Jump to content

unclenunzie

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    202

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by unclenunzie

  5. Posted

    Indeed. The real issue is of how 2A jurisprudence will stand alongside other "fundamental" and enumerated rights. Prior restraint is the biggest problem with all these firearm laws serving public safety claims by the state. These laws are based on the idea that, we won't allow you to have this (guns/ammo/capacity/firepower) or to do that (carry in public), because then you might be facilitated in harmful acts (which are already illegal). But such restraints should offend the constitution and be struck down.

     

    RANT: What of the references requirement for PPP/FPID? How does this comport with the right to arms, and how does a neighbor or friend further the investigation of a person's suitability to own firearms? Assuming for the moment that it is constitutional to investigate prospective gun owners, why should references be required at all? Why isn't it enough that a person has no conviction record for serious crimes, or for drug use, or for mental illness commitment? How does a lay person add value to such investigations?

    RANT OFF

  9. Posted

    These bills serve purely political aims. They are proposed, and most will die before reaching the governors desk. But some might get there. If he signs them, he hurts his himself with the national electorate. If he vetoes them, the proposers can point at all the safety things they tried to accomplish but that nasty governor Christie stopped them.

     

    If they can hurt legitimate gun owners in the process, that's gravy.

  10. Posted

    I felt this was this month's "balance" piece for the NY Times on gun rights / control. Balancing out 20-30 anti rights articles and opinion pieces. I don't doubt his experience, and can relate to much of what he says.... I just don't accept his willingness for greater controls and bans on popular rifles and things.

     

    No one here would reasonably expect the NY Times to publish such a piece if it didn't serve their overall agenda. But it can, with proper critical commentary, serve as a discussion starter with anti gun people.

  11. Posted

    Here's a variation I received when I wrote against any new restrictions:

     

    Dear xxxxx,

     

    Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding additional firearms legislation in the wake of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.

    As the father of two, this tragedy struck painfully close to my heart and painfully close to the heart of every parent. No parent should ever have to bear the unspeakable pain of losing a child, especially to this type of tragedy. I join with every American in expressing our deep and abiding grief as a nation and our deepest -- most heartfelt -- condolences to the families of the victims.

    As your Senator, I strongly defend the rights of citizens to use firearms responsibly for recreational purposes or protection of one's family and home. At the same time, I vigorously support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of individuals that wish to use them against society.

    Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. On this, as with any other issue, there are many different views. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind. I invite you to visit my website......... etc, etc.....

  16. Posted

    I think OP is trying to get rid of the detachable magazine as a way to allow for one other evil feature instead. I don't think this would work in NJ, not because bullet button is a California thing but because NJ won't see it as a non-detachable magazine semi-auto rifle. I suppose if a metal mag were welded permanently to the lower that might make it a fixed mag semi. IANAL. Sucks, this NJ nonsense does.

  17. Posted

    He wouldn't go to a pro 2A event without planning something rational. He has a tendancy to be in your face and unsubtle, which people like about him. This coupled with the press conference yesterday, and no sports related task force members, says to me he may say something mildly positive. But the long view says in 60 days he will receive task force recommendations, and when he states his official position, he'll be able to say he listened to 2A people. Just my thoughts this morning.

  22. Posted

    I think that in THIS country, the origins of modern gun control were meant to disarm black americans, at a time when southern whites were most afraid of them. Prior to that, in NYC, the hated Sullivan law requiring discretionary licensing for guns was used to target Italians. Perhaps the deeper analysis from salon has a kernel of truth to it, but in actual effect and outcome the purpose was the same - to prevent disfavored people from being able to defend themselves against agents of the state, and particularly when the state was implementing criminally abhorrent policies. Today the aims are different, but still WRONG, and against the very fabric of our fundamental rights.

     

    I keep telling people if a government (such as NYS) can trample our guaranteed rights and not be held accountable, then NO RIGHT IS SAFE in the future.

  24. Posted

    The text from the web site reads: "SOPMOD butt stock is permanently fixed in the fully-extended position". However the OP has said a common tool can be used to unfix it. If it were me, I'd want to see it fixed the way NJ magazines are said to be fixed, with permanent changes that common tools could not alter without destroying it. But hey I'm not brave that way. I do not trust much about NJ interpretation so I try to stay clear of the edges.

×
×
  • Create New...