jbscout2002

Sold the Harley to buy a new rig. Any day that has good enough weather to ride, I'm at the DZ anyways. Sold my browning hi-power. Just to buy a rig. Still regret that one. I traded a Sig P229 Equinox for a DUI dry suit in 2009. I got it chambered in .357 Sig, but bought a .40 Cal drop in barrel for it. It had never even been fired when I traded it. That was the one and only time I used one of my guns as a barter. After that I adopted a buy, possibly trade gun for gun, but never sell policy.

Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced. We have a boatload of gun laws on the books that for a variety of reasons can't be enforced. In many cases they have been deliberately made unenforceable as a result of lobbying by the NRA and similar organizations. THAT is what many of us are objecting to. "Making something illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good if it can't be, or isn't enforced." - Exactly my point. Your gun laws restrict LAW ABIDING citizens. This is true. The criminal simply doesn't care that his gun is ILLEGAL. Please provide one (1) example of a law (legal statute, ect) that is unenforceable. Any example of a firearms related law that cannot be enforced by a court of law will shut me up for the remainder of this thread. Whether by the NRA, any state gun lobby groups, or anything of that nature. How can a law not be enforceable? Only if a judgement is appealed and the Supreme Court finds the law in violation of another law of a higher beach of government or the Constitution would the enforcement of that law be reversed. A law determined to be erroneous would be amended or repealed.

When the weather is nice, spend your time falling out of the sky. When the weather sucks, spend the day under water. When you drive into East Syracuse to have any of your equipment serviced, it's a smart choice to go ahead and put a pistol in the center console.

Sold the Harley to buy a new rig. Any day that has good enough weather to ride, I'm at the DZ anyways.

The President addresses the nation after a tragedy and according to the gun lobby the sky is falling. Better buy some more guns. Naw, I don't need anymore guns. I pretty much have everything I had any interest in owning. Besides, they are expensive. First I spent all my money on guns. Then I spent all my money getting ammo for each one (an AR with no ammo is as good as having a $1000 baseball bat). Then I spent all my money on scuba stuff, and now it's skydiving stuff. You could probably reduce all gun violence in America by running an advertisement campaign promoting "gear intensive" sports like scuba diving, skydiving, aviation, racing, or mountain climbing. If people can't afford guns because the choice is between replacing an expired AAD and getting a new pistol, the who cares what the gun laws are.

Murder laws are toothless Five convicted killers released from jail have murdered again in the past four years, some just weeks after leaving custody, it was revealed today. Andrew Dawson, George Johnson, Ernest Wright, David Cook and Desmond Lee were only given 'whole life' sentences after committing murder for the second time. The families of their victims said today 'life should mean life'. Even some relatives of the killers believe that their family-member should never have been released the first time round. Convicted murderer Andrew Dawson branded himself the 'Angel of Mercy' after a series of murders. He was given a life sentence in 1982 after admitting the murder of a 91-year-old Henry Walsh in his flat at Ormskirk, Lancashire, stabbing him a dozen times with bread knife. Within weeks of his release in 2010, he stabbed defenceless John Matthews and Paul Hancock to death in separate attacks, before leaving their bodies in their bathtubs in Derby. The 51-year-old told police he felt an 'urge to kill' before knocking on the men's doors in the block of flats, where he also lived, and hacked them to death. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421724/Revealed-The-murderers-given-life-jail-freed-kill-again.html#ixzz3npRGxjle #Prison is toothless #Bread knives kill #Sissors kill people #Dressing gown cords kill people #Fists kill people #Strangulation kills people #Releasing murders leads to preventable killings

He has no 2nd Ammendment rights. He is 11. Not legal to possess a firearm. Existing gun laws have were already in place to prevent this. Just like existing laws were already in place to prevent murder. 18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

My understanding is that with the latest executive action by Obama, if you are held against your will, the medical official who made that decision against you is compelled by law to send your info to the county sheriffs office. They manually put your name in the NICS system so that you cannot pass the background check. Also, if you are known to possess any firearms, a deputy is sent to your house with a court order to seize them until you and your mental health provider can convince the judge you should get them back. If that is not the case nationally, I know for a fact it is true under the SAFE act. I have a friend who is fighting the system right now because he was taken to the ER for alcohol overdose (moonshine pong, not as fun as beer pong).

Forgive me, this post, number 707, was copy/pasted from Pate Law Firm, LLC

Federal Firearms Offenses Federal law makes it illegal for a person to import, produce, or conduct transactions in firearms across state lines. There is an exception if the person possesses a license to import, produce, or deal in firearms. It is also illegal for a person to sell or otherwise distribute a firearm to another person when the person transferring the weapon knows that the buyer or taker does not live in the same state. Again, the exception is if the people making the transfer are licensed to deal in such weapons. There are also some other general exceptions, such as delivering a firearm to carry out a lawful bequest or to loan a firearm to someone for lawful sporting purposes. Federal law also prohibits the transportation of certain types of weapons. For instance, it is illegal for a person to transport any device deemed to be destructive. This includes bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, and similar weapons. A person is also generally prohibited from transporting machineguns as well as rifles and shotguns with short barrels. Machine guns include any weapon that can automatically fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. It may also include any part of the whole weapon such as the frame or receiver. It is also generally unlawful to convey or own a machinegun; however, some exceptions do apply. Federal law prohibits straw purchasers of firearms. These laws make it illegal for a person acquiring a firearm from a dealer to use any false written or oral statements or to present any false identification intended to deceive the dealer about the legality of the transaction or the ultimate owner of the firearm. The preservation of serial numbers is also a concern. A person violates federal law if he knowingly delivers, transports, or accepts any firearm with a serial number that has been changed, removed, or destroyed. Certain classes of people are barred from possessing any firearms. These classes include: convicted felons (or people who are under indictment for a felony); people who are addicted to certain illegal drugs; people deemed to have certain mental impairments; people in the country illegally; anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from military service; and anyone restrained by a lawful court order. Generally, a conviction under federal firearm laws may result in a sentence of 5 to 10 years and a fine, depending on the specific crime. A sentence may be greatly increased if the weapon is used in connection with certain crimes such as drug trafficking. For convicted felons, a prior felony conviction is usually determined by the state or authority where the offense took place. Significantly, a conviction of “felon in possession” can be achieved even if the weapon was not on the convicted felon’s body. The mere intent and ability to control the weapon is enough for a conviction. Also, the government does not need to show that the firearm was working or capable of being fired for a conviction.

Yes, you most certainly have the freedom to, "go out in public, send your kids to school, and so on." This is why SHOOTING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS ILLEGAL. This is why CRIMINALS AND NUT JOBS HAVING GUNS IS ILLEGAL. This is why HELPING A FELON AQUIRE A GUN IS ILLEGAL.

All I keep hearing about is how current laws are toothless. Here is a broad overview of federal laws that are currently in effect, or have recently been in effect. As we know every state has their own laws in addition to the ones listed below. National Firearms Act (NFA) (1934) - Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968) - Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) (1968) - Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) (1986) - Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms. Undetectable Firearms Act (1988) - Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content. Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) - Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) - Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) - Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) - Prevent firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

As I recall, the Sandy Hook had exactly such a system in place. Adam Lanza simply shot out the glass door and walked in. But no doubt some will respond that the school is at fault, for not having 12 inch thick steel doors at all entrances, and actually having vulnerable windows an attacker could shoot out and enter. Much safer to build our schools out of solid concrete without windows. Also we should have metal detectors at every entrance, armed guards, windowless steel doors for every classroom that lock automatically when an alarm is sounded, and a 15-foot high solid wall topped with hurricane wire around the entire property. That should be the face of freedom in America. A gun on every hip, and a barricade at every door. Don Yeah I guess your right. Maybe it was stupid for Canada to start locking the doors while class was in session.

That would have meant no mass shooting, no pain and suffering for victims and families, no outcry from either side of the gun fight, and he would have gotten all the attention he was so starved for. I'm sure a purdy little white boy whack job would have no problem landing himself in a relationship with a nice big caring and dominate bubba.

Oh, but that doesn't get rid of guns. And here I thought we were trying to stop mass shootings. Really we are just concerned about adding more restrictions in addition to the "toothless" ones that infringe upon a right of the people that shall not be infringed. Heaven forbid we put one little nick on he blackened freedom of expression one and say, "hey dickhead, it's fine that you feel that way, but you are admitting to being a danger to society"

In our new world of fairy dust and unicorns, maybe we can affix anti dog-bark collars to person adjudicated mentally deficient. This way if a gun falls into their hands, the noise of each shot will shock and disorient them. Seems reasonable to me to single out the nut cases rather than try to be so sensitive to their feelings that we violate every other sane person in the country. If you worry about a gun finding its way from a legal owner into he hands of a fuck head, then let's incapacitate all the fuck heads. What's wrong with minor restrictions on free speech? "Hello sir, we saw that you posted some shit on your public Facebook page about how you want to kill a bunch of people. Yeah, that's not going to work for us. Here is your new cell"

Washington has a law that states: “It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town. This simple yet effective law would have prevented the shooter from reaching a school in Washington before the police, who would be there waiting to apprehend him in the parking lot. Doesn't matter what law is "toothless" in your opinion. A law will only prevent someone from doing something if they respect and abide by that law. I'm guessing since the law restricting first degree agrivated murder did nothing to dissuade him, that any other lessor laws in between would have been the straw the broke the camels back for him.

According to Wikipedia- "In the Canadian province of Ontario, then-Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a “locked door” policy, as part of a Safe Welcome Program at all elementary schools as of September 2013. About 2,450 elementary schools applied for and received funding from the province to install front-door buzzers and security cameras. Together with the 850 schools that installed them with provincial funding in 2005, the new equipment means about 80 per cent of Ontario’s 4,000 elementary schools will have secured front doors. In the Greater Toronto Area, 1,287 schools received funding through their 12 school boards such as the Toronto Catholic District School Board, Toronto District School Board, Durham Catholic District School Board, and York Region District School Board. Every Ontario school board is required to have a local police-school board protocol, which includes a lockdown plan that is practised at least twice each year. Professional development and training has been made available to school and board staff, along with their local police services, to put the protocol in place at both the elementary and secondary levels." I guess our politicians thought this was stupid. Or was deemed to be unworthy of effort, and written off as an effort from the NRA to derail the gun control agenda by providing solutions to the issues which provide a foundation for ultimate goal?

Example of knee-jerk reactions. Here was Andrew Cuomo's response to the Newtown, CT shooting. 32 days after the incident, the NY SAFE act was quietly pushed through state legislature under "message of necessity" without review or debate, bypassing voting procedures, and a mandatory 3 day minimum vetting process, and then signed into law that night by Mr. Cuomo. Overreach much?

No, that was this new tactic called "targeted policing"

Judges in Texas are given a coin. One side says "fuck it, let em go", the other side says "hang em"

The trends revealed it so many statements of our Founding Fathers reinforce what I was taught in my Mind Reading 101 class at a peaceful and peace-loving haven of tranquillity. They may have "said" they wanted the "people" to have the right to bear arms, what this was all a simple misunderstanding. Obviously what they had "meant" was that the State has a right to host a Federally sponsored National Guard armed with muskets. Judge: Do you wish to make a final statement on your behalf? Convicted Murderer: Yes your honor, when the jury said, "we find the defendant guilty", um, they actually had "meant" to say, "not guilty". Judge: I don't know....are you sure? Convicted Murderer: Yes your honor. Obviously they were implying that the Court was "guilty" of falsely accusing me. Judge: Oh my. That makes perfect sense. Thank you for clarifying. I'm dismissing all charges, and you are free to go.

The above case shows that, well, the Bill of Rights does in fact protect our liberties. These same liberties that allow citizens to lead protest to overthrow the government, or burn the American flag (because I'm sure they were trying to protect that right when they wrote it), and to publish articles in major news outlets demanding other violations of our constitutionally protected liberties. All the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to include the right to keep and bear arms, are considered fundamental rights and liberties protected by the 14th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment even goes so far as to state that the right to keep and bear arms in particular, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Infringement: The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. Some States' major objection to the new Constitution was its lack of a bill of rights. Bill of Rights list specific freedoms that the government cannot threaten or take away. The Antifederalists believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers. The intent of our Founding Fathers is often called into question by gun control advocates. While it has withstood the test of time that all provisions of the 1st Amendment are absolute, all inclusive, and unalienable, there seems to be a double standard when applied to the 2nd Amendment. With all aspects of the Constitution being so carefully thought out, the framers thought it essential that a Bill of Rights be contained within it. Out of the 12 proposed, 10 were ratified and became the official Bill of Rights. The right of the People to keep and bear arms was so important to to Founding Fathers, and essential to the acceptance of the finalized Constitution, that it was written out in its own separate Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was written in a clear and straight forward manner. While one can claim to know what the Founders were "thinking" as they carefully crafted and debated this new document, the Federalist Papers actually provide insight. In the Federalist Papers, the Founders address questions of from the public who are concerned over how their new government will operate. Example: "It will be attended to, that in the examination of these expedients, I confine myself to their aptitude for ENFORCING the Constitution, by keeping the several departments of power within their due bounds, without particularly considering them as provisions for ALTERING the Constitution itself." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 50 The Bill of Rights protects the Peoples' liberties and rights listed within from a possible overreaching of the government. To claim that the 2nd Amendment grants the States a right to maintain a National Guard is absurd. The National Guard is a component of the U.S. Department of Defense. They are under joint control of the State and Federal governments. They receive funding from the federal government, and all of their vehicles, equipment, arms, and ammunition is supplied by the federal government. In no way, could the National Guard ever be construed as "the People".

Agreed.

As to what the Founders "had in mind" when they worded the 2nd Amendment, weapons available at the time were: The Puckle gun (a British flintlock machinegun invented by James Puckle in 1718), Cannon (3 pounder to 42 pounder - - description based on the weight of the shot) with ranges up to 2 miles, and Flintlock pistols. No specific weapons were named as to be the "arms" that the People had he Right to keep and bear, however, the 9the Amendment states that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 14th Ammendment states that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.."