|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 12, 2009 22:02:33 GMT -5
this stuff pisses me off. this will NOT make us safer to any significant degree. what it WILL do it create a need for more government jobs to create and maintain the system as well as check on compliance.
i would really love to buy the new S&W M&P 15-22 but nooooooooo, my nanny state says that is an assault weapon and i can't be trusted with it.
another thing that irritates me is this... a week ago my daughter had a cold. i went to target and had to swipe my friggin' driver's license in order to purchase a bottle of nyquil. i asked the clerk what would happen if i didn't have a DL for her to swipe. she didn't have an answer, just a puzzled look on her face.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 13, 2009 0:42:30 GMT -5
I, for one, am glad that you can't buy an assault weapon in our state. What would you need one for anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 13, 2009 1:02:44 GMT -5
I think the real reason he signed it is for revenue. No more internet sales means that Granola Land gets more tax revenue in face to face sales.
More money for even more useless laws, and an even bigger nanny state.Yeah... it's gonna be a snap for him to apply sales tax on all the ammo that is going to get purchased in Oregon, Nevada and Arizona. Remember... there is nothing in the bill to prohibit driving up to Cabela's in Reno and stocking up. And bear in mind the record keeping requirement in the bill. A thumbprint will be required and records of all sales have to be transferred to local law enforcement. Wal-Mart stopped selling firearms in California because of the paperwork and the need to train it's employees to do the transactions right. Now how long do you think Wal-Mart is going to keep selling ammo in it's California stores after 2/1/2011? Saunterelle.... the rifle mentioned above is a rimfire .22 that happens to look like an AR-15. It's magazine is limited to ten rounds. While it is capable of causing a lethal wound, as any firearm can be, it is about as far from an "assault weapon" as can be. Besides... do we need to go over what is and is not an "assault weapon" again? Do everyone a favor and don't make random comments about things that you don't have a single bit of knowledge about. Ask questions about firearms and firearms people will, pretty much always, give you a cogent answer. But when you post buffoonery, you risk being handled like one. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 13, 2009 23:56:35 GMT -5
Other than a "right", is it possible to see the other side of the coin here? There are bad people out there that will be deterred from getting their hands on guns. Is this incorrect to assume?
I'm just trying to understand why gun folk see this as upsetting...just a quick question
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 14, 2009 0:33:53 GMT -5
While true, how many people will drive out of state to buy a product? Especially those HUNDREDS of miles from a state border.
Most of urban CA is no where near a state border.
For most Californias, I think the cost of gas will be more than tax savings they get by driving out of state.I know lots of people who go visit family out of state.... every time they go, buy up and ship it home to themselves. I have family near Lake Tahoe, for instance. From there it's a hop down the hill to Reno / Carson. When I go up to the Dakotas or Washington on family business I'll buy huge and ship myself a present. Bear in mind that there is also the notion of "group buys" to consider. There are suits already prepped and in the process of getting finalized and filed. NRA and California NRA Member's Council have asked Assemblyman Curt Hagman to amend his bill, AB 373 which would streamline purchasing a handgun through an FFL, with language to repeal AB 962. While that bill amendment is a very long shot, and won't be heard until the Legislature reconvenes in January, it is a response. No reputable gun owner should be taking this lying down. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 14, 2009 1:00:22 GMT -5
Other than a "right", is it possible to see the other side of the coin here? There are bad people out there that will be deterred from getting their hands on guns. Is this incorrect to assume? Yes, you are incorrect. This isn't about guns. It is about ammunition. It is already a crime for a prohibited person to purchase, possess, manufacture or otherwise be in contact with so much as a single round of ammo. This law strives to make that more illegal than it already is. Example... under the already existing laws a previously convicted felon in possession of a single round of ammunition is committing a new felony. How does making it harder for me to purchase ammunition enhance that prohibition? [/size]I'm just trying to understand why gun folk see this as upsetting...just a quick question[/size][/quote] It is upsetting for many reasons. The list below is the top several. ** The law requires non-exempted persons who want to purchase handgun (not rifle or shotgun) ammunition to provide full driver's license information for each sale, which must be conducted face to face at a "licensed ammunition seller". ** That information, along with a thumbprint, are to be turned over to local law enforcement. ** All the paperwork and record keeping requirements will, doubtlessly, force any number of businesses that currently handle ammunition out of that product. Example.... Wal-Mart. That company sells firearms at nearly every store in the US; except in California. The California paperwork requirements were too much for Wal-Mart's employee training program to keep up with so they simply got out of the gun business in California. One has to presume that if new requirements are put into place on ammunition, they'll almost certainly stop selling that too. And since Wal-Mart is the low price leader....... which includes ammunition, sportsmen and law abiding gun owners are going to have to pay higher prices. ** Internet and mail order sales would be banned because of the the face to face sale requirement. That is an absolute infringement on interstate commerce, which is the sole responsibility of the federal government to regulate (and which will likely be the death of AB 962), and eliminate another source of relatively inexpensive ammunition in California. ** Local law enforcement is supposed to, at their discretion, screen each purchaser for criminal history to determine if they are a prohibited person. Those who are believed to be prohibited would need to be followed up on by (most likely) detectives who already have a case load to manage. Considering that there are tens of thousands of potential purchases per day across the state, the odds of finding a prohibited person are remotely small given the amount of resources (headcount) would have to be devoted to it. This is why no statewide law enforcement organization supported the bill... only a handful of politically motivated chiefs. ** Something already seen in Sacramento, which has had a similar law for a couple of years... say there is a shooting near your home. A couple days later, a team of detectives shows up at your house, tells you that because you purchased a particular type of ammo recently, and there was this shooting, they'll need to take your firearm for ballistic testing. Just routine you know. Except that it would be nearly impossible to get a search warrant for such a seizure as the probable cause is flimsy at best.... but they'll tell you they need to take your gun, you can hand it over or "we can go get a warrant". What they don't tell you is that whenever they are finally done with your property, weeks or even months later, you have to have it transferred back to you by an FFL... with fees, of course. ** At the effectivity of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal government required all sellers of ammunition to record and retain identifying information for all purchasers. That requirement was dropped in the late 1970's or early 1980s (can't remember which just yet) because the information was virtually worthless as a law enforcement tool (not my opinion... it was the BATFE's opinion) and was paperwork with no other value than to screw with law abiding citizens. And that is a little bit of what is wrong with AB 962. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 15, 2009 20:22:36 GMT -5
Other than a "right", is it possible to see the other side of the coin here? There are bad people out there that will be deterred from getting their hands on guns. Is this incorrect to assume? I'm just trying to understand why gun folk see this as upsetting...just a quick question Mink, do you have to give a thumb print to buy paper for your printer or typewriter? How about ink? You have a "right" to freedom of the press - by that just applies to the press, doesn't it? It says nothing about paper or ink. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 17, 2009 15:20:26 GMT -5
Other than a "right", is it possible to see the other side of the coin here? There are bad people out there that will be deterred from getting their hands on guns. Is this incorrect to assume? I'm just trying to understand why gun folk see this as upsetting...just a quick question Mink, do you have to give a thumb print to buy paper for your printer or typewriter? How about ink? You have a "right" to freedom of the press - by that just applies to the press, doesn't it? It says nothing about paper or ink. Subdjoe, paper or typewriters don't kill people, nor do they poses a threat if stolen. As Big Dog pointed out, this is about ammunition, and guns and ammo work hand in hand, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 17, 2009 15:25:03 GMT -5
Big Dog, thank you for the thorough explanation why you think this bill is wrong. At least I understand somewhat why this could be upsetting to gun owners.
However, if the bill makes it harder to access ammunition for responsible enthusiasts, don't you think it also applies to the thugs?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 17, 2009 16:29:50 GMT -5
Mink, do you have to give a thumb print to buy paper for your printer or typewriter? How about ink? You have a "right" to freedom of the press - by that just applies to the press, doesn't it? It says nothing about paper or ink. Subdjoe, paper or typewriters don't kill people, nor do they poses a threat if stolen. As Big Dog pointed out, this is about ammunition, and guns and ammo work hand in hand, no? No, no. Leave all the emotionalism out. Actually, no, lets go ahead and bring in emotionalism. Remember that Krysatallnacht was organized with with printed words - tell me that the press isn't dangerous. And the persecution of the Jews in Germany was carried out mainly because of the printed word. So, how deadly is "the press" Mink? How about the upwards of 150,000 lives saved every year , and nigh on to 2 MILLION crimes prevented by honest citizens with LOADED firearms, Mink? You would make it impossible for those 150,000 live to be saved, just so YOU can have a false sense of security. Yep - you would rather be raped, or see your mother raped and murdered than to have honest citizens with loaded firearms. How nice of you, Mink. Or would you rather not deal with emotionalism, and deal with ratonal Constitutioanl issues, Mink? Does the right to freedom of the press cover paper and ink? And I'll throw in type. Yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 17, 2009 16:35:29 GMT -5
Big Dog, thank you for the thorough explanation why you think this bill is wrong. At least I understand somewhat why this could be upsetting to gun owners. However, if the bill makes it harder to access ammunition for responsible enthusiasts, don't you think it also applies to the thugs? Hey MINK! How well do the laws that keep thugs from getting guns or ammo work now? How about the laws against murder? Does making something doubleplusungood really deter the thugs? Can you get it through your skull that the thugs DO NOT OBEY THE LAW? Read this and see if you can understand any of it, I know you can't be as stupid as you come off with your last two posts here, so you should be able to make some sense of it: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
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. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
Cesare Beccaria |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 17, 2009 18:21:38 GMT -5
I, for one, am glad that you can't buy an assault weapon in our state. What would you need one for anyway? aside from a thatch roofed shack, a small garden, a tin pot for cooking over an open fire, modest clothing, and a nanny state to make sure you have all that, what else would you really need? We don't need alot of things but we are willing to sacrifice our time and labor to earn money to buy the things we want and to provide a comfortable existence for ourselves and our families. i am not at all interested in living the peasant life. if that's what you want then carry your ass over to peasantville, china or vietnam, or cuba. do you, santurelle, have things taht you don't really need? |
|
