Fresno gang member caught with Pietta 1858 brasser...

[noelf2]

Well this is kinda new. Fresno PD apparently called the gun a 44 magnum. There's a lot of interesting chatter and comments online.

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/03/13...der-smokewagon

[NavyVet1959]

Well, we have people who are writing laws who are not competent in the subject matter upon which the law is targets. It's not surprising that we also have people enforcing those laws that are also not competent in it. The DA who brought those charges should be drawn and quartered. But even the most rabid leftist DA or politician cannot succeed in his unconstitutional actions without law enforcement who are entirely complicit with his misdeeds.

Is it really all that difficult for them to understand that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was intended to mean EXACTLY that? No exceptions whatsoever... If you are a free man, you can own and carry whatever arms you want. If someone believes that ANY exceptions to this is acceptable, they have slid so far down that slippery slope that they can't see the top anymore.

http://www.monkeywrench.space/navy-v...-amendment.htm

[4V50 Gary]

Who tf he beefing with? Abraham Lincoln?

At least the person who wrote that recognized it was a replica of a Corn-fed firearm.

[drobs]

That's pretty funny!

"The agency’s post to social media quickly resulted in over 2,000 comments in just two days. We went searching for some of the best so you don’t have to:

Who tf he beefing with? Abraham Lincoln?

The serial number on that gun is 3.

You guys impound his horse too?

They Mirandized him and he just replied, “I’m your huckleberry.”

His street name was “dances with wolves.”

This has always confused me… do gangsters duel at 10 paces or 15?

Someone took Red Dead Redemption a little too serious.

I mean the cop should’ve let him challenge him to a duel at high noon in front of the old town saloon.

When u Robbing 7 eleven at 6 am but the re-enactment is at 8 am.

You have the right to remain silent, and you’re a daisy if you do.

Martinez was booked into the Fresno County Jail for being a felon in possession of a firearm."

[4V50 Gary]

BTW, California law recognizes cap 'n ball as firearm.

Sidenote: Back in the '70s, I would have to wait until I was 21 to buy a Ruger Old Army. I solved it by mail ordering it from Gil Hebard in Illinois.

[NavyVet1959]

I saw recently where over in Kalifornia they arrested someone for DUI on a *horse*. At worse, that should be just public intoxication. Back when I was stationed in the Norfolk area, the cops were big on charging someone with public intoxication even if they were driving because whereas with DUI, they needed to show that the driver had a BAC above a certain point, with public intoxication, it was entirely based on the impression of the officer. No proof involved, so it allowed them to charge anyone that they didn't like with it. And back then, a lot of the cops just did not like people in the military...

"Sailors and dogs keep off the grass!"



I think we should just flush every law that came after the Bill of Rights and start over. We should make it so that in order to enact a law that it required more than just a majority vote. Maybe a 75% vote, still subject to a veto and to override the veto, the legislators would need 90%. Same for constitutional amendments. If the legislators can't overwhelmingly agree that something should be prohibited, then we shouldn't be making rules against it.

[51cskipper]

Probably had the cylinder loaded with Unique

[4V50 Gary]

That's funny 51c.

Now, that sign about sailors and dogs on grass is interesting. Must be from the days of drunken sailors.

[NavyVet1959]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

Now, that sign about sailors and dogs on grass is interesting. Must be from the days of drunken sailors.

Definitely from the days before the current PC-Navy... Hell, these days, they have rules where you have to have a "liberty buddy" when you go off the ship so that hopefully don't get yourself into trouble in a foreign port. Never had that back when I was in...

"Friends will bail you out of jail... REAL friends will be in there with you..."




Smokeless? Blackpowder?

[woodnbow]

Originally Posted by NavyVet1959

I saw recently where over in Kalifornia they arrested someone for DUI on a *horse*. At worse, that should be just public intoxication. Back when I was stationed in the Norfolk area, the cops were big on charging someone with public intoxication even if they were driving because whereas with DUI, they needed to show that the driver had a BAC above a certain point, with public intoxication, it was entirely based on the impression of the officer. No proof involved, so it allowed them to charge anyone that they didn't like with it. And back then, a lot of the cops just did not like people in the military...

"Sailors and dogs keep off the grass!"



I think we should just flush every law that came after the Bill of Rights and start over. We should make it so that in order to enact a law that it required more than just a majority vote. Maybe a 75% vote, still subject to a veto and to override the veto, the legislators would need 90%. Same for constitutional amendments. If the legislators can't overwhelmingly agree that something should be prohibited, then we shouldn't be making rules against it.

Wrt rolling back the nanny state I agree 100% with that!

The last time I heard of a horseback dui around here was in the late 1980’s when I got out. County Fair was underway, it was a Friday night and a great band was playing down at the Prairie Moon Saloon... cowboys... SMH

[Doyle]

Definitely from the days before the current PC-Navy... Hell, these days, they have rules where you have to have a "liberty buddy" when you go off the ship so that hopefully don't get yourself into trouble in a foreign port. Never had that back when I was in...

That was frequently the case when I was in back in the 80s. In some ports it was a universal rule while in other ports it was an "after dark" rule. It was intended to protect sailors from getting jumped and mugged.

[NavyVet1959]

Originally Posted by Doyle

That was frequently the case when I was in back in the 80s. In some ports it was a universal rule while in other ports it was an "after dark" rule. It was intended to protect sailors from getting jumped and mugged.

Interestingly, the only "incident" I ever encountered was in a US port. Maybe because I never made it past the first bar that I encountered when in foreign ports?

More likely because back then we weren't getting paid enough to be worth mugging...

[FrankenMauser]

Definitely from the days before the current PC-Navy... Hell, these days, they have rules where you have to have a "liberty buddy" when you go off the ship so that hopefully don't get yourself into trouble in a foreign port. Never had that back when I was in...

Different places and missions can change perceptions and rules.
My grandfather (SCPO) was charged with enforcing the rule that all of the sailors stay in groups of at least 4 when leaving the ship away from their home port. ...In 1945.

In about 1950, while in San Francisco, he got a call from San Diego. It seemed that one of his sailors had ditched his buddies, gotten drunk, stolen a Geep, and crashed into a police car before rolling the Geep into a ditch.

My grandfather rounded up the rest of the group that was supposed to have been with that sailor, made them rent a car and drive him to San Diego to pick up the drunk, and then required the three that weren't in the Brig to be tied together with 2-foot lengths of rope for the following week. They had to sleep on the hangar deck, as they didn't want to share the same bunk.

[Rachen]

From the article:

...Monday with what they said was a loaded .44 Magnum revolver. Photos say different.

One of the guys who is also a regular at my local range is a retired NY State Trooper and one of his more humorous stories was from the 1980's when he arrested a gang member who had several stolen guns with him. One of the guns was a reproduction Colt's 1860 Army that was "loaded". Upon closer inspection, he found that the gangbanger had given up on trying to find out how the thing operated, so he took a bunch of .22 LR and 9mm that he also possessed, wrapped the cartridges with duct tape until they can be stuffed into the chambers without falling out, rammed them into the gun and left it like that. Two of the chambers had 9mm and the rest were filled with .22 LR. Obviously the chambers were not capped, as the poor hoodrat wouldn't even have known what percussion caps are, judging by the way he had tried to "load" his stolen prize.

From reading THIS article and seeing the pic of the "loaded .44 Magnum", why do I have this feeling that the gun was also "loaded" in a similar fashion? The police department should have released photos of the "loaded" chamber(s) too, for the lulz.

By the way the comments left on the PD's page are funny as hell. Apparently quite a few of the commenters are very well versed with firearms and are probably black powder shooters too.

[NavyVet1959]

I've noticed that police will often unload a person's gun when there is a situation, even if they eventually end up giving the gun back to the person. I had it happen to me once when I intervened in a situation at a donut shop where it looked like a robbery was going bad and the robber was dragging the clerk across the counter. I had a 12-gauge pistol grip shotgun in my Jeep at the time and could see inside the store, so I confronted the individual as he was exiting the store dragging the girl that worked there while another guy was pulling her the other way to keep him from taking her. I impressed upon him the error in his choice of entertainment for that evening and he hugged the concrete while we waited for the police to arrive. They told me to put down my gun and the proceeded to remove 3 or 4 rounds from the magazine. Apparently they wanted it "unloaded" for their safety for when they gave it back to me. Obviously, they didn't know how many rounds that shotgun holds since they gave it back to me with not only a few more rounds in the magazine, but one in the chamber and with the safety off. I have to wonder what they would do if the situation involved a backpowder revolver like this one... How long would it take them to realize that the cylinder does not swing out and there is no loading gate to extract cartridges from? And if they did have to check it into evidence, would they be putting a loaded handgun in evidence with the percussion caps still on it? Or would they just call the bomb squad and have them detonate it?

I see where Missouri is trying to ban all federal gun laws and go back to what the Founding Fathers intended when they said "shall not be infringed". Hopefully their Governor will sign it.

http://thesentinel.net/politics/miss...in-23-10-vote/

[woodnbow]

Originally Posted by NavyVet1959

I've noticed that police will often unload a person's gun when there is a situation, even if they eventually end up giving the gun back to the person. I had it happen to me once when I intervened in a situation at a donut shop where it looked like a robbery was going bad and the robber was dragging the clerk across the counter. I had a 12-gauge pistol grip shotgun in my Jeep at the time and could see inside the store, so I confronted the individual as he was exiting the store dragging the girl that worked there while another guy was pulling her the other way to keep him from taking her. I impressed upon him the error in his choice of entertainment for that evening and he hugged the concrete while we waited for the police to arrive. They told me to put down my gun and the proceeded to remove 3 or 4 rounds from the magazine. Apparently they wanted it "unloaded" for their safety for when they gave it back to me. Obviously, they didn't know how many rounds that shotgun holds since they gave it back to me with not only a few more rounds in the magazine, but one in the chamber and with the safety off. I have to wonder what they would do if the situation involved a backpowder revolver like this one... How long would it take them to realize that the cylinder does not swing out and there is no loading gate to extract cartridges from? And if they did have to check it into evidence, would they be putting a loaded handgun in evidence with the percussion caps still on it? Or would they just call the bomb squad and have them detonate it?

I see where Missouri is trying to ban all federal gun laws and go back to what the Founding Fathers intended when they said "shall not be infringed". Hopefully their Governor will sign it.

http://thesentinel.net/politics/miss...in-23-10-vote/

He’s a Republican, so he should sign it but I can think of a number of Republicans who wouldn’t... imagine the boon for the economy?

[bedbugbilly]

hey . . . I'm not half as surprised that a police agency in the Republik of Kalifornia doesn't know what the pistol is as I am that they actually arrested a gang member? Must be the gang member wasn't an illegal? Goops . . sorry . . I'm not being PC . . I should have said "undocumented immigrant". I thought The Republik of California was a"sanctuary state" where the the only thing they actually "hold" is the taxpayer'a money pay for their socialist programs. I wonder if the PD even bothered to see just "what" it was loaded with and if the guy had the brains to use BP or if if "gunpowder is gunpowder". Don't get me wrong. . I fully support Le 100% . . but this department needs to use some common sense before posting something that will make them look like idiots.

[armoredman]

Hmm, not a bad choice for a black powder revolver for SD, but good thing he had no clue how to use it. Poor thing is going to be melted down now.

[EphraimKibbey]

While in most states a cap and ball pistol is not a "Firearm," it is a "Concealed Weapon" if it is under the driver's seat of the car within reach of the driver just as a knife would be. Several states (Illinois for example) have started requiring FFL transfers of cap and ball revolvers. "The times, they are a changin'!"

[armoredman]

Arizona says,

Originally Posted by azleg.gov

13-105. Definitions
19. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of expanding gases, except that it does not include a firearm in permanently inoperable condition.

...and...

Originally Posted by azleg.gov

13-3101. Definitions...
1. "Deadly weapon" means anything that is designed for lethal use. The term includes a firearm....

13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions...
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:

1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
2. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or concealed within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation if the person is under twenty-one years of age; or...

Pretty specific.

[NavyVet1959]

The Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission (TX-ABC) requires certain signs on businesses that have various types of licenses for the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. For the most part, those signs have not kept up with our changes in concealed carry and other "firearm-ish" laws over the years. I've actually contacted them asking about certain signs and they will admit that the signs are in error with respect to current laws.

We have this sign with is used to tell people with a CHL that they can't go into this establishment because over 51% of their income is from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption:



It doesn't say "firearm", it says "handgun", so we have to look up what the Texas statutes define a "handgun" as. Turns out that a "handgun" is a "firearm" that is designed to be operated by one hand. The key thing is that it must be a "firearm" first and "firearm" was previously defined as not including pre-1899 replicas that do not use centerfire or rimfire ammunition. As such, this sign does not prohibit someone from carrying a cap-and-ball revolver.

It should also be noted that this sign does not prohibit the carrying a shotguns or rifles in this sort of establishment.

And then there is this one:


The Texas statutes do not define what a "weapon" is. They define what a "firearm", but not a "weapon". We have the concept of "deadly weapon", but that is a subjective term that is used in enhanced penalities at the trial and punishment phases. Hell, even a pillow could be considered a deadly weapon if used in a manner to try to kill someone. I see this sign at the entrance to Wal-Mart when I shop there. What are they prohibiting? Are they saying that someone cannot walk into the store with a fixed blade Buck knife? That makes a lot of sense since someone could just walk into the sporting goods area and pick one up there.

Since Texas explicitly define a "firearm" as not including pre-1899 firearms or replicas of pre-1899 firearms if they don't use centerfire rimfire ammunition.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-c...ect-46-01.html

So, if you have an original centerfire C96 (Broomhandle Mauser) handgun manufactured in the first couple of years, it would be legal even though it uses a centerfire cartridge, but later ones even if exactly the same would not be legal.



Considering the price and scarcity of those years of C96s, I suspect that they are not really an option that we need to consider. The part where it allows replicas is something that is worth considering though since it allows us to carry in places where our CHL would not normally allow us to carry. A business owner can put up a 30.06 or 30.07 sign and if you enter that business, there can be legal consequences for you. On the other hand, if you are carrying a pre-1899 replica, it is not legally a "firearm" and since the 30.06 and 30.07 signs explicitly apply to those carrying under license of a CHL, the signs to not apply to you. Same way they don't apply to someone who is open carrying a rifle or shotgun. Of course, if the owner of the store sees you carrying and tells you to leave and you don't, you can be charged with trespassing. So, how is this different? Let's go with this scenario...

You go into a store open carrying a pre-1899 replica cap-and-ball revolver. The store has a 30.06 and 30.07 sign. Instead of telling you that they don't want you there and asking for you to leave, they call the police. The police arrive and see you carrying the revolver. If you are carrying a 1899+ firearm and you have a CHL, then you have violated the 30.07 law and are subject to arrest. It might even cause you to lose your CHL. If you are carrying a pre-1899 firearm, you have not violated any laws and the police arriving would be your first indication that the owner of the business was telling you to leave, therefore you have not broken any laws. Now, will the responding police know the difference? That's probably a good question... I'm not naive enough to think that the police are knowledgeable in all the laws that they should be enforcing, especially since many of them are more than willing to enforce laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and just claim that they are "just following orders" or "just don't their jobs"... Those are the same excuses that were used as Nuremberg -- they didn't fly then and they shouldn't fly now.

In my conversations with the TX-ABC, I learned that some of their prohibitions with respect to the "firearms" or "weapons" are aimed at the ABC license holder, not the person with the "firearm" or "weapon" since the penalty is that the ABC license holder could be fined or his license revoked. I guess it's too difficult for them to make that distinction on a small sign and let people know who and what is really trying to be controlled. If they required businesses to post every applicable regulation that might affect their customers on the front of their building in a large enough font to read and in enough detail to understand, the entire building would be covered and no one would read it because it would just look like noise to them.

[eastbank]

hozay wales, josy wales long lost brother.

[EphraimKibbey]

Armoredman, does Arizona now require an FFL transfer of cap&ball or flintlock "firearms?"

[armoredman]

No, the state doesn't regulate the sale of black powder firearms beyond what the feds do, with the exceptions here;

Originally Posted by azleg.gov

13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions...
...5. Selling or transferring a deadly weapon to a prohibited possessor; or...
...14. Supplying, selling or giving possession or control of a firearm to another person if the person knows or has reason to know that the other person would use the firearm in the commission of any felony; or

The prohibitions in law are for illegal sales such as prohibited possessors. If you are convicted felon and go into a gun shop, STATING you are prohibited possessor, nobody will sell you a black powder "firearm",, because that WOULD be against AZ state law. I've had that actually happen to me when working for an FFL many years ago.
But if someone legal was to walk into CAL Ranch and buy a blister pack 1858 off the wall, have a nice day, the state needs not get involved as long as you are not transferring a state defined firearm to a prohibited possessor.
Kind of on you there, ain't it?