Gun Laws in your state

[Flash]

As powerful a war cry "From My Cold Dead Hands" is, I would be hard pressed to believe that you would actually tell that to a police officer if Johnny Law comes knocking at your door with a recently passed law saying turn in your guns.

For reference, look up how the New Orleans police took guns away from the residents of New Orleans after Katrina, and that was without any kind of law backing them up. Now imagine if there was actually a law on the books saying that individual's couldn't own guns, how vicious it could be.

You have a point, myopic, but, yes, a point. Sooo...... they will make them ILLEGAL and then take them away.

You guys are really going overboard with you fears and rhetoric, by which I mean I think you have lost all sense of reality when it comes to assuming what an Obama administration will do when it comes to gun control.

When in recent U.S. history has anyone, Democrats included, passed a low that has allowed for the seizure of previously owned firearms? And this includes the times when Democrats controlled the Presidency and Congress at the same time. Sure, there has been some gun control legislation passed, but it did not affect guns already owned, just ones sold. So please, tell me why that will change now?

The case of the New Orleans Police after Hurricane Katrina is a unique one, and one that only happened at a time when there was a complete breakdown in civil order and the police were not even following the law. What happened hasn't exactly become SOP since then.

All it seems like now is that you are trying to scare people because you think 'your guy' might lose.

Well when they do come after your guns, IF they actually do, :icon_roll then you'll have to make a big enough stink that they don't. Dudes...relax.

At least someone else gets it.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but I thought I would throw this out as an example:

Police Seizing Guns Before Crime is Committed

 

[Flash]

Fixed. Geographic lines were more in play than party lines on that one. Only 9 House Democrats and 1 Democratic Senator (Byrd) from states that had not been members of the CSA were opposed. Of course, there were only 10 Republicans in the House and 1 in the Senate from those former CSA states, and 100% of them voted against the bill. 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats co-sponsored the bill that finally passed. Spin it however you'd like, but I think we all know that the parties of today bear little resemblance to the good old days when Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.

How the hell did this thread get here from the second amendment?

A little more reality! And also keep in mind that the legislation was first pushed by a Democratic President, from the south.

It is also largely thought by many that the 'solid south' was lost by the Democrats in large part because of their advocacy of civil rights legislation. Remember, Senator Thurmond did not end his career as a Democrat.

It us AW's, just go with the flow.

 

[C420sailor]

This isn't federal, but...

"New York City, which required rifle owners to register their guns in 1967, banned many of them as assault weapons in 1991; police have since gone knocking on doors, demanding that some people surrender their guns."

National Source for Policy Analysis

Not saying that this will happen on a federal level, but the fact that it wasn't contested or declared unconstitutional makes me a little nervous.

 

[Flash]

This isn't federal, but...

"New York City, which required rifle owners to register their guns in 1967, banned many of them as assault weapons in 1991; police have since gone knocking on doors, demanding that some people surrender their guns."

National Source for Policy Analysis

Not saying that this will happen on a federal level, but the fact that it wasn't contested or declared unconstitutional makes me a little nervous.

I would presume you mean the 'National Center for Policy Analysis'?

And please post a link, your claim is unsubstantiated without any proof.

 

[A4sForever]

Some things most of you more firearms/firearms law-naive folks don't understand about guns, gun control, gun confiscation, and confiscatory legislation is:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONFISCATE THE FIREARMS TO DEFACTO "BAN" THEM.

The Dem's learned a very hard lesson in November, 1994 when they overreached and took a BIG incremental step to ban "bad" guns first w/ the Assault Weapons Ban (Joe Biden was one of it's main movers & shakers, btw -- do YOU really think he's changed his mind??). It's a lesson they are not eager to "repeat" at the ballot box as they stirred up the hornet's nest that IS the folks in fly-over land who "cling to their guns & religion". So the Dems and gun-ban fellow travelers' tactics have changed -- but always w/ the same end result in mind.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THE FOLKS BEHIND THE CLINTON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN HAVE CHANGED THEIR MINDS?? EVEN IN THE FAIRY-LAND IN WHICH YOU LIVE .. ??

But there are many tactics the banners can & do use and propose that have the same net effect as open & outright bans; to wit:

They propose that the use of checkerboard gun laws be available to each & every municipality (local folks know best, right??), thereby circumventing state pre-emption laws and creating potential felons everytime one moves from one jurisdiction to another when possessing firearms and having to transit through a polyglot of gun laws ... The totally useless mayor of Seattle just tried this -- to ban guns in city property by executive fiat -- and it got struck down by the State A.G. as a violation of the state preemption law. So the next stop for the gun-banners ??? Change the state preemption law or do away w/ it.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

Never heard of being unable to "carry" on a military base, for example??? While it may not be a big deal while ON base for an individual (it's not for me, personally) .. the system has effectively DISARMED me when I return to the mean streets OUTSIDE of the main gate ... which is why I have a state required carry permit in the first case: result = gun ban/confiscation/control in a very real sense (call it what you will -- it denies me the right to possess a firearm) -- that's just one simple example.

I can be trusted to "carry" Mk 82's, 83's, 84's, and NUKES ... and kill lots of people for God & Country ... but I can't be trusted to carry a .38 Special inside the "wire" ... ???

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

They propose draconian storage requirements including locked storage and locks on individual firearms -- all subject to potential in home inspection.

Even if you have only a C&R license your home is subject to inspection and the firearms confiscated if the recordkeeping PAPERWORK on your collection is not 4.0

They propose taggants and micro-fingerprinting on ammution -- flawed science and with hypothetical results at best -- which would GREATLY raise the cost of ammunition and firearms, moving them out of the reach of most people.

They propose banning certain types (common types used for hunting) of ammunition. They like to call it "sniper" ammunition. What ... ?? You say you don't remember other "bad" bullets, a.k.a. "Cop-Killer Bullets" ... ???

They propose limits on how many purchases a month and individual may make in addition to increased waiting times to pick up a purchase. This sometimes kills legitimate sales because of the delays -- which IS the object of the gun banner's exercise. The system is already full of errors and flawed on many levels -- and it NEVER works to the benefit of the individual. I have personal experience w/ this.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

In my own county -- two of the challengers for public office propose to ban the discharge of firearms in the county (noise :sleep_125 is the excuse) and ban hunting on public lands (again, noise) ... let's see ... can hunt; can't shoot. Net result: gun ban. If you can't shoot and/or by extension hunt -- the gun makes for a nice wall-hanger only ...

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

In any case -- this is just a small example of what to expect when you hear politicians mouth the words: "reasonable gun laws" ... that phrase is code.

Reasonable to whom?? Reasonable enough so that the criminals who are prone to use firearms in the commission of a crime will NOW obey the laws already on the books against using a firearm in the commission of a crime ... ??? If not -- I guess we can ALWAYS write more gun laws, yea-as ?? THAT will show 'em !!

Some of you boys just aren't too smart. You THINK you are 'cause you've been to college.

Boola-boola.

You're easily deceived, you believe what people tell you if it fits your own preconceived notions of the world and how it all comes together. You are easily led. Let us only hope you get "better" when you get older.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

 

[scoolbubba]

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba102.html

i know nothing about the group or what they do, but 3 seconds on google found the exact page...

 

[CWJones411]

Why do people think that the Democrats will leave guns untouched just because they don't mention them? They just don't want to tell anyone what they don't want to hear.

 

[C420sailor]

I would presume you mean the 'National Center for Policy Analysis'?

And please post a link, your claim is unsubstantiated without any proof.

My mistake, you're right. The National Center for Policy Analysis. Link: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba102.html

The article as a whole does appear to be partisan and opinionated, but I'm just referring to the fact about NYC. I verified it with my best friend, who is an NYPD officer. He said that the ban was instituted with a no grandfather clause, and that all seized weapons were exchanged for fair market value. Just some food for thought.

Edit: Thanks schoolbubba, you beat me to it.

 

[airgreg]

Used my 2nd Amendment rights to get a new toy this weekend: SIG 556. Expensive but can't wait to go shooting. And if they do get banned next year, hopefully I'll be able to sell it for a huge profit.

Wait, that means I need to go buy another one...

SIG helps out with a $100 mail-in rebate for active duty military.

 

[nittany03]

Something else to consider. Know what the difference is between a "hunting rifle" and a "sniper rifle?"

The target.

 

[Twitterpate03]

none of the 2 parties are going to take away anyone's legally owned firearms. Fact.

+1 exactly!!

 

[nittany03]

+1 exactly!!

I'm sure the Brits said the same thing in the 80s and 90s, right up until their weapons got banninated. Giving power to the government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a 14 year old.

 

[Mumbles]

This isn't suprising....but it's scary.
It's Obamamania at the U.N.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011_pf.html

 

[Spekkio]

No one got my Ghostbuster's quote :'(.