The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[second sight]

You won't need CLEO approvval in a couple months. All you will need to do is notify him. That's with all NFA goods in a trust or not in one

wait what are you talking about here

 

[SMEAC]

I would also like to say bushmaster sucks

Unless its a M242

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

wait what are you talking about here

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...es-fingerprints-but-eliminates-cleo-sign-off/

The ATF has issued its long awaited final ruling expanding the requirement for fingerprints, photo IDs, and background checks for “responsible persons” listed on a trust used to purchase items restricted under the National Firearms Act (such as silencers). The single most concerning possibility of this whole proposal was the idea that by expanding the requirement for a Chief Law Enforcement Officer to sign off on every single NFA application then that would effectively enable local police chiefs to eliminate the ability for law abiding citizens to purchase legal items simply by refusing to sign such documents and without needing to change any laws. That was the primary driving factor behind trusts in the first place (skipping the CLEO sign off), but now it looks like the ATF has eliminated that requirement in its entirety . . .

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://thehill.com/regulation/274057-gop-targets-va-gun-ban

The VA is responsible for appointing a fiduciary to help veterans who it determines cannot manage their own finances, but the agency is also taking the additional step of reporting these veterans to the “mental defective” category of the FBI’s background check system, even if they do not pose a danger to society, the senators allege.

The senators called the practice “highly suspect” and said veterans' ability to manage their own finances is “totally unrelated” to whether they should be prohibited from owning a gun.

"Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights,” the senators wrote.

"At no time in the process does the VA determine a veteran to be a danger to themself or others, a key determinant for whether someone is a 'mental defective,’ precluding the right to own firearms,” they added.

In a separate letter to Senate appropriators, Grassley requested lawmakers block the VA from continuing this practice in the upcoming budget negotiations.

Grassley also complained about the practice in another letter sent last year to the Justice Department.

Republicans hope the congressional inquiries will pressure the VA to stop the practice.

The VA noted in a statement to The Hill that it is legally required to report veterans who are "mentally incompetent" to the FBI, which then decides whether to prohibit these former soldiers from owning guns.

 

[My Spot]

Georgia is about to be the third state to allow campus concealed carry. I can't wait for the false outrage from the left.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Georgia is about to be the third state to allow campus concealed carry. I can't wait for the false outrage from the left.

If those safe space whiners were scared of "TRUMP 2016" written on the sidewalk in chalk, imagine how traumatized they're going to be when they realize the crazy racist right-wingers on campus are carrying concealed firearms?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article68992732.html

Readying for oral arguments in June, attorneys for the state and Second Amendment groups are urging a full federal appeals court to uphold a 2011 Florida law that would restrict doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office and the National Rifle Association filed documents Monday in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backing the law, which has become widely known as the “docs v. glocks” law. Other Second Amendment groups, including the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, also made filings last week in support of the law.

A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court issued three rulings during the past two years that upheld the constitutionality of the law. But the full appeals court in February agreed to take up the dispute, with opponents arguing that the law violates doctors’ free-speech rights. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 21 in Atlanta.

In the brief filed Monday by four attorneys from Bondi’s office, the state contends that doctors who are plaintiffs in the case do not have legal “standing” to challenge the law. But even if the doctors have standing, Bondi’s office argued the law “passes muster under any level of First Amendment review.”

“By shielding gun-owning patients and families from discrimination, unnecessary harassment, and bad-faith, irrelevant inquiries and record-keeping, the act narrowly advances the state’s compelling interests in protecting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms from private encumbrances, safeguarding patient privacy, eliminating barriers to health care, and preventing discrimination and harassment in the provision of health care services,’’ the brief said. “The act represents the most modest of all professional regulations --- a requirement that doctors stick to practicing medicine --- and it accomplishes its compelling goals without interfering with doctors’ professional judgment or otherwise burdening more speech than necessary.”

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...pproves-concealed-carry-guns-church/82442274/

The Senate voted 36-14 to pass an amended version of House Bill 786, authored by Rep. Andy Gipson, R-Braxton. It now heads back to the House for more deliberation.

The bill would allow churches to create security programs and designate and train members to carry concealed weapons. It would provide criminal and legal protections to those serving as church security.

The bill also would allow concealed carry in a holster without a permit in Mississippi, expanding a measure passed last year that allowed concealed carry without a permit in a purse, satchel or briefcase, and another recent law that allows open carry in public.

The bill also seeks to prohibit Mississippi officials from enforcing any federal agency regulations or executive orders that would violate the state constitution — an attempt to nullify federal gun restrictions not passed by Congress.

Senators argued whether this last provision would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I wonder if the ATF will find it violates current law.

http://news.yahoo.com/schumer-wants-investigation-gun-looks-phone-201656593.html

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer on Monday called on the federal Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate before a gun that looks like an iPhone comes to market, but the head of the company making it said concern over the two-shot weapon was misplaced.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I wonder why not. What's special about this case as it pertains to liability by the manufacturer?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/judge-just-dealt-blow-big-175418522.html

A Connecticut judge on Thursday rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the maker of a gun used in a 2012 elementary school shooting that killed 20 children and 6 adults, the Hartford Courant reports.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), gun-makers are not liable for crimes committed with their products.

However, in a blow to the maker of the Bushmaster AR-16 semiautomatic rifle, Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that law wasn't enough to have the case thrown out right now at this early stage, according to the Courant.

I hope these people wind up broke from having to cover legal expenses incurred by the defendants.

The suit's defendants include Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 that was used in the shooting; Camfour Inc., a gun distributor' and Riverview Gun Sales, a now-defunct gun shop in Connecticut where the rifle was purchased by the shooter's mother in 2010, according to Newsweek.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Here's a good article on the Sandy Hook lawsuit bullshit.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h...ederal-law-allows-sandy-hook-gun-case-proceed

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Ruprecht, I thought you might enjoy some NRA propaganda.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/21/gunmeggedon-opponents-new-california-gun-control-measures

California Democrats were able to push through several new gun control bills this week in what opponents are calling "GunMegeddon."

Ten anti-gun bills were under consideration, seven of which survived their first vote and now move to various appropriations committees.

The proposals include restrictions on homemade guns, retroactive bans on grandfathered firearms and magazines, outlawing the use of ammunition magazines that can be detached with the press of a button, founding a state-run Firearm Violence Research Center, changing how California defines "assault weapons" and "ammunition" and requiring the reporting of stolen guns, according to The Sacramento Bee.

How much wiggle room can there be in defining ammunition?

 

[Ruprecht]

@Ruprecht, I thought you might enjoy some NRA propaganda.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/21/gunmeggedon-opponents-new-california-gun-control-measures

How much wiggle room can there be in defining ammunition?

Hah! I thought the NRA had given up on California. What a ridiculous hodge podge of meaningless restrictions. Still less restrictive than ours mind you, minus their weird obsession with detachable magazines.

 

[jlagman]

@Ruprecht, I thought you might enjoy some NRA propaganda.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/21/gunmeggedon-opponents-new-california-gun-control-measures



How much wiggle room can there be in defining ammunition?

Say goodbye to over-the-counter purchases of reloading components and binary targets (if such things don't already exist in Commiefornia).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Hah! I thought the NRA had given up on California. What a ridiculous hodge podge of meaningless restrictions. Still less restrictive than ours mind you, minus their weird obsession with detachable magazines.

California looks insane with their laws because they can't do the one thing they want, which is ban and confiscate them all. So they'll take whatever stupid shit they can get a way with. My state sucks and I'd take it over Cali's laws.

This one made me think of you too, as I continue to see our Presidential frontrunner continue to say what a big issue gun control is. She's even got her daughter out there spewing the same anti-American filth.

http://thehill.com/regulation/277248-chelsea-clinton-scotus-open-to-gun-control-after-scalia

Clinton said that while she always cared about gun control, the issue took new significance to her after having a child.

“This is one of those issues I didn’t know I could care more about until I became a mother,” she added. "And I think every day about the Sandy Hook families whose children every day, don’t come home from school. And I can’t even imagine that living horror and tragedy.”

Say goodbye to over-the-counter purchases of reloading components and binary targets (if such things don't already exist in Commiefornia).

Time to set up some lucrative smuggling routes into the state.

 

[Greoric]

California looks insane with their laws because they can't do the one thing they want, which is ban and confiscate them all. So they'll take whatever stupid shit they can get a way with. My state sucks and I'd take it over Cali's laws.

This one made me think of you too, as I continue to see our Presidential frontrunner continue to say what a big issue gun control is. She's even got her daughter out there spewing the same anti-American filth.

http://thehill.com/regulation/277248-chelsea-clinton-scotus-open-to-gun-control-after-scalia

Time to set up some lucrative smuggling routes into the state.

The laws effectively make rifles useless from a self defense perspective. 10 rounds and bullet button.

 

[Ruprecht]

California looks insane with their laws because they can't do the one thing they want, which is ban and confiscate them all. So they'll take whatever stupid shit they can get a way with. My state sucks and I'd take it over Cali's laws.

This one made me think of you too, as I continue to see our Presidential frontrunner continue to say what a big issue gun control is. She's even got her daughter out there spewing the same anti-American filth.

http://thehill.com/regulation/277248-chelsea-clinton-scotus-open-to-gun-control-after-scalia

Time to set up some lucrative smuggling routes into the state.

It polls well with her core demographic, and is something of a substitute for a more left stance on foreign and economic policy. Even the more ardent supporters of gun control recognise the "intensity gap" though.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It polls well with her core demographic, and is something of a substitute for a more left stance on foreign and economic policy. Even the more ardent supporters of gun control recognise the "intensity gap" though.

We've discussed the gap and how something like that is the consistent result of human nature. What I haven't heard, that I recall, is you admitting that there's plenty of passion on the left for disarmament. You make it sound like they constantly try to pass more laws because everyone is just paying lip service to an idea they don't really support. Guess what. They do. And they oftentimes get very emotional over the subject. One side caring more doesn't mean the other side is apathetic.

In your opinion, given the choice of one or the other, would the average liberal choose the removal of guns from society or the removal of bigoted attitudes toward gays?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This would back up the claims that gun issues are media driven and dispute the claim that R's care more than D's on gun policy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167084/democrats-republicans-differ-top-priorities-gov.aspx

 

[Ruprecht]

We've discussed the gap and how something like that is the consistent result of human nature. What I haven't heard, that I recall, is you admitting that there's plenty of passion on the left for disarmament. You make it sound like they constantly try to pass more laws because everyone is just paying lip service to an idea they don't really support. Guess what. They do. And they oftentimes get very emotional over the subject. One side caring more doesn't mean the other side is apathetic.

In your opinion, given the choice of one or the other, would the average liberal choose the removal of guns from society or the removal of bigoted attitudes toward gays?

You said it was "just human nature", I disagreed. As do the reports on the intensity gap over the years.
It's well documented, and the results speak for themselves. In funding. In bills passed. In campaigns run.
You just haven't got anything to come back at that with, except the list of state legislature, and honestly I just don't care enough about your gun laws or gun grabber paranoia to keep arguing about it.

From those statistics, it would seem like Republicans just don't give a shit in general (about any issues), and yet that's clearly not the case.