Posted on 02/15/2019 3:57:58 PM PST by rellimpank
A model 700 Remington in 30-06, IIRC. And the bitch was nolle prossed, again IIRC.
True words. When the news says arsenal on the broadcast and we chuckle because it’s BS, just think how they will describe our family cabinets.
I have 10,000 .22lr You can count it easy by the 500, 550, and 1000 boxes it’s in.
Hmmm. Will the feds be busting down the doors to steve sleestax gov mansion? Or is it steve sissiepants. The NV progs are all proud of this pile of manure. It’s been that since the petition was first passed out.
Well, if you aren’t in NV you should be okay. Until nanny bloomberg or markellygiffords shows up.
What if I’m scuba diving in the lake and find guns on the bottom?
= = =
I hope you don’t have a heart attack due to the large amount.
PS Don’t tell. Spain will claim ownership.
Yes, and more specifically in this case they won't be enforced on liberals but will on others. "It's a tool we can use" is the usual excuse for selective enforcement. If you're with The Party all will be allowed, if not, then nothing will. The Dems have gone full totalitarian and it's time we started treating them that way.
A LOT of us here understand what you are saying and AGREE with you. But the legal system here has treated the 2nd Amendment like red-headed stepchild for so long....well what you say, it’s like preaching to the already converted.
“That’s not exactly correct. It is certainly legal (under federal law and that in normal states) to purchase a gun as a gift for someone. It’s only a straw purchase if the buyer knows (or should know) the ultimate recipient is not legally allowed to purchase it directly.”
That’s not exactly correct, either. In Abramski vs. United States, nobody involved was a prohibited person at the time the purchase was made, but the conviction for straw purchasing still stood.
“Bruce Abramski, a former Roanoke, Virginia, police officer,[6][7] offered to buy his uncle, Angel “Danny” Alvarez, a resident of Pennsylvania, a Glock 19 handgun at a police discount.[6] Agreeing, Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, which stated “Glock 19 handgun” in the memo line.[6][8] Abramski proceeded to purchase the gun, and filled the required ATF Form 4473. Question 11.a. on the form asks: “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.” Abramski’s answer to this question was yes.[9] After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on Alvarez[10] and then proceeded to transfer the gun to Alvarez through the FFL.[10] Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery,[7] and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt.[6]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
Well, one could simply behave like a demolib would and ignore any court ‘noises’ and proceed to do as they like without consequence. I believe selling ones soul is a prerequisite though.
I think the standard course for the left is to just sue. :-)
Maybe you already know about this, but on the issue of guns there are some odd developments in the 9th Circuit. To make a long story short, a few years back a 3-judge panel of the 9th ruled that CAs concealed carry legislation needed to be reformed to basically a ‘shall issue’ basis. The rationale for this was that the state could ban open carry or CCW carry but not both, and the discretionary basis used to obtain a CCW is a defacto ban. The state pulled a rare legal maneuver, appealed en banc to the larger court, and the larger court overturned its own panel decision with a very strange ruling that said SCOTUS did not specify whether Open Carry or CCW was specifically legal, so both can be restricted.
The SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal.
But then another case came from Hawaii, where both CCW and Open Carry are banned. A citizen sued and said “you can’t ban both” and since HI doesn’t issue CCWs (unlike CA which issues them on a discretionary, inconsistent basis at the county levels) then Open Carry should be unregulated. This went to the 9th again and oddly enough the same judge who led the original 3-panel ruling drew to hear the case! And so what did he do? He stuck it to the court that overturned his original ruling and said “if CCW is banned, then Open Carry is legal”!
It is still unresolved, but some intrigue in the court in general. The 9th faces a problem now if they uphold the ruling then CA becomes an Open Carry state. If they overturn the ruling, then there is a conflict between Circuit Courts and the SCOTUS would be much more likely to have to hear the appeal since we cannot have 2 opposing interpretations of the same law in different Circuits. If so, SCOTUS would have to make a decision whether the states can ban and restrict both OC and CCW or if they have to permit some form of carry on a shall issue or “Constitutional” basis. A reading of the last 2A cases Heller and McDonald suggest that the court concedes a right to carry outside the home.
There is also a case coming about New York to allow residents of the city the right to take their guns outside of the city. That might provide some hints to the 9th as to how to rule.
That’s up to you. You should have whatever you want.
In today’s “listening” world, I advise folks not to talk about anything they own.
That may be overkill, but I still think it makes sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.