also, the "registration" process, is not free. However, registering federally now means that wherever I go...they can track that gun. They want to take them back, they know where to look. I pay good money, for a legal weapon, and they want to take them back.
Is there a legal motion being put forth, to go confiscate truck fulls of illegal guns? Nah...those are fine. We can keep them around. They are to hard to "legally" take. The ones that are purchased legally, by law abiding citizens however, those are easy to take.
This is why people don't register guns. You may as well shove a GPS tracker in the housing, so they can find you faster.
I think the underlying mistake here is in believing that because there's a law, the law is right. Lots and lots of things have been against the law, and the law was wrong. Plain and simple, wrong! So, how about we exercise our true right, the right to un-make wrongful laws? Instead of turning honest people into criminals with the stroke of a self-serving pen?
Before people who can't understand the points I'm making turn my words into some cliched talking points, I do believe in licensing of gun owners. I think that once you're past your check points, though, you should be able to own / carry firearms, everywhere, period. If I'm already known to be able to own guns in my state, that should automatically apply across the entire country, unless I commit some infraction that causes me to lose that privilege.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I will simply say this. I do not need a reason to excercise my freedoms. If you do not like guns don't buy them. There is just so much to say I will overwhlem you and most won't read it all. So do me a favor. Before anyone here spouts off talking points and makes yourself look uneducated look at real facts and have some basic knowledge of firearms. These gun grabbing liberals on television talking about fully automatic assault rifles, which none of us can own, and how you put 30 clips into a magazine makes them lose all credibility with anyone who has some knowledge. Listening to them drives me mad because they have no idea what they are talking about and then all the sheep with no firearm knowledge believe all the lies and inaccuracies. When I say you in this paragraph it is generalizing. Not directed at anyone. No matter how many laws you pass for the good of the People, criminals will continue to break the law and do evil things.
As to the original question here is my thoughts. Be a responsible gun owner. Lock them up. Train. Teach safety and practice safety. And if you have children educate them and lock them up. Lock up your firearms people. Also know the laws. Like them or not you need to be a responsible gun owner so you do not become a criminal. I do not support gun confiscation or registration but that is a different topic.