It may be self incriminating to say that the next idiot I hear yammer about “common sense” gun control will get my ten-and-a-half up his backside. Minus the cartridge case, which I pulled out and left at the range. The kick in the pants is only a misdemeanor; the rimfire case in the boot is a felony.
Borepatch
Common Sense Gun Control
March 8, 2009
[H/T to Roberta X.
I am of the opinion that we should pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for there to be victimless crimes. Any politician or law enforcement officer who proposes or enforces such a law should be convicted of a felony, heavily fined, forbidden to ever receive any money derived from taxes, and loose their right to vote forever.
Several years ago I was traveling in California and looked up the laws in the local library (this was, essentially, pre-Internet). Among their “common sense” gun laws was a law against having a loaded gun in public. The definition of loaded was ammunition in contact with any part of the gun–regardless of whether it was the correct caliber for the gun. Hence you could have a .22 LR cartridge epoxied to the frame of your .45 caliber 1911 and it was considered “loaded” by the State of California.
One could make a case for the anti-gun people being incredibly stupid for things like this. But another argument could be made that they know exactly what they are doing. It makes firearm ownership so risky that people are discouraged from owning them. I call it Huffman’s Rule of Firearms Law.–Joe]
Interestingly, that law has been judge-rewritten; People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 states that the ammunition has to be in a position where it can be fired. The case in particular was about an unloaded shotgun with shells in a buttstock cuff holder, and the judge basically said the law can’t redefine loaded to mean something totally absurd.
Thanks for the link and the QOTD, Joe. I added an update to my post, because your Law tickled my synapses:
Regarding Gun Control, you should never attribute stupidity to that which is adequately explained by malice.
Given how easily one can inadvertently break the law, “risky” is absolutely the correct term.
“But another argument could be made that they know exactly what they are doing. It makes firearm ownership so risky that people are discouraged from owning them.”
I think you’re right on the money, Joe. have a look.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2023867/posts
Kid picks up a spent blank .30-06 (or I guess it could have been a .308) case at a memorial day ceremony. And like most kids who find something really cool, brings it in to class the next day.
You may note, and I’ll confirm that the law Borepatch cites were NEVER brought up in this case. Why? I strongly suspect that shining a light on a dumb law might bring public attention to it, and potentially a demand for a repeal. They would much rather never actually USE the law, so they might keep it on the books.
One thought on who ACTUALLY reads the books will show you WHY.
I know many people who I’ve taken shooting and REALLY enjoyed it, but decided it wasn’t worth scaling the massive mountain of paperwork, laws and training classes just to buy a .22 plinker.
Mission Accomplished for the anti-gun forces.
And they get offended when we say they simply want to ban all guns and all gun rights. I see no evidence to the contrary on that issue.
This explains some of Moscow’s finest harassing me for legally open carrying while in line with a gallon of milk at the grocery store. Instead of pulling me aside out of public(not that they should have) they decided to pull me out of line with four officers (two of which were angled away from me with their hands on their pistols) to check my ID and to inform me of the store’s unposted “no guns” policy.
The goal here was less to protect the store’s interests and more to make an example of me in front of all the people at the store.
I’m sure there are a lot of stupid laws on the books, but one which would make good “common sense” that’s still lacking is background checks on all gun transfers. The inconvenience to you legitimate gun owners, and I’m presuming most of you are, would be offset by the inconvenience to the criminals who take advantage of this, dare I say it, loophole.
I know I’m risking a kick in the ass from some of you tough-talking gun lovers, but that’s what I’d call a common sense gun law.
MikeB302000. If you at all give a shit about the gun debate, and are not a common troll. (Which you are because you’ve been repeating this same bullshit for years, and you never change your tune despite our responses….FYI as I’ve said before, places like Mass HAVE universal background checks…we also have a thriving black market, thanks for playing!)
If you care about the debate, name two gun control laws that are useless and you support their repeal.
I would assert you simply want to ban all guns, but know you are powerless to do it all at once, so you shall forever request “Just one more law”.
Poor thing still can’t tell the difference between a dressing-down and physical violence; I can just about see my way to supporting a law that prevents mikewhatever from touching firearms, ever, as he doesn’t understand the difference between words and actions.
The Inconvenience,
Which grocery store? And who called it in? The story or a customer?
We do about an equal amount of shopping at Safeway and Winco. I’ll try to shift our buying habits and let them know why if one of them called it in.
Note to others: The Inconvenience lives in the same small town that my family does.
Every ballot should include a question “Hang the incumbent until dead?” I suspect many incumbents would win re-election AND a hanging.
Yes, because so many moonshiners were deterred by the Prohibition.
Wait. Wrong analogy.
So many weed farmers are deterred by the War on Drugs.
Wait. Not so much, huh?
Tell you what, Sparky – you come up with an anti-gun law that would only target criminals, would not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding, and would actually work, and we will talk. Until then… well, you really are not in a terribly strong negotiating position, now, are you?
The assault weapon ban gave me an idea for a constitutional amendment:
All federal laws sunset after 10 years unless reviewed, debated, revised, and passed by a majority of the Congress.
If nothing else, think of how little mischief our elected representatives could create anew if they were constantly having to review what they’d done 10 years prior.
Heh, a better question for Sparky, is “How would universal background checks have stopped you from owning guns illegally?”
But he’s here to troll, not to have a conversation or even to change minds.
be offset by the inconvenience to the criminals who take advantage of this, dare I say it, loophole…
Wait? So the criminals who are already buying, carrying, and using guns illegally are going to be “inconvenienced” by alaw making it illegal for two law-abiding folks to engage in a firearms transaction.
I pity the fool who lives in a magical fairy-tale world where such things pass as “rational” or “reasonable”
and at risk of sounding like a parrot, the laws in place weren’t enough of an inconvenience to MikeB302000 to keep him on the straight and narrow. I suspect a few more laws broken by him would have made little difference. Heck I bet he couldn’t even name all the laws he’s broken.
Case, and point, why gun control laws simply don’t work, and are absolutely NOT “Common Sense”. Also the fact that he won’t even defend his own suggestions proves enough of a point.
The California law prohibiting pink or fluorescent green guns was also ruled unconstitutional, although the statute itself is still on the books.
The California law prohibiting pink or fluorescent green guns was also ruled unconstitutional, although the statute itself is still on the books.
“The inconvenience to you legitimate gun owners, and I’m presuming most of you are, would be offset by the inconvenience to the criminals who take advantage of this, dare I say it, loophole.”
Not at all, Mikeb302000. We are all reasonable, gentle souls here. We don’t have to bluster and threaten because if our lives are endangered we can protect ourselves and our loved ones. The kick in the ass you are running the risk of will come from your 8th grade English teacher who taught you better than to write such a garbled sentence.
Exactly when did we amend the Constitution to allow Congress, or the states the right to infringe upon our Civil rights? I can’t find that in my copy of the Constitution!