Registration form - Page 2

Hometown » New York

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Registration form (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 4/1/2013 4:50:15 PM EDT

[#1]

You almost had me until I remembered what today is.

Good one!!!

Posted: 4/1/2013 5:26:46 PM EDT

[#2]

deleted

Posted: 4/1/2013 5:58:43 PM EDT

[#3]

Register your AWs in you kid(s) name(s). Then they can worry about the property loss in 60 years.

Posted: 4/1/2013 7:23:37 PM EDT

[#4]

Register your dicks, gentlemen.

Posted: 4/1/2013 7:58:53 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The form and law fail to recognize that a single object can have multiple legal co-owners.

As an example, if one obtained their AWs after they were married, the AWs would constitute marital property and legally belong to both spouses.

If the state then refuses to allow an AW to be registered in both spouse's names, and by forcing the surviving spouse to dispose of the AW upon the death of the registrant spouse, they will have significantly interfered with the spouse's property rights.

it will be interesting to see the SP response if attempts are made to register an AW to multiple owners, including spouses and/or parents and children.

So are you saying you're going to marry everyone you want to transfer an "AW" to/from?

Well I guess that's one way the D's will fight gay marriage rights.

Posted: 4/1/2013 8:14:45 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Register your AWs in you kid(s) name(s). Then they can worry about the property loss in 60 years.

What if they are unborn? Unborn Americans don't deserve to have their civil rights protected?

Posted: 4/2/2013 4:18:10 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The form and law fail to recognize that a single object can have multiple legal co-owners.

As an example, if one obtained their AWs after they were married, the AWs would constitute marital property and legally belong to both spouses.

If the state then refuses to allow an AW to be registered in both spouse's names, and by forcing the surviving spouse to dispose of the AW upon the death of the registrant spouse, they will have significantly interfered with the spouse's property rights.

it will be interesting to see the SP response if attempts are made to register an AW to multiple owners, including spouses and/or parents and children.

So are you saying you're going to marry everyone you want to transfer an "AW" to/from?

Well I guess that's one way the D's will fight gay marriage rights.

Actually, what I am saying is that one way to attack the law is to attempt multiple owner registration, and if refused, bring a lawsuit based on deprivation of property rights. You would have to show that as of the enactment of the law, the registrants both had property rights in the AW, so a married couple would be the best example. The goal would be to have at least part of the registration scheme ruled unconstitutional, and hopefully undermine the entire scheme.

Posted: 4/2/2013 4:25:14 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The form and law fail to recognize that a single object can have multiple legal co-owners.

As an example, if one obtained their AWs after they were married, the AWs would constitute marital property and legally belong to both spouses.

If the state then refuses to allow an AW to be registered in both spouse's names, and by forcing the surviving spouse to dispose of the AW upon the death of the registrant spouse, they will have significantly interfered with the spouse's property rights.

it will be interesting to see the SP response if attempts are made to register an AW to multiple owners, including spouses and/or parents and children.

Forced forfeiture of your legally owned property if you choose to heir your rifle to your kids should "undermine" this scheme...

So are you saying you're going to marry everyone you want to transfer an "AW" to/from?

Well I guess that's one way the D's will fight gay marriage rights.

Actually, what I am saying is that one way to attack the law is to attempt multiple owner registration, and if refused, bring a lawsuit based on deprivation of property rights. You would have to show that as of the enactment of the law, the registrants both had property rights in the AW, so a married couple would be the best example. The goal would be to have at least part of the registration scheme ruled unconstitutional, and hopefully undermine the entire scheme.