Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/9/2004 4:07:34 AM EST
What do you think? Which states are likely to do so (i.e. - Michigan) and which ones will likely remain free? I sure hope PA has enough gun friendly politicians to keep the state free.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:08:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 4:09:32 AM EST by hielo]
NY has had one for three years now, Pataki (our wonderful rino govenor) assured us it just mirrors the feds, so no harm will come to us, only there i sno sunset clause.

Biggest political scumbag there is.

ETA: Whoever decides to run against him, be it a democrat or republican, is going to get large amounts of money from me. No doubt about that.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:08:35 AM EST
Dont have to worry about Colorado.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:23:47 AM EST
PA already has something in the works but I haven't seen anything on it for a while. Hope it stays that way!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:24:40 AM EST
Not here...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:27:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By hielo:
NY has had one for three years now, Pataki (our wonderful rino govenor) assured us it just mirrors the feds, so no harm will come to us, only there i sno sunset clause.

Biggest political scumbag there is.

ETA: Whoever decides to run against him, be it a democrat or republican, is going to get large amounts of money from me. No doubt about that.



What heilo said - Screw King George (the Rino) Pataki
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:27:36 AM EST
If even MARYLAND can defeat an AWB attempt, any currently-free state should be able to do the same.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:32:19 AM EST
Not going to happen here.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:33:26 AM EST
Indiana has had no major attempts to legislate any of that crap. Generally hoosiers have resisted this kind of silliness, except for the bigger cities of Gary, Indy etc. and/or the liberal wieny towns such as Bloomington.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:34:32 AM EST
Minnesota is already talking about it

GM
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:35:29 AM EST
I really don't see Tennessee passing an AWB but if they do I'll ignore it like I did the Federal one because it'll fly in the face of our State Constitution just like the Federal one went against our U.S. Constitution. A Constitution is only good if people stand behind it and fight for the rights that are in it, when we stop fighting it becomes an old piece of paper with some writting on it and nothing more. Freedom should be in our hearts not on a peice of paper.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:37:07 AM EST
MA already has one, worse than the fed one.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:40:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bushman_269:

Originally Posted By hielo:
NY has had one for three years now, Pataki (our wonderful rino govenor) assured us it just mirrors the feds, so no harm will come to us, only there i sno sunset clause.

Biggest political scumbag there is.

ETA: Whoever decides to run against him, be it a democrat or republican, is going to get large amounts of money from me. No doubt about that.



What heilo said - Screw King George (the Rino) Pataki



In NY, your Republicans are just Democrats with a different name. That's the only way a Republican gets elected there.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:41:17 AM EST
I don't see one happening in Texas.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:42:26 AM EST
About as many states as have NOT enacted a Right To Carry law.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:48:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I really don't see Tennessee passing an AWB but if they do I'll ignore it like I did the Federal one because it'll fly in the face of our State Constitution just like the Federal one went against our U.S. Constitution. A Constitution is only good if people stand behind it and fight for the rights that are in it, when we stop fighting it becomes an old piece of paper with some writting on it and nothing more. Freedom should be in our hearts not on a peice of paper.



Good point Frank.

I've already decided to disobey any AWB-type legislation passed in the future. You KNOW they're going to pass more strict stuff...there's no question about it...I believe they'll ban the transfer of AWs and magazines in the next attack - it't the logical next step.

Fuck 'em. I'll tell you right now...I'm a conscientious objector.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:49:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
About as many states as have NOT enacted a Right To Carry law.

www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif



nice map
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:55:52 AM EST
In Idaho, you only need a "permit" if you are in the big cities, if you are in the country you can carry concealed all day long.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:56:01 AM EST
I'd love to get a case like this into court. It would almost be a "no brainer" to win a case against an AWB. Just point to when the 2nd. Amend. was written, what were the "common" arms held by the Military and were they the same as the "common" arms held by the Citizens. Of course the answer is "Yes, they were the same." er go we should have the same arms as our modern military today. M4's and M16A2's should be commonly held by citizens of this country because those are the arms that are protected by the 2nd. Amend. How much more should we, the Free Citizens of this country, be able to own semi-auto versions of the common military rifles used today. It's just beyond me why the NRA or other "pro gun" group hasn't taken these crap laws to court. Heck, I could argue a good case and have a 99% chance of winning I'm sure that a good lawyer would have a cake walk with these stupid, unconstitutional laws if they'd just give it a try.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:58:12 AM EST
Because we do not live under the Constitution today.



Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I'd love to get a case like this into court. It would almost be a "no brainer" to win a case against an AWB. Just point to when the 2nd. Amend. was written, what were the "common" arms held by the Military and were they the same as the "common" arms held by the Citizens. Of course the answer is "Yes, they were the same." er go we should have the same arms as our modern military today. M4's and M16A2's should be commonly held by citizens of this country because those are the arms that are protected by the 2nd. Amend. How much more should we, the Free Citizens of this country, be able to own semi-auto versions of the common military rifles used today. It's just beyond me why the NRA or other "pro gun" group hasn't taken these crap laws to court. Heck, I could argue a good case and have a 99% chance of winning I'm sure that a good lawyer would have a cake walk with these stupid, unconstitutional laws if they'd just give it a try.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:58:52 AM EST
I don't expect to see one around here.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:00:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I'd love to get a case like this into court. It would almost be a "no brainer" to win a case against an AWB. Just point to when the 2nd. Amend. was written, what were the "common" arms held by the Military and were they the same as the "common" arms held by the Citizens. Of course the answer is "Yes, they were the same." er go we should have the same arms as our modern military today. M4's and M16A2's should be commonly held by citizens of this country because those are the arms that are protected by the 2nd. Amend. How much more should we, the Free Citizens of this country, be able to own semi-auto versions of the common military rifles used today. It's just beyond me why the NRA or other "pro gun" group hasn't taken these crap laws to court. Heck, I could argue a good case and have a 99% chance of winning I'm sure that a good lawyer would have a cake walk with these stupid, unconstitutional laws if they'd just give it a try.



That might work, only problem is that the Supreme Court has already said th they will make rulings, not based on the constitution, but on Foreign laws and foreign opinions.

The constitution does not really come into play much anymore.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:04:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I really don't see Tennessee passing an AWB but if they do I'll ignore it like I did the Federal one because it'll fly in the face of our State Constitution just like the Federal one went against our U.S. Constitution. A Constitution is only good if people stand behind it and fight for the rights that are in it, when we stop fighting it becomes an old piece of paper with some writting on it and nothing more. Freedom should be in our hearts not on a peice of paper.



Good point Frank.

I've already decided to disobey any AWB-type legislation passed in the future. You KNOW they're going to pass more strict stuff...there's no question about it...I believe they'll ban the transfer of AWs and magazines in the next attack - it't the logical next step.

Fuck 'em. I'll tell you right now...I'm a conscientious objector.



I don't know how old you are, what you do for a living, or if you have a family or anything, but me personally, I'm not about to throw my life away over a bayo lug. Now if it was "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in", well now that is a different story.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:08:40 AM EST
Not going to happen in AZ, unless more CA nuts move this way.
If it does happen, I will simply have to ignore it.
9th circuit already set the record that homemade machine guns are not ruled by the NFA since they never entered into interstate commerce.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:11:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By hielo:
That might work, only problem is that the Supreme Court has already said th they will make rulings, not based on the constitution, but on Foreign laws and foreign opinions.

The constitution does not really come into play much anymore.


+1
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:50:01 AM EST


Keep an eye on Georgia, of all places:



Read it and weep, folks


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

To amend Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices, so as to provide a short title; to provide for findings and a statement of purpose; to provide for definitions; to prohibit the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and assault weapon conversion kits; to prohibit the possession of certain weapons under certain circumstances; to provide for exceptions; to provide for background checks; to provide for registration of certain weapons; to regulate the storage and transportation of certain weapons; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for fees; to provide for penalties; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new Part 6 to read as follows:

"Part 6

16-11-200.
This part shall be known and may be cited as the 'Assault Weapons Protection Act.'

16-11-201.
(a) The General Assembly finds:
(1) Semiautomatic assault weapons are military-style guns designed to quickly kill large numbers of people. The shooter can simply point, rather than carefully aim, the weapon to quickly spray a wide area with a hail of bullets;
(2) According to data of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon;
(3) Gun manufacturers have for many years made, marketed, and sold to civilians semiautomatic versions of military assault weapons designed with features specifically intended to increase the lethality for military applications; and
(4) Assault weapons have been used in some of America´s most notorious murders, including the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School and the 2002 Washington, D.C., area sniper shootings.
(b) This Code section is enacted to protect the health and safety of state residents by prohibiting the purchase, sale, and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons.

16-11-202.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) 'Assault weapon' means:
(A) Any semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or semiautomatic pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine and that also possesses any of the following:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle, a pistol grip located behind the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock, or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or
(vi) Any feature designed to be capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand, except this does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel;
(B) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(C) Any semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic center-fire rifle, with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(D) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(E) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder magazine; and
(F) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in this paragraph, can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of any person.
(2) 'Barrel shroud' means a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to or substantially or completely encircles the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the non-shooting hand while firing the firearm without burning that hand, except that the term shall not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.
(3) 'Conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault weapon.
(4) 'Large-capacity detachable magazine' means a magazine, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool and has the capacity to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.
(5) 'Muzzle brake' means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(6) 'Muzzle compensator' means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
(b)(1) No person shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit.
(2) No person shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both:
(A) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(B) A large-capacity detachable magazine capable of use with that firearm.
(3) This subsection shall not apply to:
(A) Any law enforcement agency or officer acting within the scope of his or her profession;
(B) Any person licensed under 18 U.S.C. Section 923 for the purpose of selling an assault weapon or large-capacity detachable magazine to a law enforcement agency;
(C) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon or large-capacity detachable magazine for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency, pursuant to regulations adopted for such purpose by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subparagraph shall be destroyed;
(D) An assault weapon that has been permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile;
(E) The possession of an assault weapon while lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully operated shooting range;
(F) The possession of an assault weapon while lawfully participating in a sporting event officially sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events;
(G) The possession of an assault weapon or large-capacity detachable magazine by a person who received the weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession, so long as the person complies with this Code section within 30 days of receipt; or
(H) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed on July 1, 2004, only if the person legally possessing the assault weapon has complied with the requirements of paragraph (4) of this subsection.
(4) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on July 1, 2004, the person possessing the assault weapon must:
(A) Within 90 days following July 1, 2004, submit to a background check identical to the background check conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed gun dealer;
(B) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation pursuant to regulations adopted for such purpose;
(C) Safely and securely store the assault weapon pursuant to regulations adopted for such purpose by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subparagraph;
(D) Annually renew both the registration and the background check;
(E) Possess the assault weapon only upon property owned or immediately controlled by the person, while engaged in the legal use of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container during transport; and
(F) Pay a fee to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for each registration and registration renewal, provided that such fee may not exceed the costs incurred by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation in administering the registration program.
(c) Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

SECTION 2.
This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2004.

SECTION 3.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.





Nothing has come of it, YET.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:53:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
If even MARYLAND can defeat an AWB attempt, any currently-free state should be able to do the same.

Kharn



Very true... I thought that it was going to be a slam dunk for the antis, but it failed. Wow...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:54:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I really don't see Tennessee passing an AWB



God I hope your right!!!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:56:17 AM EST
i see one in IL's future.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:57:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bushman_269:

Originally Posted By hielo:
NY has had one for three years now, Pataki (our wonderful rino govenor) assured us it just mirrors the feds, so no harm will come to us, only there i sno sunset clause.

Biggest political scumbag there is.

ETA: Whoever decides to run against him, be it a democrat or republican, is going to get large amounts of money from me. No doubt about that.



What heilo said - Screw King George (the Rino) Pataki



You're going to support Spitzer in 2006? Have the two of you lost your minds? You guys are cutting your noses off to spite your face.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:16:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By Bushman_269:

Originally Posted By hielo:
NY has had one for three years now, Pataki (our wonderful rino govenor) assured us it just mirrors the feds, so no harm will come to us, only there i sno sunset clause.

Biggest political scumbag there is.

ETA: Whoever decides to run against him, be it a democrat or republican, is going to get large amounts of money from me. No doubt about that.



What heilo said - Screw King George (the Rino) Pataki



You're going to support Spitzer in 2006? Have the two of you lost your minds? You guys are cutting your noses off to spite your face.



Unfortunately that is what the Rino's count on - that we will still vote for them as the lesser of two evils. Until they understand that they cannot screw lawful gunowners with impunity they will continue to do so. It is a very tough choice and I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Spitzer - but I cannot in good conscience support Pataki when he has screwed over the lawful gun owners of NY again and again.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:20:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By Patriot328:

Keep an eye on Georgia, of all places:



Read it and weep, folks



I live in GA and had no clue of this. I will be busy emailing and calling now. Maybe I'm not as vigilant as I should but I never heard of this. I try to stay up on news as time allows. I believe way too many laws are passed without public knowledge until after the fact.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:48:36 AM EST
the Democrats in Michigan have already proposed a state AWB! But it won't fly yet. good job MCRGO!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:46:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 8:15:17 AM EST by rkbar15]

Originally Posted By Bushman_269:
Unfortunately that is what the Rino's count on - that we will still vote for them as the lesser of two evils. Until they understand that they cannot screw lawful gunowners with impunity they will continue to do so. It is a very tough choice and I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Spitzer - but I cannot in good conscience support Pataki when he has screwed over the lawful gun owners of NY again and again.



I understand how you feel but Spitzer is the poster child for the Brady organization(s) and every other anti-gun org in the U.S. If he he wins the election and the NYC democRATS gain control of the Senate they will enact legislation that will make CA look like a pro gun state compared to NY. Expect a complete ban on .50's and anything that remotely resembles a SAW. You can also expect NYC style pistol permits, 5 round rifle mag restrictions and registration of all rifles/shotguns.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:03:43 AM EST
It would be political suicide here in Alabama...


...OTOH, we can't get them to rescind our archaic SBR/SBS prohibition.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:08:15 AM EST
CA - Proud home of the most restrictive AWB in the nation.

CW
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:13:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 8:14:42 AM EST by HRoark]
They've tried in Illinois for the last two years, but it's never gotten out of committee in either house.

I don't think thay'll get anything passed without being sneaky, so people in Illinois should always watch closely.

On a similar subject, I saw Mayor Daley on the news the other day THROWING A FIT about the national concealed carry for cops and retired cops. I love anything that pisses that guy off.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:17:43 AM EST
That Georgia crap was from, of all places Atlanta, who woulda guessed that, last I heard it died a slow death. Atlanta likes to think they are located in New york or sumthin, The rest of the state is so out of step with the yuppie urban hip big city living folks that make Atlanta the San fran of the east coast.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:29:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 8:31:49 AM EST by Merrell]
Frankel (PA state rep) was trying to do something, what a maroon.

http://www.pahouse.com/frankel/index.asp

http://www.pahouse.com/frankel/assaultweapons/QandAweaponsban.htm


Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.





A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.


TELL THAT TO ALL THE EUROPEANS WHO USE THEM TO PREVENT HEARING DAMAGE YOU IDIOT!

Arrrrrgggggggghhhhhhh.


What states have their own assault weapons bans?
Seven states -- California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York -- have state assault weapons bans.

History of State Assault Weapons Bans
2000 -- New York: The law established criminal sanctions for the possession and sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, mirroring the federal law. It made it a felony to possess or sell an assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine that was manufactured after the federal law took effect.



1999 -- California: California strengthened its 1989 ban on semi-automatic assault weapons by expanding the list of prohibited weapons to include weapons with specific military characteristics like pistol grips and folding stocks. California also restricted the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.



1998 -- Massachusetts: The law restricted sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and required a special license for anyone seeking to acquire an assault weapon, a large capacity weapon or a large capacity ammunition magazine.



1994 -- Maryland: The law bans 16 types of assault pistols and also restricts ammunition magazines that hold over 20 rounds. The bill prohibits possession, sale, transfer purchase or receipt of assault pistols within the state.



1993 -- Connecticut: This was the fourth law to ban semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill bans the future sale of 63 types of military-style weapons, including the Connecticut-made Colt "Sporter" assault rifle. Challenged in State Court by the NRA, the ban was upheld as constitutional on June 30, 1994.



1992 -- Hawaii: Capping a two-year effort, the legislature passed a landmark bill banning assault pistols and pistol ammunition magazines which hold more than ten rounds. This was the first state law to use a generic definition of assault weapons and its magazine ban was the most restrictive in the nation.



1990 -- New Jersey: This law not only banned a more comprehensive list of assault weapons than the California law, it also banned large-capacity ammunition magazines (over 15). The law included a list and prohibited firearms that were substantially identical to the list. Any "assault firearm" had to be registered, licensed or rendered inoperable by May 30, 1991 or it would be considered contraband. (Note: The NRA has tried desperately to overturn the New Jersey law. In 1993, it looked like the NRA might win when the Assembly overrode the Governor's veto of the NRA's repealer bill. When the vote was finally taken, not one Senator voted for the NRA bill.)



1989 -- California: The first assault weapon ban passed in the nation was the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act, which banned the future sale of a specific list of assault weapons in California. This law was upheld as constitutional in federal court against an NRA challenge and the NRA did not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The law also was upheld against several other state and federal legal challenges.





This bozo may run for mayor of Pittsburgh.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:43:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I really don't see Tennessee passing an AWB but if they do I'll ignore it like I did the Federal one because it'll fly in the face of our State Constitution just like the Federal one went against our U.S. Constitution. A Constitution is only good if people stand behind it and fight for the rights that are in it, when we stop fighting it becomes an old piece of paper with some writting on it and nothing more. Freedom should be in our hearts not on a peice of paper.



Good point Frank.

I've already decided to disobey any AWB-type legislation passed in the future. You KNOW they're going to pass more strict stuff...there's no question about it...I believe they'll ban the transfer of AWs and magazines in the next attack - it't the logical next step.

Fuck 'em. I'll tell you right now...I'm a conscientious objector.



I don't know how old you are, what you do for a living, or if you have a family or anything, but me personally, I'm not about to throw my life away over a bayo lug. Now if it was "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in", well now that is a different story.



If you think this is about bayonet lugs and flash hiders then I really feel sorry for you pard. This is about FREEDOM plain and simple. It's about the government ignoring the document on which this great country was founded, the Constitution. If the SCOTUS want's to ignore the Constitution then they are traitors and should be lined up against a wall and shot like traitors. If the Courts won't follow the "Supreme Law of the Land" then why should anyone follow any laws that they push off on us? This isn't really even about firearms either, it's about a people being able to choose their own destiny without government interfearence. We must keep our guns to keep our government in check. We've already given up to many of them and we can already see the result, more government interfearence in our lives. If we give up what few firearms we have left then we might as well move to a different country because this one will be lost.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:22:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 9:23:18 AM EST by rkbar15]

Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior:
CA - Proud home of the most restrictive AWB in the nation.

CW



Actually that distinction belongs to the City of NY which first required registration of all rifles/shotguns in 1967 and then outright banned any rifle/shotgun/pistol the Police Commissioner decided was an "assault weapon in 1991." They gave you the option to turn them in to the Police Dept. or remove them from within the City limits. They also limited rifle/shotgun magazines to 5 rounds and consider any pistol with a magazine that extends below the grip to be a banned assault weapon. Thousands of WW II veterans who fought to safeguard NYC from the Japanese and German's were forced to give up their registered "assault" rifles or face arrest and criminal prosecution. CA at least gave the option of registering them or removing them from the state.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:25:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By sonofbp:
Not going to happen in AZ, unless more CA nuts move this way.

Balls. AZ's problem will come from the increasing numbers of Northern Plains states 'snow birds' that each Spring FAIL to GO HOME.


As for CA - Been screwed since '89.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:47:27 AM EST
I highly doubt Alaska would. But then again, if Lisa Murkowski gets booted ya never know.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:49:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
About as many states as have NOT enacted a Right To Carry law.

www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif



They should all be green.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:49:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior:
CA - Proud home of the most restrictive AWB in the nation.

CW



Actually that distinction belongs to the City of NY which first required registration of all rifles/shotguns in 1967 and then outright banned any rifle/shotgun/pistol the Police Commissioner decided was an "assault weapon in 1991." They gave you the option to turn them in to the Police Dept. or remove them from within the City limits. They also limited rifle/shotgun magazines to 5 rounds and consider any pistol with a magazine that extends below the grip to be a banned assault weapon. Thousands of WW II veterans who fought to safeguard NYC from the Japanese and German's were forced to give up their registered "assault" rifles or face arrest and criminal prosecution. CA at least gave the option of registering them or removing them from the state.


Sorry, thought the discussion was about states, not enclaves.

CW
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:58:53 AM EST
NOT IN TEJAS
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:14:55 AM EST
No sunset here in New York, Pataki seen to that. For the rest of you lucky people, Its good to be you!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:28:50 AM EST
Yes, anything that gets Daley's blood pressure steaming is fun to watch. As said before, Illinois with Blowmebitch has treid for the past two years. However, downstate Demo's know that it would be political suicide to get on board with an AW bill. One came close to getting out to a floor vote but had a grandfather clause added and it died. The Illinois State Rifle Association has been pretty good with watching out here. I do believe that our current Govenor will be a one term wonder and it all depends upon who gets in next.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:36:22 AM EST
Not in Arizona.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:38:22 AM EST
Not in Alaska.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 2:31:39 PM EST
Minnesota will do it within the next year. Then we can all "FEEEEEEEL SAFE"

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top