Posted on 01/11/2009 10:44:48 AM PST by Beaten Valve
This guy is a piker. You should check my pickup.
Yes, it has been to an airport.
There are lots of houses, apartments and small businesses to the end of the runway in San Diego, where my next commercial trip is likely to be There are definitely houses on the hills to the east of I-5, but not more that 400-500 yards from the spot where the aircraft turn onto the runway preparing to take off. Others are bit closer, and directly under the approach. Should all those people who live and work there be disarmed?
Remember the law was only technically concerned with one particular rifle. A bolt action .300 Winchester Magnum would have been no problem, and yet one could be used to create lots of problems at Lindberg Field in San Diego.
But none ever has, AFAIK.
Why not?
Unfortunatley he was Mr. Nice Guy, and cooperated fully with the *Airport* police. Got out and opened up the back of the truck and gave them the keys to the locked containers, and told them he had firearms in the back, opened those with combination locks too.
A select fire rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge.
But the law in question is about "assault weapons", which are whatever the legislators define them to be. Basically whatever guns they are afraid of. There is no such animule in Texas, nor under Federal Law.
California, Massachusetts, Illinois, well those are "different", and each has it's own definition.
The definition in HR 1022 from the last Congress is likely to be pretty much what gets incorporated into the reinstated, improved and permanent, AW ban that The One has promised.
Besides a whole list of "by name" firearms, (Including the M1 Carbine and the Mini-14, in addition to the "usual" AR's AK's H&K, FN/FAL etc) they have the following definition (for rifles, there are others for pistols and shotguns).
A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
...
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
Also they define a few terms to suit themselves:
Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
So it pretty much would have banned all semi-auto centerfire rifles with external magazines.
The bill would have also banned private transfers, of both the assault weapons and the "large capacity ammunition feeding devices".
And remember, Eric Holder will be the Attorney General overseeing the BATFE and FBI as they enforce this monstrosity.
But this bill would have still grandfathered in existing weapons. Don't expect the Obama version to do that. Oh maybe at first, but then when the first "incident" occurs, they'll repeal that provision. Although they might amend it out right away with a last minute "voice vote" at O Dark thirty. Ya never know.
If the ban is part of the Economic Recovery package, as the original was part of the Omnibus Crime Bill (AKA Bill's Crime), expect it to be a lot worse.
I was being sarcastic L0L.
I have H.R. 1022 on my desk.
It would even ban the lowly SKS
BTW. Alberto Gonzales didn’t do us any favors.
Thankfully I got several items before the barrel ban
Why not? Just doesn’t seem very secure.
Freedom brings with it the opportunity to make mistakes. The alternative is worse.
One could say, and rightly so, that places where guns are very much prohibited are among the more dangerous places in the world, because the good guys are prevented from acting strongly in their own self defense, and the bad guys know it.
Yes, and PDQ before 0bama appoints Sarah Brady to the SCOTUS.
Maybe so, but that't none of anybody's business but the owner's.
Put another way, the “security” brought by disarmament is a mirage.
This idiotic arrest is further proof we are losing our freedom CONSTANTLY in America. I grieve for the future generation of great-grandchildren who will populate the US gulags. I fully blame an immoral, ignorant electorate for incrementally giving away their God-given rights. As insidious as the socialist power-mongers have been in trying to destroy out God-given rights, it is an ignorant, immoral electorate that has gone willingly to slaughter. I detest their leading me into socialist tyranny.
That’s a ridiculous answer. If someone has a weapon that is not securely stored, there’s a very good change it will become more than just their business.
That is a general response. In his case, he seemed to have locked them up pretty good for the trip. My main concern regarding keeping them secure is based on reading one too many stories of little ones playing with them. But, in this case it is not relevant.
Yup. Just a blowhard with delusions, hiding behind anonymity, a non member of pro gun organizations.
Speak softly my friend, but carry a big stick.
What I do to support the 2nd Amendment is none of your business.
If you are really pro-Second Amendment, then you need to arm yourself. It won't take long for you to realize that the anti-gunners' synonym for "very secure" is "completely unusable and unavailable to the owner".
If the state of Kalifornia truly recognized the Second Amendment, then the man in the article would have been carrying a loaded firearm on his person; and his other guns would not only have been secured in his truck, but they would have been further secured by an armed guard. What could possibly be more secure? That is how we secure the President of the United States.
Fair enough. I have several friends that feel as you do. I will say, if the NRA/GOA/JPFO had 80 millions members (estimated number of gun owners), instead of 4 million, the erosion of gun rights would end instantly.
Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.