NC's new proposed gun law

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 07:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Figured I would expand on this a bit. As someone with a concealed carry permit I am able to carry my pistol any way I damn well please in my car in Virginia. Prior to 2010, without a concealed carry permit, I would have been required to keep the pistol and ammunition separate with the pistol locked up and/or out of reach. This is no longer the law, though, thanks to NRA lobbying.


Here is the question I have, though, and that is if violent crime has been on the decline since 1993, a year before the AWB, and firearm ownership has really been on the rise in the past decade, since the sunset of the ban, does that not show that the correlation is not one of causation?

Absolutely, which is why most, if not all, proposed gun control laws are met with derision.

(06-24-2016, 08:44 AM)xxlt Wrote: Sure. I pointed out the opinions that matter most - those of the courts - disagree with my own. I have not researched the opinions of constitutional scholars or linguists, presumably those most likely to study such an issue.

The framers intent for military power rest with the people seems preserved by various elements of our government today - we don't have a "junta" and various civilians exercise considerable control over the military, including the civilian "commander in chief." But it also seems clear, as I stated, the framers wanted that military power resting with the people "well regulated." Arguing against licensing, registrations, minimum standards for arm ownership, and firearms training in the name of the second amendment seems counter to the framers' intent - guaranteeing the preservation of the free state via a well regulated militia. Joe Terrorist, Jane Housewife, and Billy the Lunatic each being able to buy a machine gun and six cases of ammo at 7-11 and go out in the parking lot and start choosing targets seems pretty Un-American to me. How does it serve a well-regulated militia and how does it preserve the free State?

You're getting there, and I don't mean that facetiously, but "the people" in their intent was not a representative of the people such as the CnC, it was the individual citizens.  All of the things you mentioned are fine in the abstract but each and every one can be as onerous as the individual crafting them wants them to be.  The reason 2A proponents fight most, if not all, proposed restrictions is because they know that the latest demand is not the end of the road.  Much like the anti-abortionists the anti-gun crowd is trying to nibble away at gun rights a piece at a time so their true intent isn't apparent until it's too late.  I'm sure you're inclined to dismiss this statement as paranoia which I can understand.  One need look no further than my own state, CA, to see the exact phenomena in action.  

Back in the late 80's early 90's CA banned all magazines with a higher than ten round capacity.  At that time they allowed all such mags in the state to be grandfathered in and flat out promised they would not seek to ban them in the future.  The CA House just passed a bill banning all magazines higher than ten rounds.  In addition they ban the transfer of any firearm without a background check.  That sound reasonable?  Sure, except transfer as they define it means I can't loan my firearm to a friend or family member for them to take to the range without committing a felony.  They also passed a ban on all long guns that can take a detachable magazine of any kind, so pretty much 90% of them.  They also want a background check for ammunition purchases and they want to limit how much you can purchase.  They also want to ban all internet ammunition purchases.

It's death by a thousand cuts and the ultimate goal is confiscation and disarmament.  What does it say about these people that they want to turn my father, a 26 year Army vet who served two tours and change in Vietnam and then worked for Boeing for 24 years, into a felon?  The man has never committed a crime in his life but he's not giving up property that's been in his family for generations because some opportunist, pandering asshat legislators want to pretend they just made a difference.  Bottom line, gun owners don't trust politicians on this issue and they are right to, just as pro-choice people do and for the exact same reasons.

[Rotobeast]

(06-24-2016, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, which is why most, if not all, proposed gun control laws are met with derision.



You're getting there, and I don't mean that facetiously, but "the people" in their intent was not a representative of the people such as the CnC, it was the individual citizens.  All of the things you mentioned are fine in the abstract but each and every one can be as onerous as the individual crafting them wants them to be.  The reason 2A proponents fight most, if not all, proposed restrictions is because they know that the latest demand is not the end of the road.  Much like the anti-abortionists the anti-gun crowd is trying to nibble away at gun rights a piece at a time so their true intent isn't apparent until it's too late.  I'm sure you're inclined to dismiss this statement as paranoia which I can understand.  One need look no further than my own state, CA, to see the exact phenomena in action.  

Back in the late 80's early 90's CA banned all magazines with a higher than ten round capacity.  At that time they allowed all such mags in the state to be grandfathered in and flat out promised they would not seek to ban them in the future.  The CA House just passed a bill banning all magazines higher than ten rounds.  In addition they ban the transfer of any firearm without a background check.  That sound reasonable?  Sure, except transfer as they define it means I can't loan my firearm to a friend or family member for them to take to the range without committing a felony.  They also passed a ban on all long guns that can take a detachable magazine of any kind, so pretty much 90% of them.  They also want a background check for ammunition purchases and they want to limit how much you can purchase.  They also want to ban all internet ammunition purchases.

It's death by a thousand cuts and the ultimate goal is confiscation and disarmament.  What does it say about these people that they want to turn my father, a 26 year Army vet who served two tours and change in Vietnam and then worked for Boeing for 24 years, into a felon?  The man has never committed a crime in his life but he's not giving up property that's been in his family for generations because some opportunist, pandering asshat legislators want to pretend they just made a difference.  Bottom line, gun owners don't trust politicians on this issue and they are right to, just as pro-choice people do and for the exact same reasons.

Africkinmen !

Did they also eliminate the bullet-button option ?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 01:11 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Africkinmen !

Did they also eliminate the bullet-button option ?

Yes, as proposed.  Any detachable magazine, no matter how it's detached, equals a banned firearm.  Right now they're grandfathering the old ones in, but it's only a matter of time before they come for those too.  Given that long guns account for a minimal percentage of firearm related homicides, less than knives and other bladed weapons btw by about three times, they're really making a difference!  We all know the criminals will follow this law right?




https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

[Belsnickel]

Do long guns with detachable magazines really make up 90% of long guns? I have several long guns and none of them have a detachable magazine. This is one of those times when I realize that I am an odd duck with these sorts of things.

[*bfine32*]

(06-24-2016, 03:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do long guns with detachable magazines really make up 90% of long guns? I have several long guns and none of them have a detachable magazine. This is one of those times when I realize that I am an odd duck with these sorts of things.

Most have moved on from the musket.

[Benton]

(06-24-2016, 03:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do long guns with detachable magazines really make up 90% of long guns? I have several long guns and none of them have a detachable magazine. This is one of those times when I realize that I am an odd duck with these sorts of things.

That seems high, but I would guess a .22 would be among the most popular rifles purchased. And there are lots of models with 7 rounds clips.

I haven't hunted in years, but when I did it was usually a lever action 30-30 or 30-06.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 03:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do long guns with detachable magazines really make up 90% of long guns? I have several long guns and none of them have a detachable magazine. This is one of those times when I realize that I am an odd duck with these sorts of things.

I obviously don't have a source for an accurate percentage, but it's certainly the vast majority.  Shotguns don't meet the criteria, older bolt action rifles and your M1 Garand would be exempt (for now) and your single shot rifles, mostly the .22 rifles that Benton mentions above.  You and I both know that the vast majority of long guns have a detachable mag.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2016, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I obviously don't have a source for an accurate percentage, but it's certainly the vast majority.  Shotguns don't meet the criteria, older bolt action rifles and your M1 Garand would be exempt (for now) and your single shot rifles, mostly the .22 rifles that Benton mentions above.  You and I both know that the vast majority of long guns have a detachable mag.

Honestly, I didn't. I rarely look at long guns because I have all I need and I have owned two with detachable mags in my life, none currently. I have probably owned between 20 and 25 in all during my life.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2016, 03:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most have moved on from the musket.

I have as well. Muzzle-loading long rifle, thank you very much.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-24-2016, 05:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have as well. Muzzle-loading long rifle, thank you very much.

I've never owned one, but have used one.  When I still lived in Ohio, you could only use a gun for hunting deer one week per year, and it had to be shotgun with either buck shot or slug.  Traditionally, it is the week after Thanksgiving.  However, there is another period of time where you are free to use primitive weapons, including black powder rifles, commonly known as muzzle loaders.  An old football teammate and hunting buddy had an extra that he let me use one year.  I have to say, for a "primitive" weapon, I was very impressed with how well it performed.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2016, 06:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I've never owned one, but have used one.  When I still lived in Ohio, you could only use a gun for hunting deer one week per year, and it had to be shotgun with either buck shot or slug.  Traditionally, it is the week after Thanksgiving.  However, there is another period of time where you are free to use primitive weapons, including black powder rifles, commonly known as muzzle loaders.  An old football teammate and hunting buddy had an extra that he let me use one year.  I have to say, for a "primitive" weapon, I was very impressed with how well it performed.

I was given one as a gift for some work I did for a local historical society/museum. It is what is commonly called a Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifle, but made by a local gun smith here who specializes in making these rifles just as they did over 200 years ago. It's a tool as well as a piece of art. It rarely gets used because it is so authentic to the old style that I have to melt the lead for the ball to fire from ot because the size is non-standard and I have a mold to make the balls that fit the barrel.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-24-2016, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was given one as a gift for some work I did for a local historical society/museum. It is what is commonly called a Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifle, but made by a local gun smith here who specializes in making these rifles just as they did over 200 years ago. It's a tool as well as a piece of art. It rarely gets used because it is so authentic to the old style that I have to melt the lead for the ball to fire from ot because the size is non-standard and I have a mold to make the balls that fit the barrel.

Now, that is something special.  Nice that you were gifted that.  The modern ones, save for the muzzle loading aspect, shoot pretty much like regular guns, almost.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2016, 09:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Now, that is something special.  Nice that you were gifted that.  The modern ones, save for the muzzle loading aspect, shoot pretty much like regular guns, almost.

Yeah, what is typically called an in-line might as well be a single shot modern rifle. Takes a lot of the challenge out of it, IMHO.

[fredtoast]

(06-24-2016, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's death by a thousand cuts and the ultimate goal is confiscation and disarmament.

This logic makes no sense at all.

You can not be opposed to reasonable laws (background checks, ownership responsibility, etc) just ebcause of what might happen in the futre.

Back the good laws and oppose the bad ones.  Nothing else makes sense.

[fredtoast]

(06-24-2016, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  We all know the criminals will follow this law right?

More ridiculous logic.

The NRA propaganda has worked well on this one.

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2016, 03:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: More ridiculous logic.

The NRA propaganda has worked well on this one.

It is similar to the logic that we should not outlaw abortion because it will force women to have illegal procedures. 

[fredtoast]

(06-25-2016, 03:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is similar to the logic that we should not outlaw abortion because it will force women to have illegal procedures. 

Yes.