|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 10, 2020, 04:53 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,800
|
Bloomberg strikes again. strict anti-gun bill in Arizona.
Bloomberg was here in AZ stumping for Mark Kelly and his run for the oval office. Shortly after leaving the democrats post an extremely nasty gun control bill. The video pretty much has the details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp-742Fge7M Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION! |
February 10, 2020, 06:22 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
For those (like me) who prefer to read rather than try to watch someone else read and interpret, the link to the proposed bill is:
https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1625/id/2119093 It appears to be basically an assault weapon and "high capacity" magazine ban, with a grandfather clause subject to registration, background check, and annual recertification (with new annual background check).
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
February 10, 2020, 11:16 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,800
|
Is there any claim about public safety made? or is this just more of the rabid "ban it ban it BAN IT!!" we have come to expect from "the usual suspects"??
I note the "you can keep it, if you keep paying us every year, and store it the way we approve of..." I see no allowance for your heirs to inherit, save to disposition the arm. I see govt STEALING our property (and our heirs property) without compensation, under threat of penalty of law. about the only thing they seem to have missed in this particular piece of offal is making my Desert Eagles into "assault weapons" because they are TOO HEAVY! You kids with your ATF approved "pistols braces" think you're not going to jail? Dream on. All it takes is ONE court ruling. think they won't, when they feel the time is right, push that "no shotgun with a revolving cylinder" into "no revolvers"???? I suggest you all remember the story and the words of Pastor Martin Niemoeller to update them to this issue, I would say "First, they came for the assault weapons....."
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 10, 2020, 11:44 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
Even "assault weapons" themselves are subject to "creeping incrementalism." Case(s) in point: New York and Connecticut. For many years, their definition of "assault weapon" mirrored the language of the late, unlamented federal AWB: basically, two "evil" features allowed -- and, typically, those were the detachable magazine and the protruding pistol grip. And then there were "pre-bans," which were considered legal to own irrespective of the ban, because the ban wasn't retroactive. And then came Sandy Hook, and the New York SAFE Act and whatever Connecticut's analog to the SAFE Act was, and "assault weapon" was redefined from two evil features to one evil feature. So A lot of people who had thought they were safe owning "post-ban" configuration AR-15s (no flash hider, no bayonet lug, etcetera) woke up one morning to find that, by a stroke of the governor's pen they now owned an "assault weapon." In Connecticut, where I was working at the time, there was a limited window of opportunity to register your newly-designated "assault weapons" (and any high capacity magazines) with the State Police. And I believe the Connecticut law makes provision for inheritance. But no new "assault weapons" can be brought into the state. If you relocate into Connecticut, you have 90 days (I think) to either sell it/them out of state, or turn them in to the police. And those legal pre-ban AR-15s? I was talking to a friend in Connecticut over the weekend. Apparently, an agency that's part of either the AG's office or a legal branch of the legislature has determined that the State Police were wrong in telling people that pre-ban AR-15s were legal. Suddenly, they aren't. These are real world examples of why we can't be complacent, and why nobody should sit back when "they" go after the other guy's guns. It may not affect you today but, once they've gotten all of "that" kind of firearm out of private ownership, it may be yours they come after next. All it takes is some late-night conniving and the stroke of a pen. It should be remembered that BOTH the New York SAFE Act and the corresponding Connecticut law were enacted by the respective state legislatures under so-called "emergency" provisions that completely removed most of the checks and balances that normally apply to enacting new legislation. IIRC, that meant no public hearings, and no public comment period. "Here's what we want -- vote for it." What was the emergency? Did they have tactical intelligence that there were large numbers of other people planning to buy guns and shoot up elementary schools? How would these so-called "emergency" laws have prevented another Sandy Hook? Nobody ever said ... the anti-gun faction in the respective legislatures just used that as a means to shove the bills through before anyone had a chance to read them and formulate cogent arguments against them. We're all frogs, we're all in the pot together, and the anti-gunners are turning up the heat.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
February 11, 2020, 04:11 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
"Emergency" provisions ? What next, an Enabling Act ?
|
February 11, 2020, 07:58 PM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,800
|
Quote:
History seldom repeats itself exactly, but if you look there are PATTERNS...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 13, 2020, 09:44 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
February 13, 2020, 09:51 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,970
|
Buying the presidency
As he has done in the past a "donation" of $500,000 to very particular office holders appears to be quite the incentive.
__________________
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". --Thomas Jefferson |
February 13, 2020, 10:34 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
I can find stories about all sorts of other state officials who've opposed the bill. I'd be interested to know what the one AZ dem senator who didn't sponsor the bill has to say about it.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
February 13, 2020, 11:15 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
|
February 13, 2020, 01:55 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
you cant even get people to get out and vote. you think you are going to get a revolution or civil war over gun control?
|
February 13, 2020, 04:19 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
BUT we have to remember that, even prior to World War I, it would have been VERY difficult for Jews in Germany to acquire firearms. In the prewar period, Germany was already very anti-Semitic. Gun dealers felt strong social and civic pressure not to sell to Jews. There were few, if any, firearms in Jewish possession. As such, they never had the means to mount any kind of effective resistance. The idea that they could have done so is completely wrong.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 14, 2020, 04:31 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
They are already succeeding through culture shift.
The law dance is just a formality at this point, meant to be an illusion for the shifted culture. Sucks to admit it, but our nation is dying alongside our Liberty.
__________________
Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit |
February 17, 2020, 03:26 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
Washington is now trying to make it illegal to have magazines that are capable of more than 15rds outside your home, among other things
|
February 17, 2020, 04:06 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
Arizona will fall just like Virginia. apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying society. Virginians didn't think it would happen there now they are shell shocked and trying to figure out how to close the barn doors after the horses got out. Arizona will follow suit I fear, as will Texas and North Carolina.
|
February 17, 2020, 08:12 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
Quote:
1984 + Idiocracy = Clown World "But I gots me muh gunz already so I'm good" Honk Honk
__________________
Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit |
|
February 17, 2020, 09:09 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,970
|
Blumberg
It's nice to have billions to hand out to press one's agenda.
Without the money, such people were called dictators.
__________________
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". --Thomas Jefferson |
February 17, 2020, 12:41 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
a by product of citizens united supreme court decision. the Kochbrothers have been doing it for years...now the other side is doing it. not such a good decision after all
|
February 17, 2020, 02:26 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2014
Posts: 1,965
|
Quote:
|
|
February 18, 2020, 05:42 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
"USNRet93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...gth_in_Arizona
Look down at the bottom of the chart..." Look at the top of that link.. Quote:
|
|
February 18, 2020, 08:12 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
The 'unaffiliated' middle is a large voting block EVERYWHERE...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
February 19, 2020, 10:23 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Mountains of Appalachia
Posts: 1,598
|
|
February 19, 2020, 10:39 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
Here's what it did prevent: If you and 1,000 like-minded people wanted to pool your money together (AKA "form a corporation") to counter the message the billionaire is putting out it was illegal to do so prior to the election you wanted to influence. Bear in mind the genesis of the case, Citizens United is a corporation formed specifically for political advocacy. They made a movie about Hillary Clinton, which the FEC then banned from distribution prior to the Democrat primary. The US government banned distribution of a movie because it had political content, let that sink in. Meanwhile billionaires and political parties and politicians were completely unaffected by the campaign finance law, giving them a monopoly on political information prior to elections. The 1st Amendment won, the people of the USA won with the SCOTUS decision. Billionaires and political parties lost. I have yet to meet a single person opposed to the Citizens United decision who even understands what it was about. |
|
February 19, 2020, 01:05 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
there were political action committees before citizens united and there were individual limits on what anyone could donate to a candidate before citizens united. your explanation is simplistic and misleading. It also doesnt look to me like billionaires lost. ask virginia, colorado,washington, and oregon.
|
February 19, 2020, 01:07 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
Quote:
Bloomberg has already paid for the nomination. Bernie is staying in it just to make his followers think he has principles, and of course to get his big payday. Biden is finished now that Obama has endorsed Bloomberg. if you think Bloomberg's multi-billion dollar pay off scheme won't buy off state politicians you're not following things very well. Last edited by JERRYS.; February 19, 2020 at 08:47 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|