The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 19, 2016, 12:12 AM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedarGrove357
Chicago/Springfield Ignorance at its best.
Not ignorance at all. They know exactly what they're doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBC
It seems obvious.Its not supposed to be workable.
Its designed to regulate the product out of existence.
Its one of those "common sense safety regulations" meant to make the ammo mfgr's throw in the towel.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 20, 2016 at 12:40 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 19, 2016, 04:00 PM   #27
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,982
The proposal has absolute clarity, cloaked as ignorance.

One reads the requirements and thinks, "boy, the guys that wrote this are really ignorant about ammo, NOBODY can do what they want to require.."

But they aren't.

They know quite well, and deliberately wrote something that could NOT be complied with, if made law.

I suspect they would be more than a little upset if someone could make something that DID meet their requirements.

The point is to pass a law that makes a requirement no one can reach the ONLY LEGAL choice. The fact that it doesn't, and won't ever exist only impacts US the shooting community. Do note that it seems (so far) that the police are not going to under the same requirements about their ammunition.

This is part of the same strategy to reduce gun availability (and hence ownership) as the microstamping requirement for guns, and the California "safe" handgun approval list. The same for making laws requiring so called "smart gun" technology that does not exist.

The strategy is two pronged, 1) making it law you have to have something that does not, possibly cannot exist, and 2) making everything else ILLEGAL!

Can you imagine the whining if you turn the idea around, and instead of having the public required to comply, ONLY the police were??

Suppose ONLY the police were required to have serialized ammunition??
The crime fighting benefit is tangible (wink, wink ), being able to tell if the police fired a given bullet or not could seriously improve the investigation of officer involved shootings.

What do you think the police would say if they were going to be required to only carry and use ammo that met ALL the requirements of the proposed law??

I'm guessing a good part of it would not be postable under our forum rules...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 20, 2016, 08:06 AM   #28
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
I can't wait to see the machine that will engrave serial numbers on a load of #6 shot. LOL
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old November 20, 2016, 08:55 AM   #29
Texas45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2016
Posts: 223
Not from IL. But pretty sure this DID NOT pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Texas45 is offline  
Old November 20, 2016, 03:10 PM   #30
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
The feds just published model rules for "smart gun" technology. They're moving full steam on all fronts. Look for state initiatives once the media conditions the public some more.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old November 20, 2016, 04:34 PM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,982
Quote:
The feds just published model rules for "smart gun" technology. They're moving full steam on all fronts.
The Fed changes the third week of January. Sure, not all of them, but enough important ones, who so far, haven't shown any interest in more gun control, and have, in fact, promised to try and get rid of some of it.

They surely will try, but the current administration only has two months left, and that's not much time to get done what they failed to do in the previous seven years and 10 months.

Plus, anything they DO manage to get done is going to be seen as a cheap, petty parting shot, and there will be an effort to repeal it, I'm sure.

Another thing is that confidence in the major media telling the truth, about anything, is if not at, close to an all time low.

They'll keep on trying to condition us, but fewer of us are listening these days...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 20, 2016, 05:34 PM   #32
Shadow72
Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2015
Location: Tejas Republic
Posts: 70
They addressed part of the issue with bullets for reloaders but what about those who cast their own bullets.
Shadow72 is offline  
Old November 20, 2016, 05:50 PM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,509
On the face of it, home-cast bullets would be exempt because they are not "contained within a package provided for retail sale." But ... they added that proviso "or as otherwise specified by the Department," so the state police can still ban home-cast projectiles.

Quote:
(2) bullets used for reloading or handloading
contained within a package provided for retail sale, or as
otherwise specified by the Department, are uniquely
identified;
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 21, 2016, 12:15 AM   #34
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas45
Not from IL. But pretty sure this DID NOT pass.
It's in committee, it hasn't been voted on. Likely never will be as it wouldn't have a chance of passing. This is just Crook County/Chicago Dems doing what they love most, stringing along deep pockets for campaign cash and tossing red meat to their anti-gun base.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old November 23, 2016, 01:33 PM   #35
jdc1244
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 509
Quote:
They know exactly what they're doing.
And they’re succeeding at what they’re doing: making gun owners and advocates of the Second Amendment appear ridiculous, delusional, and paranoid – propagators of inane conspiracy theories about ‘the government’ and ‘the media’ attempting to ‘take away’ our guns; the evidence of which can be found in this very thread.

Such measures as the one proposed in the OP should be opposed with facts and evidence, not hyperbolic nonsense and conspiracy theories.
jdc1244 is offline  
Old November 23, 2016, 05:31 PM   #36
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,982
Quote:
not hyperbolic nonsense and conspiracy theories.
Care to be specific??

Quote:
inane conspiracy theories about ‘the government’ and ‘the media’ attempting to ‘take away’ our guns; the evidence of which can be found in this very thread.
I didn't really see that, but then I might not recognize things the way you do.

All I saw was people agreeing that either the people who wrote the bill don't know what they are talking about, or they do, and deliberately wrote a (proposed) law that cannot be complied with.

What other possibility could there be? If you have a plausible explanation of how this bill isn't what it looks like, I'm listening...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06188 seconds with 8 queries