The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[Cubo de Sangre]

Meanwhile in NJ...

http://news.yahoo.com/smart-gun-law-passes-n-j-assembly-awaits-233057732.html

The bill would require so-called smart guns to be sold alongside traditional firearms no more than three years after the technology is developed and on the market.

The law is intended to weaken earlier legislation, passed in 2002, that required retailers to sell only smart guns three years after they reached the market.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So the regular courts are slow and inefficient?

http://news.yahoo.com/york-creates-gun-courts-hopes-reducing-gun-violence-172210941.html

New York City will establish special courts for gun possession cases and create a police unit dedicated to gun-related investigations as part of an effort to cut gun crime, officials said on Tuesday.

Project Fast Track, unveiled at a City Hall press conference, is an attempt to ensure gun cases are prosecuted quickly and efficiently at all levels of the criminal justice system.

The gun courts recall a similar effort in 2003, when a court was established dedicated to gun cases in Brooklyn.

While the court had initial successes, it eventually became overloaded with a backlog of cases, partly because of a new law increasing the minimum prison sentence for gun possession, making plea deals less likely. Court officials suspended the court in 2009.

Officials said the new courts would have greater resources, including retired judges to oversee pretrial hearings.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Whoa. Holding cops to the same standards of "common sense"? Impressive.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...ld-change-requirement-safely-storing-firearms

Senate Bill 869, introduced by state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, would require law enforcement officers to securely stow any handgun they leave in vehicles.

According to state officials, under current state law peace officers are exempt from the safety requirements for guns left in a car that apply to everyone else.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-introduce-assault-weapon-confiscation-bill/

According to the text of HB 731, the bill focuses on ” dangerous instrumentalities and practices” by prohibiting the “possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.” Moreover, the details punishment for crimes involving “the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”

It also “[designates] certain weaponry and ammunition as contraband and [requires] seizure of such by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.”

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Here's an article disseminating some not-so-common sense on the question of “are the differences between assault weapons and sporting weapons merely cosmetic?”

https://www.policeone.com/the-tacti...ons-vs-sporting-weapons-Whats-the-difference/

 

[Protectandserve]

Whoa. Holding cops to the same standards of "common sense"? Impressive.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...ld-change-requirement-safely-storing-firearms

I always want to bang my head against a wall when I sit in briefing and hear about cops or federal agents who have guns stolen from their vehicles. It its a handgun, it should be on you or secured in a safe if its gonna be left in the car. Your trunk or glove box doesn't count.

Even worse is when you have the admin types of SWAT Guys who leave rifles, mags, body armor, SWAT Gear in a trunk and then park the car in front of their house and then act shocked when it is broken into.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I always want to bang my head against a wall when I sit in briefing and hear about cops or federal agents who have guns stolen from their vehicles. It its a handgun, it should be on you or secured in a safe if its gonna be left in the car. Your trunk or glove box doesn't count.

Even worse is when you have the admin types of SWAT Guys who leave rifles, mags, body armor, SWAT Gear in a trunk and then park the car in front of their house and then act shocked when it is broken into.

So what I'm hearing is many cops feel above both the law and the impacts of crime. Must be a nice world to live in.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-introduce-assault-weapon-confiscation-bill/

So a reclassification and confiscation bill.

"We aren't coming for your guns"

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So a reclassification and confiscation bill.

"We aren't coming for your guns"

As long as it's not Obama enacting the legislation it's all just paranoia. Because if he isn't coming for them all at once then that settles it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'd have Obama getting owned in this. No way he'd accept. Not even for charity (to go to the Clinton Foundation of course).

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sus...bate-no-pre-screened-questions-and-no-gas-bag

As part of its fight against President Obama's "aggressive overreach" on guns, the National Rifle Association is challenging the president to a debate on national television.

"I’ll meet you for a one-on-one, one-hour debate, with a mutually agreed-upon moderator, on any network that will take it," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and CEO, said in a video posted on the group's website.

"No pre-screened questions and no gas-bag answers. Americans will judge for themselves who they trust and believe on this issue: you or the NRA.

"Let’s see if you’re game for a fair debate," he added. "It’s your chance to show the American people you’re not afraid to meet the NRA on neutral ground."

In his recent town hall on guns, hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper, President Obama criticized the NRA for not joining the conversation: "And by the way, there's a reason why the NRA is not here," Obama told Cooper. "They're just down the street. And since this is the main reason they exist, you'd think they'd be prepared to have a debate with...a president."

The NRA said it refused to take part in CNN's town hall because it was offered only one pre-screened question.

 

[Max Power]

Cracked are once again worried about your guns hurting people America! I think that they are also trying to be funny here...

Also, the mere notion that our all volunteer military would 'turn against' their own friends & family is:

Nice threads Hill!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://www.eater.com/2016/1/15/10775084/open-carry-law-customer-subway-connecticut-police-dispute

Open-carry gun laws are stirring up a fresh debate about citizens' rights in Connecticut. A cell phone video uploaded to LiveLeak on January 12, captures a Subway customer carrying a holstered pistol and several Bridgeport, Conn. cops in a heated debate over the state's open-carry law.

According to the Connecticut Post, state laws and police training mandates appear to contradict each other when it comes to citizens' rights to open carry. Under state law, people may open carry, so long as they're also carrying their permit. State police have been trained that they should not arrest citizens "merely for publicly carrying a handgun in plain view." However, if an individual does not produce his or her permit, officers may arrest them for interfering with police. In comparison, the law specifies that police may only request to verify permits or identification if there's "reasonable suspicion" that the gun carrier has committed a crime.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So it begins.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/266289-obamas-gun-orders-hit-with-first-lawsuit

President Obama is facing the first court challenge over his executive action on guns.

On the same day the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Obama’s action on immigration, the conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch announced it is filing a lawsuit against the controversial gun orders.

Freedom Watch accuses Obama of circumventing Congress to “invent” new gun laws.
"The president states that he is doing so purely because he does not like the legislative decisions of the Congress,” wrote Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, who is also a National Rifle Association member.

"These actions are unconstitutional abuses of the president’s and executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the president as set forth in the U.S. Constitution,” he continued.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Out there havin' fun in that warm California sun.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/eric-scheiner/limits-shotgun-purchases-among-calif-gun-control-measures

Tuesday, Pan introduced SB 877, which would require the state to keep track of gun violence data.

The measure is only one is only one of a handful of gun control bills introduced this week.

Another bill, aims to limit purchases of a shotgun or rifle to one per month.

Two separate bills, one in the Senate, SB 880, and another in the Assembly, AB 1674, seek to add semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the list of assault weapons banned in California.

Best part right here.

“Hopefully all of us can agree there are too many deaths from guns,” said state Sen. Richard Pan of Sacramento.

The better question is how many is the right amount. What number can we all agree on?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Seems to me this should primarily hinge on whether the person was convicted of a felony or misdemeanor and whether a firearm was involved. If it's just for getting in a physical confrontation with your spouse (to any degree) then why distinguish that from any conviction for physical confrontation?

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/267061-supreme-court-to-weigh-in-on-gun-violence

The men from Maine — Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong — are looking to overturn a federal law that prohibits them from owning guns, because they were both convicted of domestic violence. They argue the ban should only apply to more serious domestic abusers.

 

[usmctanker242]

The age restriction part is ridiculous. When someone turns 22 they're suddenly responsible to conceal but 1 day before that 22nd birthday you're not?

This is how the concept of "age" works. The day before you were 16, you were 15, but now magically you're able to drive a car? The day before you were 18 you were 17, but now magically you're able to smoke cigarettes? You're silly.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Whole article sounds like a lie/misrepresentation.

http://thehill.com/regulation/267201-gun-dealers-could-be-sued-by-shooting-victims-under-new-bill

The gun lobby contends the existing protections shield the industry from frivolous lawsuits, but Democrats say the new legislation only targets irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers that negligently sell firearms to criminals.

Last I knew some store just got prosecuted for this so...

 

[SMEAC]

I have never gotten the desire behind hitting manufacturers, unless...you want to de facto ban through running people out of business

 

[oldshadow]

Whole article sounds like a lie/misrepresentation.

http://thehill.com/regulation/267201-gun-dealers-could-be-sued-by-shooting-victims-under-new-bill



Last I knew some store just got prosecuted for this so...

It's a bull shit end run to try and fuck with the 2nd.

There is already laws on the books against selling to criminal and anyone that is not allowed to own a gun. I have no problem with a law suit over that.

If the product is defective and the manufacturer knowing sold it then I have no problem with a law suit.

But a suit like this makes no more sense then a victim of a drunk driver suing the auto manufacturer.

 

[oldshadow]

I have never gotten the desire behind hitting manufacturers, unless...you want to de facto ban through running people out of business

That's the idea to run them out of business or make the product limit and so expensive that few can buy it.