The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2013, 04:58 PM   #151
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,925
Originally posted by rickyrick
Quote:
I see where doctors who accept Medicare, Medicaid and other government insurance are gonna get strong armed into disqualifying people from firearm ownership.
Neither a doctor nor any other healthcare professional can, on his/her own, disqualify anyone from firearm ownership. A doctor can, and is already supposed to, report people who they have reason to believe to be a danger to themselves or others to the authorities, but it is not the doctor that makes the final call.

18 USC Sec. 922(g)(4) states that a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if said person is one "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Adjudication of mental defect and commitment to mental institutions are both practices that are subject to due process of law and usually require at least a signed order from a judge. Your doctor cannot simply make a phone call or sign a form and disqualify you from owning a gun because he/she thinks you're a little off. The President's executive order does not change the legal definition of a prohibited person because he cannot do that without an act of congress. The President can ask doctors to report anything, but that does not mean that their reports will automatically disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; January 18, 2013 at 12:11 AM.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 05:05 PM   #152
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Very nice. I can chill till then. I just knew that those snippets we were seeing were not the actual language so I can set my throttle to idle
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 07:19 PM   #153
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Thanks for the link Spats. I didn't have that one bookmarked!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 10:33 PM   #154
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Freedash22 posted:
Quote:
Personally, I really feel that banning semi-auto military-style rifles, standard and high-capacity magazines will not provide a lasting solution to the problem. Bad guys will simply carry more magazines.
You are not looking down the slippery slope far enough. They'll eventually get to another step where they'll limit the number of 10 round magazines any one person can possess. They won't stop where they're at, assuming they'll get there via congress, which is doubtful at this time. They are always thinking ahead, down the road. They patiently wait until a trigger event occurs. Then, they push for their next steps, while we complain about how the existing laws they've passed over the last 40 years are not working. They'll acknowledge that they're not working "well enough" and that more needs to be done, or the laws need to be "tightened up". See New York. They just went from a 10 round limit in the magazine to a 7 round limit. They'll eventually get around to a 5 round limit.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 02:00 AM   #155
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
Magazine Capacities

I think the new 7-round magazine capacity limits in NY are offensive!

Are all pistols and rifles supposed to have capacities equal to that of revolver!?
Maybe they'll define a" high-capacity" magazine as a magazine holding more rounds than a revolver.

Then they'll make a law that bans all "high-capacity" revolvers
(more than 3 rounds).
That's insane!

What's next? They will allow the purchasing of full-autos (to act like they want to give some in exchange for the new laws) but limit proprietary magazine capacities to 1 round?

Seeing the potential of the new laws and what others have posted here, I am convinced they are setting the stage for worse laws down the road.

Last edited by freedash22; January 18, 2013 at 03:51 AM.
freedash22 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 04:22 AM   #156
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
best to just go for some 5 or 6shots revolvers in NY i guess...what else can one do

I am confused about the law. Can you have a larger magazine as long as when confronted you only have say six in mag and one in chamber? I thought I read something about they only have one year to SELL these larger magazines. I am a revolver guy, but how small do these mags go anyways? I mean really this seems a little ludicrous. I apologize if this has already been covered in this thread.

I do believe this might be a Nightmare for a legal citizen carrying an 8shot revolver too.

"Yeah but Sir this is a revolver." I can just see the frustration and issue(s) with this. "The law isn't supposed to mean revolvers Sir." I am a revolver guy with only 6shots as my top cylinder capacity, live in a gun friendly state, and I still feel affected by this NY law...I can only imagine the actual residents trying to do the right thing but in a jam. Firearms aren't cheap, and some people aren't into selling the accessories.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 04:58 AM   #157
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
You are not looking down the slippery slope far enough.
This is precisely correct. The original proposal for what became the National Firearms Act of 1934 defined a machine gun as "any weapon designed to shoot automatically, or semi-automatically, 12 or more shots without reloading." 79 years later, the gun control crowd is still trying to limit capacity. They never abandon their goals, but only change the immediate paths toward those goals.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 10:53 AM   #158
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
I think the new 7-round magazine capacity limits in NY are offensive!
I think all the gun laws in NY(esp. NYC) as well as the 'oh so strict' gun regs in most all the east coast states are offensive. The sad reality is the people keep voting the same anti-gun politicians into office time after time.

And when gun issue's are not a 'hot' topic, and you bring up the topic of "why did you vote for(insert your fav, anti-gun politician) that politician is very anti-gun ", many of those that voted for that anti-gun politician response has been something to the effect of, "well...there are more important things to consider then gun control...or... I liked the way he/she(politician) did so and so and nobodies really pushing for more gun control now anyway...or...(and one of my favs.) Obama just has to much on his plate with everything else going on to worry about gun control".

Funny how quickly things can change, eh!
shortwave is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 11:31 AM   #159
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I see a general correlation between politicians who favor gun control and...

... politicians who favor criminalizing "hate speech";

... politicians who favor requiring licensing fees for every side job imaginable;

... politicians who favor dictating what utilities a resident may contract;

... politicians who favor banning any activity they don't like (smoking in bars, for example).

I think you would have a very hard time finding me an anti politician who doesn't also support those kinds of things.

It's all about telling the little people how to behave, and worse, how to think.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:15 PM   #160
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Agree, MLeake.

IMO, in short, they lean towards believing in a more socialist then capitalist society.

Last edited by shortwave; January 18, 2013 at 12:26 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 12:26 PM   #161
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
Ny must now amend their hurried gun law. They forgot to exempt police from the law. As written police are limited to 7rds.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 02:14 PM   #162
RockyTop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
I see a general correlation between politicians who favor gun control and...

... politicians who favor criminalizing "hate speech";

... politicians who favor requiring licensing fees for every side job imaginable;

... politicians who favor dictating what utilities a resident may contract;

... politicians who favor banning any activity they don't like (smoking in bars, for example).
And then these same politicians oppose common sense like voter ID laws
RockyTop is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 05:53 PM   #163
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick View Post
I see where doctors who accept Medicare, Medicaid and other government insurance are gonna get strong armed into disqualifying people from firearm ownership. Withholding funding is the Feds greatest weapon. I see highway funds and the like getting withheld from states with gun rights too.
While this is true, the problem with that strategy is that gobs of medical practices are jumping off the Medicare/Medicaid bandwagon as fast as they can due to changes enacted in the Affordable Healthcare Act.

(Unrelated rant: And the upshot us that the groups most underserved and at risk are pushed out the door even more. WooHoo. Unintended consequences.)
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 05:57 PM   #164
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter View Post
Or you could just be someone with the same or similar name as someone. No more guns for you.
I already always list my SSN because there's a guy with same name.

But the SSN was never supposed to be a national ID in the original incantation. Privacy. Yeah, right. Where's my glass of koolaide.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 06:29 PM   #165
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by armoredman View Post
....Your ego slipped, and your leftism is showing.
The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives no one the right to look.
Clear enough?
Question for everyone else - do you think they will use that EO to remove the exception for CCW permits from the phoned in background checks?
I'm going to let my left side show here.

The real upshot of adding $40-50 per transfer to a private sale is going to block out legal transfers to many people in this country.

When I was young and had a newborn child I had one and only one semi-auto pistol in my house, and I got it by trading stuff with a friend at work. Specifically I traded a Ham radio I had built with my own labor. No background checks. No money. We were both happy with the trade.

I could not have purchased that gun outright at the time.

Now, 30 plus years later, I can afford to walk in a LGS and buy just about what I want as long as I don't get too starry eyed. Some price tags are too much. But almost any single handgun or long gun is within reach with proper budgeting even if not something I want.

But there are still guys in their early life with little to no money. And whole swaths of the working stiffs in this country that the $40-50 makes the go/no go difference in the sale.

Regardless of whether I have anything to hide or not, why do those folks get the shaft?

It's a regressive cost that shuts out people of lower means. Is the government going to subsidize it for those folks?

Last edited by Tom Servo; January 19, 2013 at 08:28 AM. Reason: Removed "browner"
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 11:26 PM   #166
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
He is alluding to gun controls origins in the Freedmen's Acts, as a means of keeping minorities from having weapons.

He is alluding to the point I frequently make, about how mandatory training, mandatory background checks, and other fees and time costs have much more impact on the poor than on the wealthy.

It all goes back to the powers that be denying rights to those who do not have power.

Does that answer your question?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 11:54 PM   #167
skeeter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Posts: 883
I do not like the way he was using the children who recently went through great and grave trauma. Nor do I think the President should be listening to the words of children rather he should do his own thinking. Actually, in his case he needs to listen to someone who is clear minded and not do his own thinking.

Shortwave - It is especailly sad that people like Donald Trump ( and others with connections) can get NYC Carry permits while average and "unimportant" people like you and I will never be issued a NYC Carry Permit.

Last edited by skeeter; January 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM.
skeeter is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 12:37 AM   #168
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
Shortwave - It is especailly sad that people like Donald Trump ( and others with connections) can get NYC Carry permits while average and "unimportant" people like you and I will never be issued a NYC Carry Permit.
Yes, you are right skeeter.

But there's an old saying...don't hate the player, hate the game.

And I'd like to add to this old saying in this particular situation by adding "and hate the lawmakers involved in making the rules of this particular game".

The politicians in NYC that the people keep re-electing set the rules for the gun owning game in NYC:

If you have money...you get a permit.
If you know someone in power...you get a permit.
If you are a politician making the rules...you get a permit (or you don't need a permit cause you have an armed guard with you paid for out of the pockets of the same people that voted you in office).

Point is, the majority of the populace in NYC(and cities/states with similar laws) must like being treated like second class citizens when it comes to their rights to protect themselves rather then depending on 'big brother' to do it for them or these types of socialist politicians would never get into office.

I know I'm preaching to the choir but doesn't the murder rate in NYC, Washington DC, Chicago and the rest of the cities/states in the country with strict to no gun allowed laws prove anything to these people electing these socialist politicians.
These sheeple are even letting these politicians tell them how much pop they can drink!

I gotta go get me some meds....

Last edited by shortwave; January 19, 2013 at 01:07 AM.
shortwave is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 01:35 AM   #169
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
There is absolutly no reason to believe any random individual in a lower income neighborhood is less of a person.

And there's no reason to make their choices more restricted than they already are. However what's proposed hammers them way harder than it hammers me.

I assure you that an extra $50 on the price of a used handgun or rifle that I really want isn't going to be a deal breaker for me. And I suspect that "most" folks in my age bracket that are frequenting gun boards have the means to absorb that added cost while we grumble about it.

But quite honestly, the likelyhood that someone is going to break into my house in a relatively affluent neighborhood getting past the lights and alarms is far smaller than the likelyhood someone will break into a house in the predominantly black neighborhood several miles from me.

The economic reality - irrespective of any "I have nothing to hide" argument - is that a mandatory background check may very well keep a SD handgun out of financial reach of a single mom while it's just an inconvenience to most of us here. An extra $50 on a $700 1911 ticks me off, but an extra $50 on a $125 used revolver might have to go to rent instead, so no SD guns for poor people.

MB

Last edited by Tom Servo; January 19, 2013 at 08:29 AM. Reason: Removed race commentary
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 07:49 AM   #170
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
The new gun control laws

Obama has stated in the new laws that civilian AR-15s and AKs are now being targeted for banning.

What will happen to the companies who solely manufacture these fine rifles like Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM), LWRC, Noveske and Bushmaster?

Are they going to lose like most of their customers (civilian market)? How will they make ends meet if the new laws take effect?

I hate to think will happen if those fine men and women lose their jobs and passion!
freedash22 is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 08:05 AM   #171
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Most all of us here like to think of ourselves as responsible, conscientious and law abiding citizens, heck we are conscientious and law abiding. However, ideas like defunding the White House, walking off of LEO and security jobs, DHS jobs, even the military(all military personnel swore to protect the constitution, before loyalty to the president), etc, etc sound like good ideas to me.

To all of those out there who support Obama and like his ideas on Health care, gay marriage, or whatever, this gun fight is not helping you politically, or any other way. Its making mortal enemies of the people the weak depend on for help and protection. Make no mistake Obamas and Bloombergs of the World, you're the weak.

Many of us have tirelessly worked to help defend and protect all people and this country, while asking for no special thanks. To make the inane anti-second amendment proposals that this administration has, is an insult to those who have fought and died for this country and a disgrace to the ideals of our founders.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 09:45 AM   #172
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
To all of those out there who support Obama and like his ideas on Health care, gay marriage, or whatever, this gun fight is not helping you politically, or any other way.
I believe you may be correct nate45

I have talked to three people in which I am very close with that are Obama supporters. They are not happy!
Over the years we have had many very in-depth political conversations starting when Obama was first campaigning for his first term.

There are things that all these three people have in common:

1) They love to shoot.
2)Have their CCP.
3)Own firearms/mags/clips that will become illegal. One varmint hunts exclusively with a Bushmaster.
4)They believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment and don't believe it should be trampled on in any way.
5)All three of them know that these new proposed EO's will not address the problem at hand and feel Obama is taking the easy route out on the whole issue by catering to the anti-gun politico supporters of his party instead of coming up with ways that will really address the issue that would be effective.
6)They are not happy with the cheap Obama tactics in using kids to pull at the heartstrings of the American public to try and pass these EO's....

....and ...

...7)Although they knew Obama was anti-gun from the onset, they all felt that Obama had too much on his plate to ever have time to do what he's trying to now do.

In short, they all three agree with a lot of the other political views Obama has but do not agree in any way with Obama's views on guns and are strongly against what he's doing now but they rolled the dice that Obama would never do what he's doing now.
They lost!

Too, today, they realize that by voting for Obama, they are partially responsible for what is going on now in the gun arena, are ashamed for voting for him and two of them have apologized to me personally for getting me into this mess by voting the way they did and went further to donate generously to the NRA and wrote our Senators/Congressmen to help in the fight against these proposed EO's.

FWIW, I do believe that these three will never again gamble with casting their vote on a politician regardless of party affiliation when said politician has a background of not believing in our Constitution as it's written.

Last edited by shortwave; January 19, 2013 at 01:21 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 11:09 AM   #173
Ruark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2010
Posts: 181
Quote:
I think the medical and mental health angel is a slippery slope
Absolutely. Keep in mind that virtually all medical records are computerized and on a worldwide information network. It's not a piece of paper buried in a file cabinet in some remote doctor's office.

Remember, nowadays when you see the doctor, you always sign an agreement that your medical information can be shared with other parties (e.g. insurance companies). So your "gun ownership" will be on your electronic record, in your health insurance/Medicare/Medicaid records, etc. AND identified via your Social Security number for whoever else wants it.

Right now, if I had the time and money, I would go to some isolated gun show or some small town newspaper ads and buy the guns I need "off the record." Slippery slope, indeed.
Ruark is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 06:21 PM   #174
BigJim5945
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2012
Posts: 7
I'm waiting for actual laws to be proposed before getting my panties in a bunch. The EOs were a nice little flourish but didn't actually do anything. The legislation as proposed has almost no chance getting through. Gun manufacturers are driving the hysteria to get more sales, and I'm not buying into it

This president, like everyone that has come before him, will say lots of things. What he does and what he says he will do are two very different things.
BigJim5945 is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 07:07 PM   #175
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Gun manufacturers are driving the hysteria to get more sales, and I'm not buying into it
I'm not sure how true that is .

Sure there are some company's like CTD that do some bs stuff but I don't think Ruger , Colt , Marlin etc have anything to do with this .

Do you really think this would be happening if there was not a real push in congress for a new AWB . Yes , it's looking less likely that anything big will get passed but 2 or 3 weeks ago not so much . Look at NY and what they just did . CA is trying to pass some real strict laws as well . The media and the government are pushing this panic . The gun manufacturers don't need to do anything but make guns as fast as they can .

I think feistein will try to introduce her bill on Tuesday . We will start to get a real idea of what is going on an who is for it .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15729 seconds with 7 queries