Crime Breaking News, v2: 14 Killed in San Bernardino Mass Shooting, Police in Standoff

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you pay for security? Do you know what the breakdown of your community fees are?
I guess not all gated communities necessarily have the same security aspects that the foreign compounds in poorer nations do.
24hr armed guards, cameras and razor wire fences aren't something you "just like".

We just have a gate, that needs a code to open the gate. All the other shit you mentioned is absurd and I've never seen that anywhere.
 
I'm good...mild curiosity concerning your opinion is not enough to override my natural aversion to wasting additional time by backtracking through the thread. It doesn't really matter to me , no offense . If I've misinterpreted you my apologies . .....good day sir.

tumblr_m7teqt5aF81r36vzto1_500.jpg
 
i don't think that is accurate.
"Transporting them in to California" would be more accurate I would suppose.

Nonetheless, who needs more proof that gun control laws do not keep illegal weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals? I've got all day.
 
That's what it is for me. The fact I believe strongly in personal rights and that they directly relate to my hobby draws me in to these discussions. If guns were just guns I might be more inclined to entertain the gun-grabbing perspective. But they're not. They're the finest tool we have for self-defense. It boggles my mind when people don't consider self-defense to be an absolute right. Undermining the public's ability to take up arms in defense is philosophically immoral to me.

It just so happens that in a world of mental disorders, psychoactive prescription drugs, and religious extremists, that the cost of such freedoms is particularly high.

Again man, I sit here basically bored of it. It's not going to change, this is life now. But I do believe that gun accessibility is part of the problem and those fighting restriction have more self serving interests at heart.

It's similar to corporations lobbying against taxes claiming they create jobs meanwhile execs rake in multi-millions and lobbyists get paid boatloads as well.
 
"Transporting them in to California" would be more accurate I would suppose.

Nonetheless, who needs more proof that gun control laws do not keep illegal weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals? I've got all day.

i wasn't trying to make that argument, merely trying to keep the discussion factual.
 
from where I stand in Canada, gun control is not the issue. We have many guns in Canada. They are an annoyance to procure but, we have them. The issue seems to be something else. What is it?
 
I'm good...mild curiosity concerning your opinion is not enough to override my natural aversion to wasting additional time by backtracking through the thread. It doesn't really matter to me , no offense . If I've misinterpreted you my apologies . .....good day sir.

Bye bud. Have fun Al!
 
I don't think more gun control is going to fix this problem.
 
i don't think that is accurate.

that its a felony? of course it it illegal to transport firearms legal in one state into a state where they are illegal

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

The applicable Federal law is 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) which reads (with some edits):
"It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides... any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph ... shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section"

Subsection (b)(3) reads:
"It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States"

So there you have it, your answer is somewhere in that giant wall of text!

Just kidding :p Let me break it down for you.

Pretty much if a non-resident purchases a firearm, then ALL of the following conditions must be met:
1) The transaction must be for a rifle or shotgun (no handguns)
2) The transaction must take place face to face
3) The transaction as a whole must comply with the laws of the state of the store
4) The transaction as a whole must comply with the laws of the state of the buyer

The way the Federal law is written it means that the purchase must conform with the laws of BOTH states. Note that not only must the firearm itself be California legal (ex: no "assault weapons"), but the transaction (the process of purchasing the firearm) must also comply with California law (ex: a California waiting period).

So then we get to California laws and there are quite a few of them. The big one is California Penal Code 26500 (formerly CA PC 12070). It requires that a California FFL handle the transaction. You can also look at CA PC 26555, 26565 and 26570 to note that none of the out of state exceptions apply to you. This is why practically no Arizona gun shop will transfer a firearm to a Californian individual (a California FFL is a different story of course) because it would violate California (and in turn Federal) law.

The normal course of action would be to purchase a firearm in Arizona and have them ship it to a California FFL, who will handle the transaction according to California law. Or just skip the hassle and purchase the readily available Mossberg 590 in California (not like they're illegal, rare, or expensive here).
 
Since the liberals are turning this into the gun control thread...This is from the Ulster County, NY (upstate, not communist downstate) sheriff. It is legit.

December 3, 2015
ATTENTION LICENSED HANDGUN OWNERS
In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO.
I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. To ensure the safety of yourself and others, make sure you are comfortable and proficient with your weapon, and knowledgeable of the laws in New York State with regards to carrying a weapon and when it is legal to use it.
I also want to remind all Police/Peace Officers both active duty and retired to please carry a weapon whenever you leave your house. We are the thin blue line that is entrusted in keeping this country safe, and we must be prepared to act at any given moment.
Thank you,
Paul J. Van Blarcum
Ulster County Sheriff
 
It just so happens that in a world of mental disorders, psychoactive prescription drugs, and religious extremists, that the cost of such freedoms is particularly high.

Again man, I sit here basically bored of it. It's not going to change, this is life now. But I do believe that gun accessibility is part of the problem and those fighting restriction have more self serving interests at heart.

It's similar to corporations lobbying against taxes claiming they create jobs meanwhile execs rake in multi-millions and lobbyists get paid boatloads as well.

Is it "self serving" to feel no guilt for being a responsible driver, even though accidents and drunk driving exist?
 
from where I stand in Canada, gun control is not the issue. We have many guns in Canada. They are an annoyance to procure but, we have them. The issue seems to be something else. What is it?

People and their ideologies. It's hard to fight an idea, even harder when we live in a "free" society where we try not to go full 1984.
 
yes and transporting weapons across state lines a a felony whats your point?

There's no control. None. There's also zero uniformity in gun laws so they are easy to get around. My point is, current gun laws are entirely ineffective. So citing them as being a failure is completely obvious to anyone. It's not an argument in favor of no gun control, it's an argument that the current half ass "gun control" is complete shit.
 
Is it "self serving" to feel no guilt for being a responsible driver, even though accidents and drunk driving exist?

I haven't been responding to these because we aren't talking about the same things.

If you want to know why I will leave you with one word.

Intent.

Good luck.
 
It really all boils down to the fact that if you make stricter policies and ban certain guns, 99% of the time you are only making it harder for law abiding citizens. It's really not worth it and it wouldn't help anything. I wouldn't mind maybe a mental health evaluation on some level, that would be the only change I'd make. But considering once again, that 99% of people are mentally stable according to what that term means, you're still only hindering law abiding citizens.

I don't see the drawback of making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get certain guns. So a guy that never commits a crime won't get his hands on an assault rifle, where's the problem?

Then again, I'm off the spectrum on this issue. I think people can and do live complete and full lives without having a gun. Unlike other rights in the Constitution like free speech, free association, voting, fair trial, etc., owning a gun simply isn't crucial to a free and democratic society. Not even close.
 

I called it yesterday. Even if you're fucked up enough to kill a bunch of co-workers because of a workplace issue, you don't suddenly acquire assault rifles, body armour and pipe bombs. And you don't suddenly convince your wife and mother of your child it would be a good idea to murder a bunch of innocent people and then go out in a blaze of glory in a fire fight with SWAT.

Attacks like this require prep time. The guy was radicalised. Maybe online, maybe face to face; he visited both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But someone convinced him to take the Magic Carpet Ride to Paradise. He constructed pipe bombs and bought hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds of ammo. He bought weapons and body armour not just for himself but his wife.

I'm leaning towards the Hybrid Terror theory myself. This guy was going to snap at some point. Someone recognized him as a loose cannon and decided to aim him where he could do the most damage.
 
that its a felony? of course it it illegal to transport firearms legal in one state into a state where they are illegal

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

The applicable Federal law is 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) which reads (with some edits):
"It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides... any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph ... shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section"

Subsection (b)(3) reads:
"It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States"

So there you have it, your answer is somewhere in that giant wall of text!

Just kidding :p Let me break it down for you.

Pretty much if a non-resident purchases a firearm, then ALL of the following conditions must be met:
1) The transaction must be for a rifle or shotgun (no handguns)
2) The transaction must take place face to face
3) The transaction as a whole must comply with the laws of the state of the store
4) The transaction as a whole must comply with the laws of the state of the buyer

The way the Federal law is written it means that the purchase must conform with the laws of BOTH states. Note that not only must the firearm itself be California legal (ex: no "assault weapons"), but the transaction (the process of purchasing the firearm) must also comply with California law (ex: a California waiting period).

So then we get to California laws and there are quite a few of them. The big one is California Penal Code 26500 (formerly CA PC 12070). It requires that a California FFL handle the transaction. You can also look at CA PC 26555, 26565 and 26570 to note that none of the out of state exceptions apply to you. This is why practically no Arizona gun shop will transfer a firearm to a Californian individual (a California FFL is a different story of course) because it would violate California (and in turn Federal) law.

The normal course of action would be to purchase a firearm in Arizona and have them ship it to a California FFL, who will handle the transaction according to California law. Or just skip the hassle and purchase the readily available Mossberg 590 in California (not like they're illegal, rare, or expensive here).


OK, well the statement that "taking a firearm across state lines is a felony" is very much not accurate.

you're a little bit down the rabbit hole about sales with the quote above. if you're a Cali resident with a properly stored handgun or rifle (bought in cali) you could RV all over the country as long as you observe state laws as you enter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top