"Common Sense" Gun Control

[M14 Shooter]

Reagan supported gun safety measures throughout his political career. In 1986, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.” He later backed the Brady bill, expressing support for “a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California.”

Reagan Only Supported Gun Control Because He Was Senile, Prominent Gun Advocate Suggests | ThinkProgress

Stalin liked peanut butter. So what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's see if that survives the inevitable court challenge. It sounds like an Ex Post Facto law to me.

Ex post facto is retroactively applying a law after it is passed, this is simply making the future possession of something illegal. There is no reason this will loose simply because you don't understand how the law works.

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

Read the law, it makes possession of the device illegal after the law goes into effect. If you get rid of it before that point in time you are in compliance with the law, therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ex post facto is retroactively applying a law after it is passed, this is simply making the future possession of something illegal. There is no reason this will loose simply because you don't understand how the law works.

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

Read the law, it makes possession of the device illegal after the law goes into effect. If you get rid of it before that point in time you are in compliance with the law, therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

Not going to search back thru for the text you're talking about, but you're right - if they make posession of something before the date of enactment illegal, that is EPF, and violates he constitution.

 

[petro]

The leftists are under the illusion that more restrictions will somehow make us all safer.

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

The useful idiots that the leftists depend on for support are under the illusion that more restrictions on guns will somehow make us all safer; the leftists themselves believe that the state should have a monopily on force, and an armed citizenry runs contrary to this.

I do agree with you on that statement. I just see the useful idiots and the leftists as one and the same seeking to control my life and liberty. Both are equally dangerous.

 

[Oldguy]

This is the link they base what they say on:



Notice they are talking about a large capacity ammunition feeding device before 9/13/94! They claim this is talking about high capacity magazines.

Is a magazine not a feeding device? That's a general term probably used deliberately to prevent someone creating a device other than a "magazine" and claiming the law doesn't apply.

Long ago I remember this device that would feed large amounts of ammo and look at the date 9/13/94. I think they banned the device, banned making them or something. It's vague, but this part of the law isn't talking about high capacity magazines. I haven't had time to find and read that law and figured it wouldn't be in print for a few days.

Here's the bill as it was voted on. There may have been some changes made during final passage.

NY Gun Law Text

Also, using the term "feeding devices" keeps them from having to define every conceivable kind of device which might be used to feed ammunition into a firearm.

 

[Oldguy]

Ex post facto is retroactively applying a law after it is passed, this is simply making the future possession of something illegal. There is no reason this will loose simply because you don't understand how the law works.

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

Read the law, it makes possession of the device illegal after the law goes into effect. If you get rid of it before that point in time you are in compliance with the law, therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

I see your point, but am unconvinced. Even requiring someone to dispose of property which was previously legal amounts to retroactively applying the new law, in my view.

I'm sure the courts will have a chance to rule on it.

 

[Dubya]

There are 400,000,000 (estimated) guns in private ownership.

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

They have more home invasions, what's your point?

You say they do, but a home invasion can easily be prevented.

There is a problem on the internet with people who think they can just say something and it's true. What is the source of your information? To claim you have knowledge of something should key up the knowledge of how you discovered this fact. Without a source there is no point in saying it as a fact. You can say I heard and qualify, but you claim it's a fact.

The obvious point is the chances of you being a victim of homicide by gun are very small, but they 35 times more than someone from the UK. Even those small chances with a large population means 8,583 homicides by firearms in 2011. That's way too high.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know what ex post facto means and I understand how the law works. That provision of the law makes owning a certain type of feeding device BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW illegal.

If that isn't retroactively applying a new law (ex post facto), what is?

Read the law, it makes possession of the device illegal after the law goes into effect. If you get rid of it before that point in time you are in compliance with the law, therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

I see your point, but am unconvinced. Even requiring someone to dispose of property which was previously legal amounts to retroactively applying the new law, in my view.

I'm sure the courts will have a chance to rule on it.

The courts usually disagree with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read the law, it makes possession of the device illegal after the law goes into effect. If you get rid of it before that point in time you are in compliance with the law, therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

I see your point, but am unconvinced. Even requiring someone to dispose of property which was previously legal amounts to retroactively applying the new law, in my view.

I'm sure the courts will have a chance to rule on it.

The courts usually disagree with that.

Especially if there is no compensation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

They have more home invasions, what's your point?

You say they do, but a home invasion can easily be prevented.

There is a problem on the internet with people who think they can just say something and it's true

Lesse...

The fact that the NRA gets all that money from high capacity magazine manufacturers...

Indeed -- you know there's no one who can stop you from lying, so you don't stop.

 

[Oldguy]

Read the law, it makes possession of the device illegal after the law goes into effect. If you get rid of it before that point in time you are in compliance with the law, therefore it is not an ex post facto law.

I see your point, but am unconvinced. Even requiring someone to dispose of property which was previously legal amounts to retroactively applying the new law, in my view.

I'm sure the courts will have a chance to rule on it.

The courts usually disagree with that.

We shall see.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

They have more home invasions, what's your point?

You say they do, but a home invasion can easily be prevented.

There is a problem on the internet with people who think they can just say something and it's true. What is the source of your information? To claim you have knowledge of something should key up the knowledge of how you discovered this fact. Without a source there is no point in saying it as a fact. You can say I heard and qualify, but you claim it's a fact.

The obvious point is the chances of you being a victim of homicide by gun are very small, but they 35 times more than someone from the UK. Even those small chances with a large population means 8,583 homicides by firearms in 2011. That's way too high.

Statistics don't scare me.

 

[squeeze berry]

You can easily adapt a magazine to hold less rounds and I was talking about rifles, not revolvers, because they don't have a magazine. The gun illegal thing is nonsense.

have you read the proposed NY state law?

It would make any firearm capable of firing more than 7 rounds illegal to own.

I currently own a 9 shot .22 revolver. What would I do if I lived in NY?
Fill 2 cylinders with cement?

Too many firearms are designed for 10 rounds for this bill to not be restrictive on gun owneship.

What about a reproduction Henry rifle?
That holds 12

Wanna turn those into scrap metal too? Prosecute the owners?

Make some sense man.

You are the one who doesn't make sense. Just because someone isn't a complete gun kook doesn't mean they support all those things passed in NY. I've read articles on what was passed and people are allowed to keep their existing assault weapons. I haven't read the law. These are the consequences when we have the clowns running the circus. Harry Reid loves his guns, but you people act like only right-wing kooks have an interest in this. You're going to screw it up for everyone if you don't come to your sanity.

If you people know so much about guns, why don't you know it's easy to reduce magazine size? You simply place something small enough to fit within the spring and long enough to prevent adding the extra cartriges. On a round spring, just cut a properly sized wooden dowel. If you can't do it, a gun shop can easily reduce magazine size.

I'm busy and can't afford to take my mags to a gun shop

You people ? Really?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I want laws to keep guns out of criminal's hands and if makes it harder for you to get one, that's just too bad.

yeah those criminals are just so good at obeying laws

The laws aren't for the criminals to obey.

How is a law going to keep a gun out of a criminals hand when the criminal won't obey the law?

If you want to get tough on gun violence then let's get a federal law passed that anyone who commits a violent crime with a gun other than self defense gets automatic life in prison without parole.

 

[daveman]

It has to be zero, because I never said I wanted to ban any rifle.

Explain why you make this shit up! Do you have to be a liar about everything? Are you that fucked up in your head?

You don't support the President's call to ban Semi-auto assault rifles ?

No, I don't. I support a registration that has to be renewed at the local police to make sure the weapons don't get into the wrong hands.

Well, that's interesting.

Do you support having to show ID in order to vote?

 

[daveman]

I want laws to keep guns out of criminal's hands and if makes it harder for you to get one, that's just too bad.

yeah those criminals are just so good at obeying laws

The laws aren't for the criminals to obey.

The you want to disarm only law-abiding people.

That's pretty fucked up, boy.

 

[daveman]

"Common sense" gun control consists of anything that will:
-Prevent criminals from getting guns
-Not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.

If you have a proposal that meets these requirements, I will support it in full.
Please feel free to share.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[daveman]

The leftists are under the illusion that more restrictions will somehow make us all safer.

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG

The useful idiots that the leftists depend on for support are under the illusion that more restrictions on guns will somehow make us all safer; the leftists themselves believe that the state should have a monopily on force, and an armed citizenry runs contrary to this.

 

[daveman]

Reagan supported gun safety measures throughout his political career. In 1986, he signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which “banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.” He later backed the Brady bill, expressing support for “a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California.”

Reagan Only Supported Gun Control Because He Was Senile, Prominent Gun Advocate Suggests | ThinkProgress

Stalin liked peanut butter. So what?

PJ thinks that we're supposed to say, "Oh, Reagan supported it? Well, it's okay, then!!"

The people who make those sorts of posts simply can't comprehend that conservatives can think for themselves.

 

[daveman]

We have like 35 times the homicides by gun as the UK on an equal population comparison.

They have more home invasions, what's your point?

You say they do, but a home invasion can easily be prevented.

Not if you're disarmed -- like in the UK. That's why they have more home invasions.

This is called "logic". Don't be afraid. It's easy and fun!