The Definitive Firearms Thread

3045 posts / 0 new
Last post
phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
MI is for the most part OC

MI is for the most part OC friendly.  There's a huge split between OC v CC.  It literally comes down to tactical v deterrent.  I've seen enough evidence to believe the deterrent is much more beneficial than the tactical advantage.  I do both, I understand the risks and benefits on both sides... and without trying to turn this into a political commentary, if our anti 2A RINO gov grew a pair, we could eliminate the conceal PFZ, which by law force people to OC in the PFZ, which is perfectly legal with a CPL.

I will suggest that I have personally received ZERO negative feedback from OC, but in fact have several times been thanked for doing it.

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Thoughts on Multi-caliber weapons

This is a snippet from a book I'm working on:
 

One of the most important things that can be said for guns is: They’re useless without ammunition. Another thing to keep in mind is that ammunition is consumable and most of the ammunition produced ends up in the hands of a very few people. This has been punctuated by ammunition scarcity in 2008 and 2012, and gets a person thinking: If you can only own a couple guns, what caliber do you want them in? Something common? Something cheap? Something expensive? Something high performance? There’s a long list to choose from, and a set of compromises built into any decision you make. Another thing to consider is that regardless what you choose, you never know if you’ll be able to find ammunition for it in a shortage.

So with this in mind, the idea of a single pistol that can fire a variety of calibers gains major appeal as a choice of ‘survival’ or EDC carry.

.40S&W caliber pistols can often, with a simple barrel change, be converted to shoot both 9mm and .357 SIG. That means if you carry a pistol, you can put a spare barrel and magazine(s) in your pack and quickly change between calibers. 9mm was extremely scarce in 2012-2013, but .40 and .357 SIG were more available. Similarly, the .357 Magnum can fire .38 Special, and .38+P cartridges. With autoloaders, you can go from a larger caliber to a smaller one in most modern makes, but you cannot go from a smaller to a larger caliber (9mm to .40, for example).

The frame size also must be considered. Large frame pistols such as the .45ACP cannot (at the time of this writing) be changed to smaller frame cartridges, such as the .40S&W, 9mm Para. and .357SIG.

This concept has been tested over about three thousand rounds with Smith & Wesson’s M&P 40C – which has fired 9mm almost exclusively, is carried only with 9mm ammunition, and has been extremely accurate and reliable. Conversion barrel was bought from Storm Lake. Consider the combination of a .40 caliber pistol with conversions and a .357 Magnum revolver as your choice in pistols. This gives you up to 6 calibers in two handheld firearms, should you choose to carry them.

One major consideration is that ammunition interchangeability comes with a very demanding drawback – you absolutely must use the utmost care when matching your ammo, magazines and barrel. A mismatch can and probably will lead to a catastrophic failure that could injure you or someone near you. In order to prevent this, using different color paint or tape on the base of the magazine, carving small notches and putting a smidge of color on the barrel to match it to it’s proper magazines will go a long way to ensure that mistakes are not made… but it is still a personal responsibility that must be taken very seriously.

To date, no rifles have been shown to be multi-caliber and reliable in their functions, which makes it of the utmost importance to have a good ‘multi-purpose’ round for your rifle, should you choose to have one.

Cheers,

Aaron

PS - I hate to get lawyerly, but doing this may void warranties and could be dangerous. I have only verified this with the M&Pc in .40, and cannot guarantee the function or safety of this concept in other pistols, and by trying it you accept all responsibility and liability associated. o.O

Sorry again, but there is a lot of room for error with this one, and it should only be attempted by those who are very familiar with their firearms.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1253
Dillon 650?

Why

 

thanks,robie

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 6163
I've had the Dillon
robie robinson wrote:

Why

thanks,robie

I've had the Dillon 550b for about 25 years.  Would hardly change a thing.  Dillon makes good stuff!

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Dillon 650

I went from not reloading, straight into D 650.  Researched the hell out of it, sat on the fence between 550 & 650.  At a PPC banquet asked the other 10 people at the table and every single one said get the 650, so I did.

Machine is freaking awesome.  Every round comes out the same as the last round.  I have a bunch of different rounds made up to test this weekend.  Limited testing has resulted in a fairly small std dev, but I had chronograph issues, which I hope are now cleared up.

Nothing wrong with a 550, the machines are very similar.  550 has some advantages, as does the 650.

I did purchase the aftermarket roller ball kit for the shell plate tho.  It's my one complaint on the design, especially loading 9mm.  Plate would bounce as it indexes, and pop powder out of the brass.  With the ball kit, it's smooth as silk.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 1253
thanks guys

I come from a benchrest rifle tradition. and am about to jump into progressive reloading for my pistol cal.'s

 

thanks again

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Brian Enos

Has an excellent Dillon sales site.  He has complete packages for 550, and will assemble similar packages for 650.  I very much enjoyed my dealings with him and his assistance in getting me started.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3243
Safe Act II

This is in follow-up to my last post.  SCOPE has simply tied together past failed bills into what might be seen in Safe Act II.  It probably isn't likely that all provision would make it into a bill that could pass both houses of the Legislature, but it gives ideas of what the possibilities are.

http://scopevoterapp.org/ny-safe-act-part-2/

Quote:

WHAT TO LOOK FOR in SAFE ACT II

This is a preview of NY SAFE Part 2. These are real actual bills that will be voted on in 2015 and either signed into law by Cuomo and vetoed by Astorino.

Still think the SAFE ACT doesn’t’ affect you?

  1. Safe Storage
  2. Microstamping
  3. Fifty Caliber Ban (Read carefully shotgunners that weren’t botherd by NY SAFE)
  4. Gun Dealer Insurance Price increase anyone?
  5. Prohibits the Sale or Transfer in NY of guns that are not child proof
  6. 30 day limit on gun purchase and record keeping nightmare
  7. 10 day wait period on gun purchases
  8. Ammunition Coding Bill
  9. Gun Rights Stripping Bill
  10. Manditory Insurance for Gun Owners
  11. Reduces Pistol Permit from 5 years to 2
  12. Another 30 day bill for gun purchase
  13. Minimum age for a gunshow over 12
  14. Many more
  • – Requires that weapons be stored with a safety locking device or in a safe storage depository when left outside the immediate possession or control of the owner or other lawful possessor.  Removal from the premises where a firearm was stored unsafely subjects violator to a class A misdemeanor and to a class E felony if injury or death occurs to another person, punishable by imprisonment, fine, license revocation and weapon surrender.  Bill was first introduced in 2004.
  • – Requires all semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in NYS to be capable of producing a unique alpha-numeric or geometric code on at least two locations on each cartridge case expended from such pistol.   Makes it a class D felony to willfully deface a microstamping component of a semi-automatic pistol, subjecting violators to imprisonment, fine or both.   Passed the Assembly, but died in Senate in 2008, 2010, and 2012.  Bill was first introduced in 2008.
  • – Bans the possession, sale or transfer of 50-Caliber or larger weapons.   Exemptions include any muzzle loading rifle or shotgun with a rifled bore and 50-caliber weapons purchased prior to the law’s effective date that are validly registered (similar to SAFE Act assault weapon registration).   Passed the Assembly but died in Senate in 2010.  Bill was first introduced in 2002.
  • – Requires the imposition of restrictive business practices, recordkeeping and reporting for lawful gun dealers including requiring that every dealer carry insurance coverage against liability (at least $1 million per incident) for damage to property and for injury or death of any person resulting from the sale, delivery, lease, or transfer of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.   Prior versions passed the Assembly but died in Senate.  Bill was first introduced in 2001.
  • – Prohibits the sale or transfer of a “child operated firearm” to another person.  Defines “child operated firearm” as a pistol or revolver which does not contain a childproofing device, which would prevent an average five-year-old from operating it.  Passed Assembly but died in Senate.  Bill was first introduced in 2000.
  • – Prohibits a person from purchasing more than one firearm from a dealer within a 30-day- period.  Prohibits a dealer from selling or transferring a firearm to a person who has purchased or taken possession of a firearm within the previous 30 days.  Requires dealers to request approval for sale from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).  Violators are subject to a class A misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment, fine or both.  Bill was first introduced in Senate in 2012.
  • – Prohibits a person from taking possessionof any firearm from a dealer unless 10 days have elapsed from the date the dealer initiated the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check of the purchaser and has received notice that the purchaser has passed all background checks required by federal, state and local law.  Violators would be subject to class A misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment, fine or both.  Bill was first introduced in Senate in 2012.
  • A8108 Camara Same as S4107 Adams – Requires every manufacturer to code any ammunition for handguns and assault weapons sold or manufactured after January 1, 2014.  “Coded ammunition” means a bullet carrying a unique identifier that has been applied by etching onto the base of the bullet projectile.   Directs the State Police to create a database on all sales, loans, and transfers of ammunition within the state.   Requires vendors to provide detailed information on ammunition purchasers to the database and charge the purchaser an additional $.005 per bullet or round to be deposited into a new Database Fund.  Requires all non-coded ammunition be disposed of by January 1, 2015 or subject sellers or owners of uncoded ammunition to a class A misdemeanor.   Provides a three-year exemption for persons with valid hunting license.   Willfully failing to comply would subject manufacturers and vendors to fines.  Bill was first introduced in 2008.
  • A6390 O’Donnell Same as S5432 Parker – Makes anyone convicted of a family offense crime (e.g., criminal mischief, harassment) ineligible to possess a rifle, shotgun, antique firearm, black powder rifle, black powder shotgun, or any muzzle-loading firearm.   Passed Assembly but died in Senate.   Bill was first introduced in 2009.
  • A3908-A Ortiz No Same as – Require persons owning a firearm (not defined in the bill), prior to ownership or within 30 days of enactment for current owners, to obtain a liability insurance policy with a limit of at least $250,000.   Failure to do so would result in the immediate revocation of the firearm owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own a firearm.   Bill was first introduced in 2013.
  • S1796-A Espaillat No Same as – Requires that all pistol permit licenses expire every two years. Bill was first introduced in 2012.
    • NOTE: The SAFE Act requires pistol permit recertification every five years.
  • A9468 Kavanagh Same as S7132 Gianaris – Limits buyers to purchasing one firearm in a 30-day period and requires a 10-day waiting period before a buyer can take possession. Requires dealers to report any person who attempts to purchase a firearm, rifle or shotgun but has been denied by the NICS background check to the State Police within 24 hours. Requires gun dealer employees handling weapons to pass background checks. Bill was first introduced in 2009.
  • A6088 Rosenthal No Same as – Prohibits any person under the age of 12 from entering a gun show. Bill was first introduced in 2013.

More….

  • A3942 Colton No Same as – Provides that manufacturers or dealers may be held liable for all damages relating to any injury or death caused by the illegal discharge of a firearm to which a large capacity ammunition feeding device was affixed, except in cases of criminal behavior or if the ammunition feeding device was possessed by the military or law enforcement.   Bill was first introduced in 2011.
  • A9963 Abinanti Similar to S7113 Parker – Makes it a crime to knowingly manufacture, sell, ship, or possess an undetectable firearm, rifle, or shotgun or any of its undetectable major components. Bill was first introduced in 2014 and died in Assembly.
  • S3587 Klein Same as A5663 Titone – Bans possession of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun outside of a person’s home while a person is intoxicated or his or her ability to safely possess such weapon is impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. Possessing a firearm, rifle, or shotgun while intoxicated is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and a class A misdemeanor. Bill was first introduced in 2010.
  • S662 Sampson No Same as – Establishes additional eligibility requirements for firearm license issuance and renewal to include: (a) completion of a course in firearm safety, use, maintenance, relevant laws, and first aid; (b) the requirement that persons be at least 18 years old; and (c) proving to the satisfaction of the licensing officer and the district attorney that there is an extraordinary likelihood that they may find themselves in a situation where they may have to use a pistol or revolver to protect themselves or others from imminent danger of death.  Prohibits a pistol permit from being issued or renewed unless he or she obtains approval by the district attorney.  Bill was first introduced in 2008.
  • S805 Adams No Same as – Requires owners to register their firearms at the county clerk’s office of the county where the owner resides, except in NYC.  The registration must contain a brief description of each firearm, including any serial number, the owner’s name, address, and phone number, and the location where the firearm is to be located when not in use.  For any newly acquired firearm, the application must include where and how the firearm was acquired.  A fee of $15 for each firearm registered will be charged by the registering office and each registration must be renewed each year for a fee of $10.  The registration office must be made aware when any registered owner ceases to possess the registered firearm.  Bill was first introduced in 2008.
  • A3941-A Weisenberg Same as S3148-B Krueger – Establishes offenses when a person stores or leaves a loaded rifle, shotgun, or firearm out of his or her immediate possession or control without having first securely locked such weapon in an appropriate locked box or rendered it incapable of being fired by the use of an appropriate gun locking device.   Provides for heightened penalties when such weapon is removed from the premises or discharged by another person who is under 18 years of age causing serious physical injury or death to another. Passed Assembly but died in Senate. Bill was first introduced in 1994.
  • A3364 Kavanagh Same as S574 Gianaris – Requires all businesses that sell, lease or transfer firearms to apply for a dealer permit every three years to be issued by the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).   Establishes numerous conditions for such businesses to meet in order for DCJS to grant, renew or deny said permit, and specifies numerous grounds for revocation of such dealer permit.  Imposes extensive disclosure, siting, security, insurance and record-keeping requirements, in addition to requiring conspicuously displayed public warnings about firearms.   Requires two physical inventories to be taken within the first 5 business days of April and October of each calendar year.   Mandates the reporting by the permittee of any lost or stolen ammunition within 48 hours after such loss or theft became known to the permittee.   Provides that any violation of this new article shall be a class A misdemeanor.   Bill was first introduced in the Senate in 2012.
  • S4175 Golden No Same as – Defines “devastator ammunition” as any ammunition with a projectile or projectile core capable of being used in pistols or revolvers and designed to explode or detonate upon impact. Includes projectiles made of ceramics or polymer plastics within the definition of “armor piercing ammunition.”  Makes it a crime to possess armor piercing or devastator ammunition.    Prior versions of this bill have passed the Assembly but died in the Senate.   Bill was first introduced in 1996.
    • NOTE: S.C.O.P.E is unaware of any projectile made of ceramic material and intended to be armor piercing.
  • S1813 Espaillat No Same as — Makes the mere possession of armor piercing ammunition or selling or giving away armor piercing ammunition to another person, a class B violent felony, punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment.   Bill died in Senate in 2012.
    • NOTE: Current law criminalizes possession of armor piercing ammunition only if there is “intent to use unlawfully against another” as a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year jail time.
  • S2388 Adams No Same as – Makes it a felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm, rifle or shotgun to law enforcement within 24 hours and requires firearm license suspension.  Bill was first introduced in 2013.
    • NOTE: The SAFE Act increased failing to report from a $100 fine to a class A misdemeanor.

Doug

 

 

 

GM_Man's picture
GM_Man
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2012
Posts: 74
Hunting?? after SAFE II?

So, I guess I won't be hunting in NY for Thanksgiving ever again...   :-(

I don't see any thought in all these BS pieces of legislation where a man can bring a hunting rifle into the state, buy ammo, or go hunting.  In fact, I see no thought in the legislation at all!  If only 25% of these acts pass, there would be no shooting sports, hunting, ammo or firearm manufacturers, and/or related retail stores and gun smiths working in the State of New York.

I can see where the firearm and ammo industry would want to boycott doing business with New York...

Stay safe Doug!

Cheers!

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3243
You're right GM

The cumulative impact of the so far speculative act could essentially shut down all gun use in NYS, except for police, wealthy and criminals, and even the police I know are worried. 

However, I don't think anything is going to be done by T-day this year.  So come on up one more time.  It's still a beautiful state.

Doug

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1988
NYS tax return for a...

in 2010 I traded my last NY State income tax refund for a nice shotgun. When the local SC gun dealer heard where I got the money to buy it, he threw in a free case and a box of ammo. And laughed and laughed.

Shotgun ammo is fairly easy to come by. We don't need much: just enough to do target practice a couple of times a year.  In the five years I have been in SC--and yes, I left NY in part due to the restrictive self-defense laws--I've gotten comfortable with the whole other attitude toward firearms they have here in South Carolina. It's a tool. Not evil incarnate; just a tool.

Speaking of ammo, it's very hard to get for my antique CC piece--it takes 32 regular, not 32 auto (will not eject) , and the only place that makes it is in Brazil. $32 a box. Eee. I've saved my brass in case we ever get a reloader but it's more likely we will get one for shotgun ammo. The Dillon 650 is not for shotgun ammo. Any suggestions?

 

 

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Question for Wendy

Hi Wendy, is it also known as .32 Long?

if so, I found some here: http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=AP32SW98&name=Prvi+Partizan+PPU+.32+S%26W+Long+LRN+98grn+50rd+Box&search=.32 (currently sold out).

Might be a while before its back in stock, but if this is it, now you at least know Prvi Partisan makes it.

Hopefully it is.

Cheers, and I'll be lamenting the sad state of affairs in the Eastern Empire. No doubt the Northwest will be headed that direction eventually.

Aaron

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Bloombergs first victim is my home state

So I 594 passed in Washington state. This law makes it a felony to hand a weapon to somebody who is not a spouse, or in a situation in which lethal force is not warranted in defense of innocent life.

$7 million from Bloomberg, Hanauer and, Bill and Melinda Gates saw that 60% of the population who have probably never seen a gun except on TV saw fit to vote for the initiative.

Any thoughts from folks around here?

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
Aaron

Yeah, 

I'm sorry the 2A taxpayers of Washington are going to be fleeced in bureaucratic overload and settlement judgments. This thing is going to cost the state billions. What a Charliefoxtrot.

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Gresham talked about it this

Gresham talked about it this weekend on GunTalk (before the election), when a caller wanted to know why the NRA wasn't doing anything about the 594 issue.  Tom challenged the caller and asked what he had done to help the NRA in their fight.  Caller responded he was doing what he could... and my selective hearing heard him say he didn't send in any money to help.

We are fighting misdirected very very rich people.  I'm a member of MI Open Carry.  They have publicly stated they are going to file a lawsuit against a school district for violating State Law on carry in and on school property.  The attorney's are literally doing this for free.  The amount of money they have taken into their legal fund is disgustingly low.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2923
Voltaire

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2923
History Rhymes

I find myself imagining what it felt like for him.  I never understood how the German people could be so manipulated as to do and support what they did until now.  It was a complete brainwash.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2923
phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Time2help

Answers to Q 15 & 16 are extremely disturbing

GM_Man's picture
GM_Man
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2012
Posts: 74
Social Engineering at work

That was a fine example of social engineering at work.  It was paid for by the largest billionaires of course.  They seek to create States that function as well as New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois.  The Oligarchy exercising their rights to design and engineer a society with citizens who have no right to self-defense, free speech, religion, eat and drink what they want, etc...  

To think that it all began in New York City where it was illegal to have a 64 ounce Super Gulp...

I expect that this will continue in the years ahead.

'Free Speech is what I say it IS.' to paraphrase a Senator in the movie The Shooter.

Bloggers are not Journalists and are not covered by the First Amendment 'Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to "real reporters" and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.'

The law, passed by eight members of the city's mayoral-appointed health board with one member abstaining, intended to prohibit the sale of many sweetened drinks more than 16 ounces (0.5 liters) in volume

When will this end?  I can't tell you when, but I can tell you how...  ;-)

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
phecksel wrote:Time2help
phecksel wrote:

Answers to Q 15 & 16 are extremely disturbing

Did I read it wrong? 
Question 15 and 16 are were jaw-dropping victories in my mind... Is this not saying that 71% of the officers view statements by public officials that they WILL NOT enforce more gun laws view those officials favorably?

Another 12% are ambivalent. Only about 16% out of the polled officers want to enforce more restrictive laws, is what I'm seeing. That's not good, compared to zero, but it's great compared to what I bet you'd find if you cropped this sample to, say, just NYC...
gun-surveyQ15.gif

16 states that about 45% would vocally oppose more gun control (Seattle's recent I594 brought a significant amount of LEO's out saying they did not support the legislation), while 7% said they'd shut up and color and 10% said they'd push the agenda. So again, we're seeing 1/10 or so of the LEO population who's all for supporting the elitist agenda.

gun-surveyQ16.gif

The three areas in which officers supported changes, were Improved background checks (Again, like Seattle just passed), More aggressive institutionalization for the mentally ill and more permissive Concealed Carry. 

More good news in Question 23, where 80% of the officers said a legally armed citizen would have dropped the number of casualties in Aurora and Newtown. 

I think that the majority of officers are solidly on the side of the citizens. Sadly, discretion is being worked out of the officers toolkit, and we are inundated with negative images of police. I firmly believe this is a tool of people like Bloomberg to ensure that we are alienated against the "enforcers". If we view the LEO as the 'bad guy', it's easier for him to enforce laws against us, and we all know that people like Bloomberg are more equal than us.

We need to turn this anti-LEO sentiment into anti-Legislator/Senate/Billionaire sentiment. Those are the guy who are dirtying the pool for all of us.

Cheers,
Aaron

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Aaron, I look at it from a

Aaron,

I look at it from a pessimists view.

Q16, up to 37.9% of police department leadership will enforce constitutionally illegal gun round up.

It's one thing for the guy on the street to say no I'm not going to do it, it's quite another for a 20 year veteran to be facing losing his job, pension, etc because he won't follow his departments policy and orders.

Explain Katrina

Explain Aitken

You get the picture.

Grand Rapids MI, the department has made a habit of arresting people legally carrying firearms.  State constitution preempts local firearm ordinances.  Police Chief and his dept insist their local rules trump state constitution.  It has earned them a federal lawsuit.

I had a former neighbor that was a Sgt in the local PD.  He was absolutely insistent that non LEO should not be allowed firearms.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3243
comment

"It's one thing for a guy on the street to say no I'm not going to do it, it's quite another for a 20 year veteran to be facing losing his job, pension, etc because he won't follow his departments policy and orders."

I had this conversation with a retired cop recently. His impression is exactly the opposite. He said the veterans don't want anything to do with rounding up guns, legal or illegal. The young guys, presumably poisoned with testosterone, are willing to kick down doors if ordered to do so. He didn't say what women officers were likely to do.

Doug

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
Aaron, You may believe the

Aaron,

You may believe the confiscation won't happen... Explain Buffalo NY

Quote:

"They're quick to say they're going to take the guns," Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, told Fox News. "But they don't tell you the law doesn't apply to long guns, or that these families can sell [their loved one's] pistol or apply to keep it." King said enforcing this little-known state law proves police are targeting law-abiding gun owners.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/buffalo_police_seize_guns_owners_death.html

Dkieke's picture
Dkieke
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 4 2013
Posts: 19
Austin Police Chief Wants to "Vet" Gun Enthusiasts

This is just starting to get some airtime in the alternative media and I wanted to make sure everyone here saw it too.  I know there are a number of us on PP in the Central Texas area, so this directly affects us, but it is important for everyone to know what TPTB actually are saying.

http://clashdaily.com/2014/12/know-gun-enthusiasts-turn-austin-police-chief-says-cops-need-vet-gun-owners/

Watch the video, it's very short and important not to just take the written words but to hear the police chief of a city of ~1 million people actually say these things.  We generally have the same understanding of the 2nd Amendment on PP, but I'm also curious to hear what our community has to say about these comments in light of the following from US Code, Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 926:

"...No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation...."

And from Section 924 under Penalties:

"...whoever-... (D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Not that these provisions are adhered to already, but these laws are still on the books and selective enforcement only shows how far we have already fallen from any semblance of Rule of Law.

 

Thanks for listening,

David

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2140
War on Civilian Gun Ownership

My facebook page is on fire with friends who want to "end the gun madness in the USA" with more restrictive laws on gun ownership and other friends who feel that citizen gun ownership is an essential part of defending oneself and family.  It is my impression that the main issue is the visceral issue of whether each friend is individually identifying more with the role of "shooter" vs "shot at."  Those who are committed to non-ownership want others to not be permitted to own guns also.

A reference article from Harvard Journal of Public Law and Policy, 2007 was brought to my attention that offers a scholarly review of this issue.  The paper is 40+ pages long, heavily footnoted and takes a bit of time to read.

A very brief summary of the main points.

1.  Both internationally, and in the USA, there is absolutely no positive correlation between rates of citizen gun ownership and homicide rate.  The belief that "more guns creates more violence" is NOT supported.

2.  In fact, exactly the opposite is demonstrated.  From the US data, there is an inverse correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.  Counties with the highest percentage of legally armed citizens have the lowest homicide and armed robbery rates.  Interviews with prisoners show that fear of being shot by an armed "victim" deterred criminal activity.  In jurisdictions where citizens are disarmed by statute, this fear does not exist and criminal activity is regarded as "safer."

3.  Ordinary citizens are exceedingly unlikely to commit murder in anger against family and friends.  Spousal murder, for example, was overwhelmingly the end result of a long history of domestic assaults.  94% of spousal murders had prior domestic violence police calls to their home with a mean of 5 calls prior to the murder.

4.  Murders and armed robberies were overwhelmingly committed by people with a long history of assaults, multiple arrests and sociopathic behaviors.  Normal law abiding citizens just don't shoot each other, even when angry.

5.  When gun availability is severely restricted by statute, only the worst of the criminal element, needs, and is willing to risk ownership.  Gun possession is then concentrated in the sociopathic social segment.

 

Gun-less Russia had by far the highest murder rates.   While heavily armed Germany, Norway, France, Sweden had 10 fold less murders.

The authors also review historical timeframes (decades and centuries) from the invention of the repeating rifle and revolver and their diffusion into widespread civilian ownership.  This was a period of steadily declining murder rates.

phecksel's picture
phecksel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2010
Posts: 204
MI had a hearing on expanding

MI had a hearing on expanding conceal carry, but targeting open carry in the process.

Funny thing, almost every single state firearms organization is against the proposed law... along with the anti firearms groups.  It passed through committee.  Waste of everybody's time.

the law is a freaking mess that creates more problems then it hoped to solve.

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1799
Gun control: fashionable prohibition for modern lawmakers

https://mises.org/library/gun-control-fashionable-prohibition-modern-lawmakers

With the latest school shooting, all humane people are expected to jump up and do something to stop the next shooting. The most popular response among media pundits and national policymakers right now is an expansion of the various prohibitions now in place against guns.

For anyone familiar with the history of prohibitions on inanimate objects, however, these appeals to prohibition as a “common sense” solution are rather less convincing.

Americans and others have tried a wide variety of similar prohibitions before, and with mixed results at best. Nowadays, prohibitions on drugs are in decline as states continue to unravel prohibitions of the past and make the nature of prohibition less drastic and less punitive. And, of course, the prohibition of alcohol has been dead for decades.

The prohibitions of old have been deemed failures. But fortunately for prohibitionists, there’s a fashionable form of modern prohibition that won’t go away...

Nowadays, 88,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcohol abuse, and thirty people per day in the United States die in alcohol-related auto accidents. Heavy drinkers are more prone to violence, suicide, and risky sexual behavior.

In fact, if we compare these statistics, we find that alcohol abuse is significantly more deadly and problematic than misuse of guns. There were 36,000 gun-related deaths (including suicides and accidents) in the US in 2013, and as a percentage of all causes of death, alcohol-related deaths are more than twice as common as gun deaths.

What’s more, one-third of gun deaths are alcohol related. Thus, according to prohibitionist logic, we could eliminate one-third of gun-related deaths overnight by prohibiting alcohol consumption. So why aren’t we doing it? If it could save one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?

Most have concluded that saving one life is not, in fact, worth it. In practice, alcohol-related deaths (including those inflicted against third-party victims) are treated very differently than gun-related deaths.

For example, it is clear that alcohol is a central component in the more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths that occur each year. So, is the response to restrict certain types of alcohol or populations that can buy it? Are background checks instituted to prevent sales to incorrigible drunk drivers? No, the response is to ban how alcohol is used in certain cases.

On the other hand, in response to the 11,000 gun-related murders per year, the prescribed response is to restrict the guns themselves. But, if we were to apply the same logic behind drunk driving bans to gun violence, the only legislation we would be considering would be something along the lines of special penalties for carrying firearms when mentally impaired, on psychotropic drugs, when sight impaired, or in crowded areas where accidents are more likely to affect bystanders. The mere purchase or ownership of guns would not be restricted, just as the purchase or ownership of alcohol is not restricted in response to drunk driving...

Consequently, some principled leftists, most of whom are radicals, do not subscribe to the dominant gun-control position of the left. But certainly the mainline left, dominated by university intellectuals, government employees, and politicos with nice houses in safe neighborhoods, see few problems associated with centralizing coercive power in the hands of “official” law enforcement.

The downsides of restricting alcohol, however, are plentiful for those who spend many hours at cocktail parties and send their children to booze-soaked elite universities to be paired up with the appropriate social class.

So, until this changes, we ought not expect much of a change in the double standard applied to alcohol and guns in terms of violence, health, and safety. The people who make the laws are quite happy having plenty of booze around. But they can afford to pay someone else to handle the guns for them.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2923
Done with this.

Tired of hearing a stupid argument put forth by a morally, fiscally and spiritually bankrupt collectivist utopian idiocracy.


 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2923
If we could just ban it...

Take a look at gun ownership, sales and ammo sales trends for the past 10 years.  And look at the percentages of gun owners that ignored registration in NY state and Connecticut after the bans went into effect.

Not Many People Obeying New York State "Assault Weapon" Registration (Reason)

Connecticut ‘Does Not Have the Balls’ to Enforce 2013 Gun Ban (Ammoland)

America IS NOT disarming and WILL NOT disarm.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments