SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Turn ‘Em In or Become a Felon! Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Starting In Delaware
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Turn ‘Em In or Become a Felon! Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Starting In Delaware Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
It wont be long until we see this in Washington State.
 
Posts: 1445 | Location: Western WA | Registered: September 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Coin Sniper
Picture of Rightwire
posted Hide Post
I'm guessing this is being challenged legally?




Pronoun: His Royal Highness and benevolent Majesty of all he surveys

343 - Never Forget

Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat

There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive.
 
Posts: 37850 | Location: Above the snow line in Michigan | Registered: May 21, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
bigger government
= smaller citizen
Picture of Veeper
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Plugugly:
These stupid laws should quit exempting law enforcement. Maybe then the stupid laws would stop being passed.


You’re asking that the entity that make laws should make the people they’re hoping to enforce the law abide by the same law as the people they’re using force upon?




“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken
 
Posts: 9125 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Veeper:

You’re asking that the entity that make laws should make the people they’re hoping to enforce the law abide by the same law as the people they’re using force upon?


I've met far too many cops who were perfectly happy with being able to own what they want, just because they have a badge, while also dropping the hammer on a citizen who got caught with something that some size large asshat of a politician didn't like the people having. So, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for.
 
Posts: 367 | Location: Southwest Missouri  | Registered: April 08, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
I guess you guys are against the provision in this law that allows CCW holders to be exempt from this, eh?




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37008 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Uppity Helot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Plugugly:

I've met far too many cops who were perfectly happy with being able to own what they want, just because they have a badge, while also dropping the hammer on a citizen who got caught with something that some size large asshat of a politician didn't like the people having. So, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for.


I agree with your opinions on this issue however such an outcome is unlikely in today’s political climate. The current crop of jagoff politicians thrive on the divisions caused by “rules for the but not for me or our enforcers” type policies they ram into law.
 
Posts: 3098 | Location: Manheim, PA | Registered: September 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I think I get your point but to answer your question, yes I am against that exemption as well.

There is only one real reason for exemptions. It's a political way to cut down opposition. It is either good law or bad. Giving exemptions and grandfather clauses it a way to make it SEEM more palatable.

Give me one good reason CCW or cops on their own time should have legal access to these mags and a homeowner shouldn't. I'll wait but there is no good reason.

If your position is that "well at least everybody doesn't get fucked" then state that and lets try to get as many exemptions as possible. It is bullshit though. Cops on their private time, veterans, ccw holders, blah blah blah, have to better reason to own these "lethal" hicap mags than ordinary citizens.

The reason you don't want cutouts for cops is because you don't want cops to enforce these bs laws knowing they are liable as well.
 
Posts: 7194 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of downtownv
posted Hide Post
Delaware gun control laws face legal challenge

https://bearingarms.com/tomkni...e3e8139f308bd8a1cb93
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: 18 miles long, 6 Miles at Sea | Registered: January 22, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by pedropcola:
I think I get your point but to answer your question


I know you do.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37008 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
delicately calloused
Picture of darthfuster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
I guess you guys are against the provision in this law that allows CCW holders to be exempt from this, eh?


Only on principle. If I get into it, the tread could get derailed



You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
 
Posts: 29503 | Location: Highland, Ut. | Registered: May 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ignored facts
still exist
posted Hide Post
I know this is the Del thread, but...

Rhode Island seems to have something brewing too. Mags have to be turned in or destroyed by tomorrow night in Rhode Island??

Source: https://www.providencejournal....-rights/69727765007/

PROVIDENCE — As the deadline approaches for gun owners to give up their high-capacity firearm magazines or face legal consequences, a federal judge on Wednesday upheld a newly enacted state law banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. refused to grant a request by a Chepachet gun store and several Rhode Island gun owners for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which on Sunday will make possession of a large-capacity gun magazine a felony in Rhode Island. McConnell found that the plaintiffs Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply; three Rhode Island residents — Mary Brimer, James Grundy and Jonathan Hirons; and, a Newport homeowner who lives in Florida, Jeffrey Goyette, had not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law was allowed to take effect, and that allowing its enforcement was in the public's interest


----------------------
Let's Go Brandon!
 
Posts: 10843 | Location: Salem. No, not that Salem.  | Registered: February 28, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Ozarkwoods
posted Hide Post
Mine are going for $100,000 each if that is too steep for them then I guess we won’t have a transaction.


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Posts: 4790 | Location: SWMO | Registered: October 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I’d love to hear that judge explain how exactly it’s “in the public interest”. That would at least imply that the “public” will derive some benefit. How many shootings have occurred in Delaware in which having the smaller magazines would have made a difference? How many lives saved? I would venture zero. For that matter, how many times has an AR15 been used at all in Delaware?

Likely the only people happy with this are the gun grabbing pols and the moms demand action variety lunatics
 
Posts: 761 | Location: Southeast Tennessee | Registered: September 30, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tn226:
I’d love to hear that judge explain how exactly it’s “in the public interest”. That would at least imply that the “public” will derive some benefit. How many shootings have occurred in Delaware in which having the smaller magazines would have made a difference? How many lives saved? I would venture zero. For that matter, how many times has an AR15 been used at all in Delaware?

Likely the only people happy with this are the gun grabbing pols and the moms demand action variety lunatics


He’s not allowed to. The court is required to accept as true whatever findings the legislature makes about the benefits of law like this as long as there is some basis for them. So if the legislature found that this law will save lives, the court has to accept that.
 
Posts: 984 | Location: Tampa | Registered: July 27, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of konata88
posted Hide Post
How do they assess value. If standard cap mags save a life where a 10 round mag wouldn’t, then the value of the mag should be the life, future earnings, care for dependents, etc.

We buy it for $30 but it’s worth much more.




"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it." L.Tolstoy
"A government is just a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned." Shepherd Book
 
Posts: 12628 | Location: In the gilded cage | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaveL:
quote:
Originally posted by Tn226:
I’d love to hear that judge explain how exactly it’s “in the public interest”. That would at least imply that the “public” will derive some benefit. How many shootings have occurred in Delaware in which having the smaller magazines would have made a difference? How many lives saved? I would venture zero. For that matter, how many times has an AR15 been used at all in Delaware?

Likely the only people happy with this are the gun grabbing pols and the moms demand action variety lunatics


He’s not allowed to. The court is required to accept as true whatever findings the legislature makes about the benefits of law like this as long as there is some basis for them. So if the legislature found that this law will save lives, the court has to accept that.
Until a higher court says no.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27902 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Nullus Anxietas
Picture of ensigmatic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
I guess you guys are against the provision in this law that allows CCW holders to be exempt from this, eh?
I am.




"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
"The dominant media is no more ``mainstream`` than leftists are liberals." -- me
 
Posts: 25897 | Location: S.E. Michigan | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Objectively Reasonable
Picture of DennisM
posted Hide Post
I think the statute is BS and destined to fail. The one-party ruling cabal in Delaware know this too, but they don't care because litigation costs won't come out of their personal accounts.

One silver lining of those "carveouts" for private citizens-- like CCW holders-- is that it will require the state to argue that a CCW holder in public with the Evil Magazine somehow is less a public policy concern than me, in my house, with NO CCW.

It's not a persuasive argument in light of the last few "big" cases. Again, they know they will lose; they just don't care. They're "doing something," Constitution be damned.
 
Posts: 2439 | Registered: January 01, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ignored facts
still exist
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DennisM:
....... Again, they know they will lose; they just don't care. They're "doing something," Constitution be damned.


Yeah, a few years ago my I mentioned to my state level senator that a state anti-gun bill up for vote was likely unconstitutional. He barked back with this rude response: "Well, we won't know if it's unconstitutional until the courts take a look at it."

Seemed irresponsible to me, but apparently that's how they think. Not his money to go to court, so he just doesn't care.


----------------------
Let's Go Brandon!
 
Posts: 10843 | Location: Salem. No, not that Salem.  | Registered: February 28, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of downtownv
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by radioman:
quote:
Originally posted by DennisM:
....... Again, they know they will lose; they just don't care. They're "doing something," Constitution be damned.


Yeah, a few years ago my I mentioned to my state level senator that a state anti-gun bill up for vote was likely unconstitutional. He barked back with this rude response: "Well, we won't know if it's unconstitutional until the courts take a look at it."

Seemed irresponsible to me, but apparently that's how they think. Not his money to go to court, so he just doesn't care.


I think they know damn well, that their actions are unconstitutional, but it is law until the time and money is spent to overturn them.
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: 18 miles long, 6 Miles at Sea | Registered: January 22, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Turn ‘Em In or Become a Felon! Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Starting In Delaware

© SIGforum 2024