Guns

[Slash]

Now what happens when a doctor doesn't diagnose someone as dangerous and that person goes out and kills someone. Are they liable?

Will doctors report anyone they think may be dangerous, regardless of if they own weapons, or just the ones they're pretty sure of? Since there will be some sort of liability on their part; will they just report everyone they see, the medications they take, and have their files uploaded to the ATF/FBI in a bid to lessen their liability?

This is very bad news.

It's yet another flaw in the system.

 

[arora]

This fine lady in my fine state, Representative Nora Espinoza - (R) has proposed a house bill you can read some of below.

A. A public officer or firearm dealer selling any firearm in New Mexico who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm or firearm accessory, or to ammunition, that is owned or is manufactured commercially or privately in New Mexico, and that remains exclusively within the borders of New Mexico, is guilty of a third degree felony and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term not to exceed three years or both.

B. An official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm or firearm accessory, or upon ammunition, that is owned or is manufactured commercially or privately in New Mexico, and that remains exclusively within the borders of New Mexico, is guilty of a third degree felony and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term not to exceed three years or both.

C. The attorney general may defend a resident of New Mexico who is prosecuted by the United States government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm or firearm accessory or of ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the borders of New Mexico.

It's symbolic of course, but no less symbolic than the crap Obama has come up with. I think it's great

 

[hogger129]

This fine lady in my fine state, Representative Nora Espinoza - (R) has proposed a house bill you can read some of below.

It's symbolic of course, but no less symbolic than the crap Obama has come up with. I think it's great

I wish they would pass a law like that here in Wisconsin. Then again, I don't see Wisconsin pushing any gun control. Many states kept their own version of the '94 Assault Weapon Ban, but Wisconsin has A LOT of hunters and a pretty strong gun tradition.

I think I'm pretty safe here. It's states like New York, California, Illinois and most of the northeast that I'd worry about. I heard something about a big class-action lawsuit brewing in New York. I expect that if that goes nowhere, all those people will move out of state.

 

[Nicksfix]

I expect that if that goes nowhere, all those people will move out of state.

The State of Texas has invited New Yorkers to move.

Can't blame New Yorkers for wanting to move with what is going on up there.

 

[Slash]

The State of Texas has invited New Yorkers to move.

Can't blame New Yorkers for wanting to move with what is going on up there.

As a New Yorker, I can tell you straight up that the entire state is in a huge state of downright outrage. All my dad has been doing is talking about it, at school kids are extremely pissed off, there are protests going on literally everywhere and now attorney's are taking action by having people sign petitions, filing federal class action lawsuits against the ruling and everything in between. It is a mess up here. People are even more pissed off, including me over things like the fact that I can't even keep my 11 round, tube fed .22 caliber rifle. It's bull. Ruger has a link up and petition in which you can send a pre-typed letter to all of the idiots in Albany as does Wal-Mart and several other places. That state is literally in an uproar over this. And what really pisses my dad off is the fact it takes 10 days to move a damn stop sign down the road and they can pass this bill into law in 22 minutes? Come ON!!!! Not to mention, there are really idiotic flaws in it, and unless they pass an amendment, this new law applies to law enforcement as well! LAW ENFORCEMENT LOSES THEIR WEAPONS AS WELL!!!!!!! That's retarded!!!! 👎👎👎👎👎

 

[Keef]

I can't even keep my 11 round, tube fed .22 caliber rifle.

The plus sign is you can keep your rifle. You're just not allowed to. And when somebody comes around and tries to take it, well, you're just going to have to make your decision on the spot. Either you give them your gun or you don't let them take it, however you accomplish that.

 

[Zenith]

Shotguns here in CA have tube blocks that you insert that effectively limit the gun to X rounds. Can you get one of those?

 

[arora]

I can't even keep my 11 round, tube fed .22 caliber rifle.

I just read the law and I don't think that is correct. Here is the full text.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s2230-2013

There are two sections that describe your scenario, I'll quote.

(G) PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE:

(I) ANY RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL THAT (A) IS MANUALLY OPERATED BY
BOLT, PUMP, LEVER OR SLIDE ACTION; (B) HAS BEEN RENDERED PERMANENTLY
INOPERABLE; OR (C) IS AN ANTIQUE FIREARM AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
921(A)(16);
(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE
THAT HOLDS MORE THAN FIVE ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;

provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition

 

[Joel]

New York went full Canadian. Never go full Canadian.

 

[Keef]

It wouldn't be far-fetched for manuafacturers to simply design a new size of ammunition that isn't specifically covered under any of these laws. Either that or some form of new reloading system that isn't a magazine but isn't detatchable, sort of like a revolver speed loader. The laws are very specific and as we all know, the more specific the outline the more loopholes there are. Simply come up with something that isn't specifically covered and there you go, problem solved.

 

[Zenith]

It wouldn't be far-fetched for manuafacturers to simply design a new size of ammunition that isn't specifically covered under any of these laws. Either that or some form of new reloading system that isn't a magazine but isn't detatchable, sort of like a revolver speed loader. The laws are very specific and as we all know, the more specific the outline the more loopholes there are. Simply come up with something that isn't specifically covered and there you go, problem solved.

See the bullet button on AR15's and other "assault weapons" in CA. They said no detachable magazines. Since I use a bullet (a tool) to press a button, I am technically disassembling the gun. The magazine is not detachable in the eyes of the law. Stupid.

It's also worth noting that the standard magazine release is a $4 part which can be shipped to my front door and installed in 30 seconds.

 

[Keef]

I've also heard of some sort of repeater mechanism - basically a sprung firing mechanism that makes the grip recoil in your hand, forcing your finger to pull the trigger repeatedly without actually letting go. It's still a semi-auto action but effectively shoots like a full-auto. I don't know much about it.

 

[Zenith]

I've also heard of some sort of repeater mechanism - basically a sprung firing mechanism that makes the grip recoil in your hand, forcing your finger to pull the trigger repeatedly without actually letting go. It's still a semi-auto action but effectively shoots like a full-auto. I don't know much about it.

Bump-fire stocks. People make them work with AR's, AK's, and handguns. The shooter pushes the gun forward, the trigger is pulled, the recoil pushes the gun backwards (sometimes on a track, depending on the stock), the continued forward push from the shooter quickly pulls the trigger again. That's the concept at least. I've never seen or used one.

You don't actually need any equipment to do this. There's a technique that involves holding your hand against your belt loop.

 

[Crash]

I've also heard of some sort of repeater mechanism - basically a sprung firing mechanism that makes the grip recoil in your hand, forcing your finger to pull the trigger repeatedly without actually letting go. It's still a semi-auto action but effectively shoots like a full-auto. I don't know much about it.

See this post.

 

[Rykon Zero]

Not sure how you guys feel about FPSRussia, but here's one of those guns with that bump fire stock.

 

[Slash]

The plus sign is you can keep your rifle. You're just not allowed to. And when somebody comes around and tries to take it, well, you're just going to have to make your decision on the spot. Either you give them your gun or you don't let them take it, however you accomplish that.

I will demand a receipt for the gun or I will not hand it over. If they enter my house by force without a warrant, I would rather die than have my rights violated. I know I am not the only one who believes this either.

I just read the law and I don't think that is correct. Here is the full text.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s2230-2013

There are two sections that describe your scenario, I'll quote.

I was under the impression that it applied to them as well, thanks for clearing that up.

Not sure how you guys feel about FPSRussia, but here's one of those guns with that bump fire stock.

Love this dude. He's got some sweet stuff.

 

[Slash]

Sorry for the double post.....apparently up in the air right now is the option of splitting New York state in half over these gun laws and several other issues. That or making New York City it's own district since it pretty much overrules the rest of the state.

 

[hogger129]

Sorry for the double post.....apparently up in the air right now is the option of splitting New York state in half over these gun laws and several other issues. That or making New York City it's own district since it pretty much overrules the rest of the state.

What's the status of the class-action lawsuit against this legislation? I honestly think "most" people will comply with the new law, or move out of state. By the time this class-action suit hits the courts, the guns will all be removed, and even then, it'll probably get appealed to the US Supreme Court, which by then will be lined with Obama's nominations who will probably rule in favor of "assault" weapon laws.

 

[Slash]

What's the status of the class-action lawsuit against this legislation? I honestly think "most" people will comply with the new law, or move out of state. By the time this class-action suit hits the courts, the guns will all be removed, and even then, it'll probably get appealed to the US Supreme Court, which by then will be lined with Obama's nominations who will probably rule in favor of "assault" weapon laws.

So far everything is looking good and they have well over 100,000 signatures from the Buffalo area alone. Right now everything is looking like the law is going to be overturned, but I have a feeling it will go to US Supreme Court. I'm not sure about that. I know a lot of people are burying there guns and hiding them as well. There is all sorts of chaos about it up here, most of my family hasn't shut up about itsince it passed. As far as I can see, people aren't going to comply with this law especially with local law enforcement also not compyling and telling people specifically not to comply with it, period. Petitions everywhere. People, including my family are sending money to lawmakers telling them to do whatever it takes to stay in office because you know damn well people that voted for this law are going to want to keep them out. I'll keep you updated on this but I haven't really heard much. Like I said everything is going extremly well and these attorneys that teamed up are fighting their asses off taking them to court. I have a feeling this is going to make national headlines if it hasn't already.

 

[jcm]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make it illegal to carry more then a certain amount of ammunition in public instead of banning guns? I have very little knowledge of how guns work other then the basics, but still, why not just make it very illegal for a Concealed Carry Person to carrying say, more then 7 bullets in a city? Heavily fine and punish those who carry more then that (unless its in a safe or something maybe). I'm not saying it has to be a 7 bullet limit or anything, but just as a concept of an idea for a law, wouldn't it make more sense to regulate the stuff that shoots out of the guns rather then ban all guns? What do you guys think about this idea compared to the idea of banning all guns?

 

[Zenith]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make it illegal to carry more then a certain amount of ammunition in public instead of banning guns? I have very little knowledge of how guns work other then the basics, but still, why not just make it very illegal for a Concealed Carry Person to carrying say, more then 7 bullets in a city? Heavily fine and punish those who carry more then that (unless its in a safe or something maybe). I'm not saying it has to be a 7 bullet limit or anything, but just as a concept of an idea for a law, wouldn't it make more sense to regulate the stuff that shoots out of the guns rather then ban all guns? What do you guys think about this idea compared to the idea of banning all guns?

If I plan to kill somebody, why would I respect that law? How would you enforce it?

Why do people who carry a concealed gun on their person have to have their safety compromised? What if I need more than 7 rounds to defend myself? When have CCP's demonstrated that having more than 7 rounds makes them a hazard to public safety?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

 

[jcm]

If I plan to kill somebody, why would I respect that law? How would you enforce it?

Why do people who carry a concealed gun on their person have to have their safety compromised? What if I need more than 7 rounds to defend myself? When have CCP's demonstrated that having more than 7 rounds makes them a hazard to public safety?

If it's pre-meditated then no you probably wouldn't follow that (or any) law, but if you're irrational and you it's just an impulse and you weren't planning on it you might've just brought one clip of ammo, unlikely but it probably happens sometimes. Repeat that statement a bunch times about how it could save lives and you might convince the ban-all-guns people that it's enough of a law to keep them safe, and it isn't too much of a comprimise for CCP's.

And, although the number of bullets would be different then what I said (7 is just being used to make my idea more clear, I'm not actually saying 7), how often are you really going to need to use your gun at all, let alone 7 bullets? And keep in mind this is just for when in cities and public places, you can have as much ammo as you want in your house or in any other secured place you can think of.

And, perhaps that number could be raised if you're a law-abiding citizen and have been a concealed carry person for a number of years, somewhat of a similar thing to how drivers liscences work, and maybe after 10 years you can carry more ammo on you? I don't think it's the best idea, but it at least seems more fair then any of the ideas the ban-all-guns people are proposing.

 

[Keef]

America: Where stupid people exist, smart people do what's required to stay safe, and the media never reports it because it doesn't suit their agendas.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If it's pre-meditated then no you probably wouldn't follow that (or any) law, but if you're irrational and you it's just an impulse and you weren't planning on it you might've just brought one clip of ammo, unlikely but it probably happens sometimes. Repeat that statement a bunch times about how it could save lives and you might convince the ban-all-guns people that it's enough of a law to keep them safe, and it isn't too much of a comprimise for CCP's.

And, although the number of bullets would be different then what I said (7 is just being used to make my idea more clear, I'm not actually saying 7), how often are you really going to need to use your gun at all, let alone 7 bullets? And keep in mind this is just for when in cities and public places, you can have as much ammo as you want in your house or in any other secured place you can think of.

And, perhaps that number could be raised if you're a law-abiding citizen and have been a concealed carry person for a number of years, somewhat of a similar thing to how drivers liscences work, and maybe after 10 years you can carry more ammo on you? I don't think it's the best idea, but it at least seems more fair then any of the ideas the ban-all-guns people are proposing.

I don't see any logic in this argument sorry. These laws only affect law abiding citizens who respect the law and use weapons to defend themselves, their families and their property. Do you really think criminals will carry a gun intending to use it in a crime and turn to their fellow scumbag and say, "Hey that's a 10 round clip, you better not use that, it's against the law" All it will do is penalize people who really respect the law, into not being able to carry the same amount of ammo in defense against a d-bag carry a 30 round clip.

As far as these shooting rampages go, I'm no expert but it seems that most of them are well planned in advance, with a build up of weapons and ammo over a period of time. I'm not sure any of them were spur of the moment types of events. Have no doubt, if a lunatic wants to kill people he's going to find a way to do it. He'll carry 30 clips of 7 rounds if he has to. You can change a clip in 1 second. He'll practice for weeks until he's got it down pat. Or maybe he'll upgrade to explosives, IED's, the info is widely available on this here internet.

 

[Zenith]

Guys quick and hopefully not condescending terminology lesson.

This is a bullet.

This is a cartridge or round.

This is the difference between magazine and clip.

If it's pre-meditated then no you probably wouldn't follow that (or any) law, but if you're irrational and you it's just an impulse and you weren't planning on it you might've just brought one clip of ammo, unlikely but it probably happens sometimes. Repeat that statement a bunch times about how it could save lives and you might convince the ban-all-guns people that it's enough of a law to keep them safe, and it isn't too much of a comprimise for CCP's.

So in order for you law to have any effect there needs to be all of the these need to happen

1. CCP holder follows 7 shot magazine law.
2. CCP holder does not bring spare magazines
3. CCP holder becomes murderous to all people in the vicinity

So basically we're looking for mass shootings (3+ people) by Concealed Carry permit holders that were not premeditated. This is a group of people which is 5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the national average.

I cannot find any mass shootings by concealed carry permit holders, let alone ones that were an on-the-spot decision.

I don't think your law would have any effect except annoy CCP holders.

And, although the number of bullets would be different then what I said (7 is just being used to make my idea more clear, I'm not actually saying 7), how often are you really going to need to use your gun at all, let alone 7 bullets? And keep in mind this is just for when in cities and public places, you can have as much ammo as you want in your house or in any other secured place you can think of.

This was discussed in the Would you shoot to kill? thread. Handguns are not the death rays that you see in movies. One shot is usually not enough to stop a threat. Combine that with the fact that modern handgun fighting doctrine teaches that you should shoot an assailant repeatedly until the cannot pose a threat to you and the fact that many shootings are against multiple attackers and 7 rounds starts to look smaller and smaller.

And, perhaps that number could be raised if you're a law-abiding citizen and have been a concealed carry person for a number of years, somewhat of a similar thing to how drivers liscences work, and maybe after 10 years you can carry more ammo on you? I don't think it's the best idea, but it at least seems more fair then any of the ideas the ban-all-guns people are proposing.

Speaking of dumb gun ideas being proposed by the ban-all-guns crowd, Diane Feinstein and Carolyn "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy introduced their new Assault Weapons Ban today!

 

[hogger129]

And, although the number of bullets would be different then what I said (7 is just being used to make my idea more clear, I'm not actually saying 7), how often are you really going to need to use your gun at all, let alone 7 bullets? And keep in mind this is just for when in cities and public places, you can have as much ammo as you want in your house or in any other secured place you can think of.

When are you going to need 7? Probably never, out and about in your day-to-day life with a handgun at your side. But the point is to be prepared if you need to use it and use it in order to stop the force that is being used against you (as the above poster stated - this topic was discussed in another thread), whether it takes 1 round or 7 rounds. Who is anybody to decide what number of rounds is adequate for my self defense or the self defense of others?

You sure can have as much ammo as you want in your home, but with laws like some of these politicians are suggesting, that may soon change. But another point I would like to bring up is that the Second Amendment still applies when you're outside of your home doesn't it? It still applies in a public place doesn't it (as long as it isn't a private establishment)? Your other Constitutional rights still apply in public don't they? So why would one's Second Amendment rights be an exception?

If it scares people, then I guess I don't know what to say except that they need to learn to live with it because it's a Constitutional right and their irrational fears aren't going to change the law or make people stop owning and carrying guns.

Speaking of dumb gun ideas being proposed by the ban-all-guns crowd, Diane Feinstein and Carolyn "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy introduced their new Assault Weapons Ban today!

I think it will go nowhere. A lot of the measures in her legislation are pretty extreme. Many Democrats won't support it simply because they want to be reelected in 2014, and then you have to remember the House of Representatives has to okay it also, and the House has a majority of pro-Second Amendment Republicans.

 

[arora]

It's a safety issue in the minds of a liberal and a disarming in the eyes of those politicians. Seeing as we have 3 times the death rate from cars, what is next?

With no right to defend yourself from tyranny there is no telling what comes next.

 

[Slash]

Unfortunately that picture speaks the truth.

 

[FoolKiller]

If it's pre-meditated then no you probably wouldn't follow that (or any) law, but if you're irrational and you it's just an impulse and you weren't planning on it you might've just brought one clip of ammo, unlikely but it probably happens sometimes.

I think you have confused mentally ill sociopathic episode with crime of passion. The guys doing the mass shooting are on some form of sociopathic or psychopathic downward spiral. They have clear thought processes, but due to either emotional stress or a pre-existing mental illness they have lost they ability to feel empathy or care about themselves. If it is bad enough that they feel they want to end their life or seek revenge in some way then they look to strike out at those they perceive as responsible for the negativity in their life. But they remain determined and focused. That's why these guys have armor and multiple guns, many that they acquired over time. If you look at cases like Columbine, those kids were planning it out weeks (months maybe?) ahead of time, building pipe bombs and designing custom levels in video games to mimic their school's layout.

When you think about it, they are far scarier than the guy who whips out a gun because you said something about his mama.