Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Darksheare

I am disappointed that so many here are going negative without fully understanding the bill or it's intent.

This is the third time this bill has been introduced, I would have thought that many here would have some familiarity with it, and the many reasons to support it.

There is no intent to enable confiscation of ANYTHING that is not already subject to confiscation as contraband.
The intent is actually the opposite, to allow veterans and their heirs to keep arms that are currently regarded as contraband.


26 posted on 05/07/2005 3:06:50 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Richard-SIA

It's intent is the same as every other gun registry bill before it.
They can dress up a pug as apoodle, but it's still a pug in snobby clothing.
They should simply DUMP the previous bills they're supposedly reforming with this instead.


27 posted on 05/07/2005 3:10:51 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Richard-SIA
There is no intent to enable confiscation of ANYTHING that is not already subject to confiscation as contraband. The intent is actually the opposite, to allow veterans and their heirs to keep arms that are currently regarded as contraband.

I don't see it as a negative, but I don't see it as a big deal either. As I see it the only people effected are

--Non registered owners of fully automatic weapons, who can now register, pay the annual fee, and keep them as long as they don't live in a state which outlaws fully automatic weapons. That's a good thing, though I don't know how many that effects.

--Non registered owners of handguns in a state or locality which either requires registration or bans handgun ownership, with a grandfather clause post 68. That's a good thing, though I don't know how many that effects.

--"Assault weapon", whatever the state says that is, owners in states that ban them. I'm not that familiar with recent state laws in that regard, if they have grandfather clauses it's a good thing, if they don't which I think is the case in California, the one that comes to mind, it's a nothing. I doubt that effects many people either.

There's no doubt in my mind that localities will access the records. I'd certainly not suggest that people violate gun laws. But this seem to have very little practical impact.

As an aside and I'm open to correction, but post (and even during) Vietnam, I don't think the number of "liberated" arms is all that great. I recognize that this act doesn't require that they legally entered the US.

34 posted on 05/07/2005 3:31:20 PM PDT by SJackson (The first duty of a leader is to make himself be loved without courting love, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson