|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 16:07:39 GMT -5
Good bill......trust the NRA, not the black helo's conspiracy nuts that claim we are being taken away by Staslinist and Hitler freaks. This one fixes a few of the known problems with a legal gun purchase. Sarah Brady is taking credit for it, but's not what she wants. Yeah, what was I thinking. I will go climb back under my rock and apply some tin foil. All will be better then. The NRA just got the last dime from me. I have been defending them and supporting them most of my life, thank you very much. That ended right here with this bill. If some refuse see the inherit problems in it, that is not because it isn't clear. It is QUITE clear here. You simply refuse to see the real threat. See whatever you like. Getting personal and calling us "black helo's conspiracy nuts" because we see something you won't was not called for. I had come to expect better from you.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Jun 15, 2007 16:11:50 GMT -5
If she's a psycho that just bought a gun, in a word, YES!!!! I'm sure she's a fine gal, however.
There is nothing in this or any other law keeping the spouse of a nutcase from getting a gun. Keeping it in the same house, in some cases, but not from buying one.
We have enough laws, don't invent new ones!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 16:22:18 GMT -5
Good bill......trust the NRA, not the black helo's conspiracy nuts that claim we are being taken away by Staslinist and Hitler freaks. This one fixes a few of the known problems with a legal gun purchase. Sarah Brady is taking credit for it, but's not what she wants. Oh yeah. I'm really a conspiracy theorist. One who asked these same questions to people I know in the BATFE and FBI. History doesn't lie. This is the same crap used by every Fascist government to date. This bill puts INNOCENT PEOPLE in a CRIMINAL DATABASE. That is, in and of itself, utterly noxious. First you say your not a conspiracy theorist, then you talk about Fascist governments..... Something isn't adding up. Further more, this bill doesn't add anyone to any data base that hasn't been adjudicated to a mental facility.......no one that hasn't been will be denied anything. There is no question on a FFL 4473 asking if you know, live with or associate with someone that has been adjudicated to a mental facility. Last, I know a lot of folks within the BATF that are not Fascists and are not out to take away your gun rights. They have laws to follow and expect gun dealers to follow suit. Again, this is an improvement on the record keeping of certain people that are already not elligible to purchase a firearm. Hope it helps prevent another VT type incident and we'll all be better off.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 16:22:51 GMT -5
If she's a psycho that just bought a gun, in a word, YES!!!! I'm sure she's a fine gal, however. There is nothing in this or any other law keeping the spouse of a nutcase from getting a gun. Keeping it in the same house, in some cases, but not from buying one. We have enough laws, don't invent new ones! By 18USC "keeping it in the same house" in ALL cases is technically illegal. Only not knowing which houses also hold a "prohibited person" keeps them from being able to effectively run raids. This bill gives the BATFE a list that they can, and will, corelate with CCW and FOID records.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 16:28:21 GMT -5
If she's a psycho that just bought a gun, in a word, YES!!!! I'm sure she's a fine gal, however. There is nothing in this or any other law keeping the spouse of a nutcase from getting a gun. Keeping it in the same house, in some cases, but not from buying one. We have enough laws, don't invent new ones! There is a cure for nut cases with guns: Make sure everyone ELSE has one too! ANd, in case you missed it, 'inventing another NEW LAW' is exactly what we are upset about here.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 16:32:04 GMT -5
Let's see if you are willing to trust your LIFE to the answer of the following exchange between myself and a BATFE agentI know: -------------------------- Hey Crystal – maybe you or one of the SA’s across the hall can answer me this:
How does the BATFE define “possession” (of anything)? Is it dependent on the State’s legal definition – i.e. “community property” or is it proximal?
I’ve dug and dug in the ATF site but can’t come up with an answer. -------------------------
Ooooo, I always enjoy a good Zen koan.
You can see where this answer is going... the answer is dependent on which of the anythings might be in whose definition of any, of thing, and of possession. I remember a fellow, young and hypoglycemic, living at home with his parents. The fellow happened into a set of circumstances where a quantity of inventoried articles in his legal ownership might no longer be in his possession, where the court-rulings-definitions were then explained within my earshot as meaning that the articles could not be where he could access them, not even accidentally. The huge safe could stay, but his dad would have to get a locksmith to change the combination away from the combination the son knew. That conversation took place in California, but I've heard similar in other places, so I'm thinking it's one of those "whatever the judge says" kind of things. No, I don't remember seeing the word "possession" defined in the NFA or the GCA, but when I (sometimes) read the transcript of a court ruling (rarely, but sometimes I look at what's new), it's the sort of thing that our and their and each others lawyers hash out in specific instances where the answer you're asking me to hit is a moving target.
It depends, on things.
--------------------------------------
In short, it depends on how badly your local Judge/BATFE office hates private gun ownership, because it is left up to their arbitrary whim.
Yeah, I feel really secure in knowing that my house has a big red X on it just waiting for and anti gun Pol to decide to push the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 16:44:11 GMT -5
Does Cystal wear black knee length steel toe boots and how many doors has she busted down lately???
Wanna bet some cash that the BATF never comes to your house and breaks down your door???
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 16:49:08 GMT -5
Well, as long as it's only the Jews that they are repressing, I suppose it matters not, eh? What ever happened to the Principle of Liberty? Dead and gone it appears. "Make more laws!" As long as they don't affect me here and now, it doesn't matter who they hurt later or elsewhere, right? Sick. (FWIW Crystal works in the Commercial Explosives Compliance section of that particular District Office.)
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 16:55:43 GMT -5
First you say your not a conspiracy theorist, then you talk about Fascist governments..... Something isn't adding up. Further more, this bill doesn't add anyone to any data base that hasn't been adjudicated to a mental facility.......no one that hasn't been will be denied anything. There is no question on a FFL 4473 asking if you know, live with or associate with someone that has been adjudicated to a mental facility. Last, I know a lot of folks within the BATF that are not Fascists and are not out to take away your gun rights. They have laws to follow and expect gun dealers to follow suit. Again, this is an improvement on the record keeping of certain people that are already not elligible to purchase a firearm. Hope it helps prevent another VT type incident and we'll all be better off. There is no CURRENT question on the 4473 form. This passes there will be, and pronto. The only thing that allowed the VT incident was the REFUSAL to allow anyone on campus to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. THAT is bottom line fact. Notice how the 'nutcases' are NOT OVERLY AFFECTED by these rules? Sort of like criminals. They do not CARE how many laws they break. And anyone who goes off the deep end knows where to go to get a gun if he decides to do so. EVERYONE knows SOMEONE with guns. And can get to them if they decide to. This bs proposal puts EVERY gun owner in jeopardy, and it improves NOTHING but the ability of BATF to further disregard the rights of the People. AS if they needed MORE leeway. Now, with the Patriot Act in place, homeland INsecurity, no knock warrants, and the amalgamation of all the LEO's. . . now this. One simple point here: If BRADY is pushing it, it ISN'T a good thing!That you can bet on, regardless of how much blind faith you have in the NRA. Blind Faith in anything other than God is still blind. Holding the NRA(or any group of people) to be 'above question' is self defeating. (there, that looks much better . . )
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jun 15, 2007 17:22:30 GMT -5
Ah, don't sweat timex john. He's in full CYA mode. He'd much rather the focus of the BATFE be on anybody but gun dealers like him.
Door to door confiscations don't bother him as much as a Bound Book review.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 15, 2007 17:29:47 GMT -5
No doubt this is a very emotional issue, but please everyone, stick to the subject and leave personal references out of it.
Thanks,
WW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 18:36:31 GMT -5
I'm guessing you have evidence of door to door seaches by the BATF and wholesale confiscations of legally owned firearms? Post up the link for me. Gun dealers put up with a lot more laws than do private gun owners, you can vrify that if you want in a thousand places. Bound book requirements are just one of the many requirements we have to deal with. I deal with them as they come, same as you will. This one won't restrict you in anyway as long as your sane. We'll let your Doctor and the Judge decide that for sure.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 18:48:49 GMT -5
Is that the same Dr. and Judge that gave millions of dollars to a lady who spilled coffee all over herself? Or the judge who is personally suing a dry cleaner for 54 million because they lost his pants? Or one of the incompetent excuses for Dr's I and mine have dealt with the last couple of years? No thanks. Given a choice, I will keep the tin foil handy, and retain my doubts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 19:12:03 GMT -5
If you check the specific case, you will see that the lady had 1st degree burns from the coffee and that she required serious medicle attention following that incident. The judgement was severe, so were the burns.
Again, stop the conspiracy theories. They are not relevant to this case. The fact that one shooter "might" have been prevented from doing what he did is relevant.
I don't know anything about your doctors, nor your mental state. Hopefully, your not bad enough off to be committed by a court and you won't have anything to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 15, 2007 19:26:35 GMT -5
OIS - Just for conversation ....
A few months ago we had a discussion about felony weapons possession and how local police and all the "agents" you personally know looked the other way while you illegally carried your firearm.
What has changed in these officers that makes you nervous that they will begin enforcing a law? Are you worried that these same people that allowed you to carry where you were not supposed to are now going to kick down your door and arrest you?
Do not take this as a "flame" or anything like that ....... just curious.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 15, 2007 19:32:54 GMT -5
If you check the specific case, you will see that the lady had 1st degree burns from the coffee and that she required serious medicle attention following that incident. The judgement was severe, so were the burns. Again, stop the conspiracy theories. They are not relevant to this case. The fact that one shooter "might" have been prevented from doing what he did is relevant. I don't know anything about your doctors, nor your mental state. Hopefully, your not bad enough off to be committed by a court and you won't have anything to worry about. I am not the one insulting people and implying mental imbalance in those debating my views. The burns were severe?. . . . millions of dollars worth of severe. Yeah, right. Get real. Medical expenses and $100,000.00 would have been 'severe'. Millions of dollars is bs. Just fatter legal fees for a fatter settlement, and richer lawyers. Nothing just or fair involved. And the judge I mentioned is CURRENTLY suing for 54 million, which he dropped from his original 64 million lawsuit. The business he is targeting is almost bankrupt from legal fees at this point, and he has refused $10,000 compensation AND his original pants which were found. No conspiracy theory, but I notice it makes some sleep better calling everything they don't WANT to think about conspiracy theories. And those of us with concerns nut cases.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 15, 2007 19:44:29 GMT -5
Without getting to far off subject ..... things like this, IMO, are really killing my idea of "America". We have become a sue happy nation .... almost everybody is looking to get rich quick.
Most have forgotten the whole "work hard and sacrifice" to get ahead ...... they want it given to them and are constantly looking for a free ride.
It doesnt have to be against the law to ruin your life ........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 20:54:55 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out what any of those suits have to do with any of this discussion? If you mentally defective, and your family or some other entity needs to have you committed, then that is a totally different deal than any of these lawsuits mentioned. I'm NOT AWARE of any court in the land picking folks out of a hat and judging them mentally incapable of owning a firearm. If it happened, please post up the link to it.....same as the number of times that BATF agents have broken into homes of private citizen gun owners with no cause.....post it up or admit that it's a fabrication of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 15, 2007 21:27:45 GMT -5
..... If you mentally defective, and your family or some other entity needs to have you committed, then that is a totally different deal than any of these lawsuits mentioned. ........... Guys, I think we sometimes start to feel that it is a personal attack when it might not be. If we could stop posting in the first tense we might be better off and stay on subject.. IOW- using "you" when a second tense "a person" would be better. Saying "you" tends to get the other poster believing that it is directed straight at them. EXAMPLE - Try this instead - If a person is mentally defective, and their family or some other entity needs to have them committed, then that is a totally different deal than any of these lawsuits mentioned. Thanks, WW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2007 21:41:01 GMT -5
absolutely.....I've not judge anyone here to be mentally defective. I couldn't based on the evidence even IF I wanted too. I'm quite sure that no judge is going to do so with out do cause as well.
|
|