I will not comply!!!

[davidmcbeth]

Absolutely. ARs with no roll marks and no background check. Is that a loophole? 1911s with no numbers, another loophole.

Just bought this matched 80% lower & upper in Purple for my Sweet Baboo. She gets an AR pistol to carry on her motorcycle.
View attachment 12204

http://daytonatactical.com/collections/ar-15-80-lower-and-ar15-fully-machined-upper-set

Saw those there ^^ for 170 bucks ... not bad for what it is .. but if one wants to go cheap cheap cheap, you can get a cast 80% lower for 35 bucks and pick up and upper for 35 bucks in many places or just get it with the completed upper.

ARs are very easy to make ... and, as you have shown, can be customized to anyone's taste...

why folks complain about registration and all that when they can easily make their own guns is a mystery to me....

so comply with the law and go right around it and cause the law to be shown for what it is .. stupid

 

[MSG Laigaie]

How many of you folks, own weapons that don't have a paper trail, such as inherited guns or firearms purchased in the 50's or early 60's

There is a form you can fill out and send to the State that lists all the weapons you own, all the licenses you have(firearm related) and something else that I forgot. I sent mine in and they replied that I did not have an FFL9I do), and that I own thre(3)weapons. A bolt action shotgun I bought for parts, a pistol I no longer own(traded it to a dealer for another pistol) and one other handgun. Nothing else in my somewhat extensive inventory shows.

Saw those there ^^ for 170 bucks ... not bad for what it is .. but if one wants to go cheap cheap cheap, you can get a cast 80% lower for 35 bucks and pick up and upper for 35 bucks in many places or just get it with the completed upper.

ARs are very easy to make ... and, as you have shown, can be customized to anyone's taste...

why folks complain about registration and all that when they can easily make their own guns is a mystery to me....

so comply with the law and go right around it and cause the law to be shown for what it is .. stupid

David, I got the set (up & low) for US$79.95. Cool price. I have a box of 80% lowers and uppers are going for US$29
http://www.jsesurplus.com/A3FlatTopUpperReceiverStrippedClearHardCoatAnodized.aspx

 

[davidmcbeth]

There is a form you can fill out and send to the State that lists all the weapons you own, all the licenses you have(firearm related) and something else that I forgot. I sent mine in and they replied that I did not have an FFL9I do), and that I own thre(3)weapons. A bolt action shotgun I bought for parts, a pistol I no longer own(traded it to a dealer for another pistol) and one other handgun. Nothing else in my somewhat extensive inventory shows.


David, I got the set (up & low) for US$79.95. Cool price. I have a box of 80% lowers and uppers are going for US$29
http://www.jsesurplus.com/A3FlatTopUpperReceiverStrippedClearHardCoatAnodized.aspx

Good price there for an upper ...

 

[bani]

Preaching to the choir members isn't going to stop it. Didn't you learn anything from Washington? Make a TV commercial showing an actor in a police uniform at a desk with a stack of forms. The camera zooms in and the officer looks up and says, "I would rather be out on the street chasing criminals, but I have a thousand background checks to do on people who are following the law. This is why you need to vote against I-###."

Or the camera shows a group of women in a self defense class learning with the instructor telling them how many crimes have been stopped with the use of the firearm. A woman student turns around properly holding an unloaded gun and says, "I have to get a background check just to take this class and learn how to use a gun to defend myself with. Why should the police be required to spend their time and resources investigating me just so I can learn how to defend myself when they could be stopping the criminal that I might have to use this tool to defend myself against?"

Or a 19 year old girl standing at a private shooting area watching her dad shoot. She says, "Daddy, can I learn how to shoot your gun in case someone breaks into our house when you are gone and tries to rape me?" Daddy turns to the camera and says, "No, sweetie, I'm sorry, I can't teach you how to shoot my gun because you have to have a background check first before I can loan it to you."

You won't win the fight by calling gun owners.

you do understand how much TV advertising costs right? you're going to be up against bloomy dollars, he can just drown you out with 100x the advertisements.

you need to be thinking much more strategically. think return on investment.

 

[Jeff. State]

you do understand how much TV advertising costs right? you're going to be up against bloomy dollars, he can just drown you out with 100x the advertisements.

you need to be thinking much more strategically. think return on investment.

Again this nonsense about $$$$$, the NRA has MORE than enough to combat what happened in Washington. They DIDNT.

 

[bani]

Again this nonsense about $$$$$, the NRA has MORE than enough to combat what happened in Washington. They DIDNT.

how much money do you think the NRA has?

protip: look at the NRA's tax returns.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Again this nonsense about $$$$$, the NRA has MORE than enough to combat what happened in Washington. They DIDNT.

This appears to be truth. They may have sat it out not realizing that it would actually pass. Now, what has happened here, will infect the rest of the USA. An anti firearm virus fed by bloomburg, and fooling the masses the way they did here.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Again this nonsense about $$$$$, the NRA has MORE than enough to combat what happened in Washington. They DIDNT.

Before NRA was against UBC they were for UBC. More rules make them more money, that is why they push more laws instead of repealing laws.

In May of 1999, under intense pressure following the Columbine High School massacre, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre told Congress that the gun lobby supported instant background checks at gun shows. On Wednesday, back before the Senate Judiciary Committee following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, LaPierre uncomfortably withdrew his support for universal background checks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/nra-gun-show-loophole_n_2593937.html

 

[bani]

Before NRA was against UBC they were for UBC. More rules make them more money, that is why they push more laws instead of repealing laws.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/nra-gun-show-loophole_n_2593937.html

if this was really the case then why did they push for the strict scrutiny amendments in LA and MO?

http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_2_(2012)
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

these amendments will result in the repeal of many laws. there are already many cases and laws being challenged in LA right now under this new amendment.

 

[davidmcbeth]

if this was really the case then why did they push for the strict scrutiny amendments in LA and MO?

http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_2_(2012)
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

these amendments will result in the repeal of many laws. there are already many cases and laws being challenged in LA right now under this new amendment.

Thanks for the links ... I did not know the % results for both LA and MO results ... interesting.

 

[Jeff. State]

if this was really the case then why did they push for the strict scrutiny amendments in LA and MO?

http://ballotpedia.org/Louisiana_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_2_(2012)
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

these amendments will result in the repeal of many laws. there are already many cases and laws being challenged in LA right now under this new amendment.

In Louisiana.................................
The official ballot text read as follows:[3]

“ Do you support an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?


I'm trying very hard to remain civil in my discourse with you bani. Did you read the FREAKING content? This bill is a stinking CRIME against gun owners and the 2nd Amendment. "Highest standard of review" in America today is a JOKE!. Are you blind?

And also in the Missouri bill...........
"Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny"


Thank you for providing the links as davidmcbeth said, to expose the TREACHERY of the NRA.

The passing of these measures were a F'ing LOSS for gun owners! They went from "Shall not be infringed" to "Can be infringed under "strict crutiny".:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--

The passing of these measures were a *'*** LOSS for gun owners! They went from "Shall not be infringed" to "Can be infringed under "strict crutiny".:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Since the courts are the final trier of fact, how else would you regulate/control the process and outcome except to direct the courts in the level of scrutiny?

 

[Geerolla]

The 2nd amendment is quiet clear and now there's an EXCEPTION to it in that state. Get your gun control in front of the right "liberal" minds and it can be made law with no opportunity for recourse.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[Dave_pro2a]

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired

Seems clear enough.

 

[skidmark]

Seems clear enough.

"Nobody is infringing your right. We're merely regulating the way(s) in which you exercise it. You can still have all the guns you want, and you can still sell, loan, or give them away all you want."

It is going to be harder to overcome that than, IMHO, it will be to overcome the reality that BGCs do so little as to be both statistically and emotionally isignificant in preventing the sorts of things they are supposed to prevent. I'd fight this as a waste of taxpayer money - how many new state employees will be needed to handle the expected increase in the number of BGCs? I'd get folks together to do a weekly gun swap - maybe publicize 3 PM Thursdays as the time to do what is essentially a dedicared DOS attack.

stay safe.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

"Nobody is infringing your right. We're merely regulating the way(s) in which you exercise it. You can still have all the guns you want, and you can still sell, loan, or give them away all you want."

It is going to be harder to overcome that than, IMHO, it will be to overcome the reality that BGCs do so little as to be both statistically and emotionally isignificant in preventing the sorts of things they are supposed to prevent. I'd fight this as a waste of taxpayer money - how many new state employees will be needed to handle the expected increase in the number of BGCs? I'd get folks together to do a weekly gun swap - maybe publicize 3 PM Thursdays as the time to do what is essentially a dedicared DOS attack.

stay safe.

Person A does not own a gun.
Person A is threatened and needs the ability to defend their life.
Today person A could buy a handgun or rifle for cash, from a private party, and have the ability to defend their life.
After Dec 4th person A no longer has that Right to procure arms for their defense, in a timely manner.

Seems like an impairment to me.

 

[WalkingWolf]

"Nobody is infringing your right. We're merely regulating the way(s) in which you exercise it. You can still have all the guns you want, and you can still sell, loan, or give them away all you want."

It is going to be harder to overcome that than, IMHO, it will be to overcome the reality that BGCs do so little as to be both statistically and emotionally isignificant in preventing the sorts of things they are supposed to prevent. I'd fight this as a waste of taxpayer money - how many new state employees will be needed to handle the expected increase in the number of BGCs? I'd get folks together to do a weekly gun swap - maybe publicize 3 PM Thursdays as the time to do what is essentially a dedicared DOS attack.

stay safe.

I agree, the background check people are convinced UBC are some magic cure, they are not. All they do is put tax payer money in somebody else pocket. The gun owners and non gun owners who are not anti, but succumbed to this nonsense need to be educated. Until the populace starts to understand the ramifications of wasting money they will keep voting for this defecation.

 

[FrayedString]

Not necessarily so. I just got back from the Monroe WAC show specifically to guage the overall post election climate, and to see if it was a buyers or sellers market. Prices didn't seem to be out of line with what they regularly are. As a matter of fact, they weren't anywhere near the post Newtown prices. There was plenty of discussion going on at nearly every table regarding 594, and displeasure with the NRA's apparent lack of support for us.

I was at the gun show in Yakima this past weekend. The attitude of most of the people there seemed to be that the law won't affect anything, because of how difficult (impossible?) it will be to enforce. There also seemed to be a lot of hopefulness that the law will be overturned by the courts. I have to disagree with that sentiment, however; If the courts had any respect for the state, or federal, constitution's protections on RKBA, we wouldn't have laws such as RCW 70.108.150 on the books which clearly infringe upon the right to carry arms in defense of yourself. Prices seemed very reasonable, I missed out on several purchases I would have happily done because I didn't make an offer right as I passed a table and by the time I returned they had already sold to someone else.

A lot of people seemed to be throwing a lot of blame at the NRA and SAF for not getting the word out better, but I have to admit I'm as guilty as anyone for not pulling my weight to fight I-594. I chipped in a couple hundred bucks to the SAF and WeCARE, and made a post or two on Facebook but that's it.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I agree, the background check people are convinced UBC are some magic cure,

No.

They are convinced that Universal Background Checks are simply the next step that increase the chance of eventual outright bans and confiscations.

After UBCs will come banning evil features and 'high capacity' magazines -- for the children.

And idiotic liberal voters will eat it up, just like how conservative voters eat up appeals to blind jingoism.