State Weapons Ban?

  • Paulski
    “Ever Wonder Why There Are No Democrats On Mount Rushmore ? "
    Posts: 1194
    #1132389

    Like it or not, this is exactly why our government is set up with a balance of power model of government. It is designed to make it difficult to legislate in the hopes that only good laws are signed off.

    In this situation though, much like the federal government recently, when you hand both legislative houses and the executive branch to one party, essentially there is no opposing party, the majority party can pass any bill they want as long as they have enough support.

    It is only their fear of not getting re-elected that might hold them back.

    Please note – I do not own a gun, but do not consider what is being considered here the solution.

    cdm
    Oronoco, SE. MN.
    Posts: 771
    #1132390

    Not sure I follow your statement about “thats why what you’re considering here is the solution” ???

    AllenW
    Mpls, MN
    Posts: 2895
    #1132391

    Laws will basically keep honest people honest and criminals won’t care one way or the other.

    Be nice if people realized it’s people not guns, but that’s probably to much to ask.

    Anybody think any of the mass murders were commited by people who worried about laws?

    Foolish law makers.

    Al

    1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1132392

    Quote:


    I never understand why people always want more laws and restrictions.

    Unfortunately I know from experience that our current legal system has to many laws on the books that they currently don’t use to prosecute offenders. I know of one young woman who supplied firearms to a known felon who ended randomly shooting up a Rochester neighborhood. This woman never faced any legal action. Despite our best efforts to get everyone to prosecute (even call to the US Attorney General).


    Maybe if all goes well and adversaries do not stand in the way of the new soon to be nominated director B. Todd Jones of the ATF to be confirmed the ATF’s muzzle for enforcement and organization be lifted and reinforced so they can do what their supposed to do.
    How likely will this happen without a fight by adversaries is yet to be seen but if all the rhetoric that been thrown out there is an indication it is not going to be pretty.

    Chris
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 1396
    #1132402

    Quote:


    I just heard on the radio that the state of MN legislation is bringing up discussion about a high capacity magazine ban and AR ban of their own in Minnesota?

    Has anyone else heard this yet? I have to work today but if it is true it looks like I have to start writing some letters.

    Someone please tell me I was hearing things.


    Buy as much as you can now so you can defend yourself when the gov’t REALLY turns on us!

    Buzz
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1132409

    Here some laws that they don’t enforce:

    1. FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS AND BRADY FINDINGS1
    Provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC §921 et seq, prohibit firearm possession by certain domestic violence perpetrators.
    Protective Orders
    It is a federal crime for persons subject to qualifying protective orders to possess firearms or ammunition. In addition to Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) Restraining Orders, firearms restrictions may apply to orders issued pursuant to the Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act (EPPDAPA), civil Stalking cases, and pretrial release conditions and probation conditions in criminal cases.
    To qualify under 18 USC §922(g)(8), a protective order must:
    1)Have been issued after a hearing of which respondent/defendant received actual notice and at which respondent/defendant had an opportunity to participate;
    2)Restrain respondent/defendant from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of respondent/defendant or a child of the intimate partner or respondent/defendant or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or the partner’s child; and
    3)Include a finding that respondent/defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.
    Federal law defines “intimate partner” for purposes of §922(g)(8) as a spouse or former spouse of respondent/defendant, a person who is a parent of the child of respondent/defendant, or a person who cohabits or has cohabited with respondent/defendant2. 18 USC §921(a)(32).
    The federal prohibition lasts for the life of the protective order. 18 USC §922(g)(8).
    Law enforcement officers and military personnel are partially exempted from the restriction in 18 USC §922(g)(8) in that they are permitted to use a service weapon in connection with that governmental service. 18 USC §925(a)(1). This exemption is often referred to as the “official use exception.”
    Under 18 USC §922(d)(8), it is a federal crime to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm or ammunition to a person if the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such person is subject to a qualifying protective order.
    3
    1 “Brady findings” are judicial findings to indicate that the terms of a protective order or a misdemeanor conviction may disqualify a respondent or defendant from possessing or other use of firearms and ammunition under federal law; document is labeled “Federal Firearms Findings (Brady)” and often is called a “Brady certificate.”
    2 Although the term “cohabit,” within the meaning of “intimate partner,” is not defined, the word is sufficiently precise in ordinary and common meaning. U.S. v. Chapman, WL 2403791 (W. Va. 2010). “Cohabit” implies a sexual relationship. See Webster’s II New College Dictionary 218 (2001).
    Firearms Prohibitions in Domestic Violence Cases — Page
    Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence
    18 USC §922(g)(9) makes it a crime for persons who have been convicted of qualifying misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to purchase, receive, ship, transport, or possess firearms and ammunition. This prohibition is a lifetime ban[/color. A qualifying “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” (MCDV) is defined by 18 USC §921(a)(33) as an offense that is a misdemeanor under state, federal or tribal law and:
    1)Has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon;
    2)Is committed by a current or former spouse of the victim; parent or guardian of the victim; a parent of the victim’s child; a person who is cohabiting or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim4;
    3)Defendant was represented by counsel or knowingly and intelligently waived counsel; and 4)If defendant was entitled to a jury trial, the case was tried to a jury or defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to jury trial.
    Note that the prohibition of 18 USC §922(g)(9) is specifically excluded from the official use exception. 18 USC §925(a)(1). Thus, a member of the armed forces or a law enforcement officer who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction is not able to possess a firearm or ammunition, even while on duty.
    Under 18 USC §922(d)(9), it is a violation of federal law to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person if the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such person has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    lhprop1
    Eagan
    Posts: 1899
    #1132419

    Quote:


    I own shotguns as well. Was referring to assualt weapons.


    Is there such thing as a love weapon? How about a tickle weapon?

    Didn’t think so. All weapons by their very definition are “assault” weapons.

    I’d be really interested to see BCA stats on the number of “assault weapons” used in crimes in Minnesota in the last 10 years. I’m guessing it’s so miniscule, it almost doesn’t even exist.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1132423

    Quote:


    Here some laws that they don’t enforce:

    1. FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS AND BRADY FINDINGS1
    Provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC §921 et seq, prohibit firearm possession by certain domestic violence perpetrators.
    Protective Orders
    It is a federal crime for persons subject to qualifying protective orders to possess firearms or ammunition. In addition to Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) Restraining Orders, firearms restrictions may apply to orders issued pursuant to the Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act (EPPDAPA), civil Stalking cases, and pretrial release conditions and probation conditions in criminal cases.
    To qualify under 18 USC §922(g)(8), a protective order must:
    1)Have been issued after a hearing of which respondent/defendant received actual notice and at which respondent/defendant had an opportunity to participate;
    2)Restrain respondent/defendant from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of respondent/defendant or a child of the intimate partner or respondent/defendant or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or the partner’s child; and
    3)Include a finding that respondent/defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child or by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.
    Federal law defines “intimate partner” for purposes of §922(g)(8) as a spouse or former spouse of respondent/defendant, a person who is a parent of the child of respondent/defendant, or a person who cohabits or has cohabited with respondent/defendant2. 18 USC §921(a)(32).
    The federal prohibition lasts for the life of the protective order. 18 USC §922(g)(8).
    Law enforcement officers and military personnel are partially exempted from the restriction in 18 USC §922(g)(8) in that they are permitted to use a service weapon in connection with that governmental service. 18 USC §925(a)(1). This exemption is often referred to as the “official use exception.”
    Under 18 USC §922(d)(8), it is a federal crime to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm or ammunition to a person if the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such person is subject to a qualifying protective order.
    3
    1 “Brady findings” are judicial findings to indicate that the terms of a protective order or a misdemeanor conviction may disqualify a respondent or defendant from possessing or other use of firearms and ammunition under federal law; document is labeled “Federal Firearms Findings (Brady)” and often is called a “Brady certificate.”
    2 Although the term “cohabit,” within the meaning of “intimate partner,” is not defined, the word is sufficiently precise in ordinary and common meaning. U.S. v. Chapman, WL 2403791 (W. Va. 2010). “Cohabit” implies a sexual relationship. See Webster’s II New College Dictionary 218 (2001).
    Firearms Prohibitions in Domestic Violence Cases — Page
    Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence
    18 USC §922(g)(9) makes it a crime for persons who have been convicted of qualifying misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to purchase, receive, ship, transport, or possess firearms and ammunition. This prohibition is a lifetime ban[/color. A qualifying “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” (MCDV) is defined by 18 USC §921(a)(33) as an offense that is a misdemeanor under state, federal or tribal law and:
    1)Has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon;
    2)Is committed by a current or former spouse of the victim; parent or guardian of the victim; a parent of the victim’s child; a person who is cohabiting or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim4;
    3)Defendant was represented by counsel or knowingly and intelligently waived counsel; and 4)If defendant was entitled to a jury trial, the case was tried to a jury or defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to jury trial.
    Note that the prohibition of 18 USC §922(g)(9) is specifically excluded from the official use exception. 18 USC §925(a)(1). Thus, a member of the armed forces or a law enforcement officer who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction is not able to possess a firearm or ammunition, even while on duty.
    Under 18 USC §922(d)(9), it is a violation of federal law to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person if the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such person has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


    Buzz, this is a website…you expect anyone to read that?

    stratos_375
    Southern Wisconsin
    Posts: 113
    #1132429

    I’m not sure who posted it earlier about which part a Nazi Germany we should be afraid of? Well it is not the Nazi Germany that the Allied forces disarmed, which was the Hitlers German army, the Nazi Germany we should take note of is the one that diarmed the people in 1919 and the physical house searches conducted in 1920 that totally diarmed the people.

    We as all gun owners should stand together against gun control of all kinds. The arguement that congress did good by enacting regulations for clean air, clean water and stricter DUI laws doesn’t fall under the same argument, there is nothing in the constitution written about them, therefore they are not a “right”.

    No where in the second amendment is it written the right to bear arms is to protect our right to hunt. It is for self protection and self preservation…from an out of control government. Take some time and read the Federalist papers and you will see the true intent of our founding fathers.

    For those that would bring up the argument that back when the bill of rights was drafted it was musket vs musket. If the liberals were to succeed in taking our gun rights, especially semi-auto guns we would be in no position to take up arms against the government as our founding fathers had intended. I am not advocating full autos, howitzers or scuds for everyone but legally owned semi auto “assault weapons” are really no different than your trusty Remington model 7400 or 1100.

    Those of you that “just don’t believe that could happen” only need to look to 1919 and 1920 and that was not that long ago.

    We as gun owners should be banning together pushing for legislators to look for solutions for the root causes not the proximal cause and not on gun control! Guns have never been the root cause to any problem but it has been our key to this free country and maybe again someday in the future.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1132437

    Quote:


    It is for self protection and self preservation…from an out of control government.


    It is for self protection and self preservation…from ANY out of control government. This includes domestic and foreign governments.

    Good post Mr. Stratos

    swlund
    Cuba City, WI
    Posts: 395
    #1132441

    This an old line from waaay back but is still true today. The government will keep fixing something until it is broke. This is what will happen with the gun laws, AIS, etc. Just my opinion.

    cdm
    Oronoco, SE. MN.
    Posts: 771
    #1132473

    Quote:


    Quote:


    You are right on with this one Taz. It bothers me that there are fellow sportsman on the opposite side of this issue. Do any of you remeber anything about Hilter’s Nazi regime ? Once any goverment disarms you they can have there way with you ! nuff said


    LOL, nice comparison….you are not being disarmed by the govt. limiting the size of the clip you put in your assault weapon that you apparently need as an entitled American.

    No, I don’t believe this law will stop any killings but I also don’t believe you need a semi automatic weapon….just because your an American….get a life…what a stupid comment. Get concerned about something that really matters and stop acting like you are a victim of the govt


    You shouldnt be so quick to judge. By the way its not entitlement nor is it a god given right its a constitutional right to arm myself however I might choose. Written as the 2nd amendment. So Mkto you might want to educate yourself a little more on this subject before you start spoutin off

    buck-slayer
    Posts: 1499
    #1132481

    Quote:


    Quote:


    but I also don’t believe you need a semi automatic weapon


    Uh huh. You don’t want one, that is fine. but don’t tell me I can’t have one.

    I assume you are referring to all semi-autos? Pistol, shotgun and rifle?



    I have a 10/22 with a 30 round clip I just wish I could gun down more than one racoon at at time.

    jetdriver
    Hudson WI
    Posts: 491
    #1132486

    If someone hits you with a stick, it becomes an assualt weapon. That term is used way to loosely.
    If guns kill people, shouldn’t we blame spoons for people being fat?

    BBKK
    IA
    Posts: 4033
    #1132495

    Quote:


    Quote:


    Quote:


    but I also don’t believe you need a semi automatic weapon


    Uh huh. You don’t want one, that is fine. but don’t tell me I can’t have one.

    I assume you are referring to all semi-autos? Pistol, shotgun and rifle?



    I have a 10/22 with a 30 round clip I just wish I could gun down more than one racoon at at time.


    Your 10/22 with 30 round clip will be illegal if obama gets his way.

    1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1132502

    Quote:


    BrianK, I realize that actual information is a bit of a stretch for an IDO forum. But I’m a tad tired of the dumb’ed down one liners used by the guano crazy right wing anti-government, anti-American rhetoric.
    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580586_434643906602118_23433880_n.png


    Many of us are Buzz. To be fair the portrayal of said firearms or guns and the views of those in general by the opposing view only contributes to the fire.
    Were left with the loudest screamers and those that cast out the most damaging assertions to control the subject.

    1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1132505

    Quote:


    Quote:


    BrianK, I realize that actual information is a bit of a stretch for an IDO forum. But I’m a tad tired of the dumb’ed down one liners used by the guano crazy right wing anti-government, anti-American rhetoric.

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580586_434643906602118_23433880_n.png


    That’s your rebuttal to “dumb” one liner? O-K then.


    Dumb’ed down was initiated as context you elected to change the context by omitting certain parts of context therefore contributing to the manipulation of the course of a discussion and giving false representation of said view.

    I say annex Canada. From the power of the imperial attitudes from the aggressiveness of Truman to present day to out cast these extremist from both sides of view. They are infiltrates to the old ways of imperialism trying to control the world. Hows that for off the wall? Only to match the insanenesa to what I see,,

    Send them to Camerica

    TazTyke
    Central Minnesota
    Posts: 473
    #1132507

    Quote:


    Those of you that “just don’t believe that could happen” only need to look to 1919 and 1920 and that was not that long ago.


    I’m not sure you need to go back that far? Didn’t they confiscate all kinds of guns during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans for the safety of the citizens? I think many of the legal guns that were confiscated are still in the governments possession or have been destroyed? Maybe someone else knows more detail but I thought I had read that someplace.

    1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1132519

    Powerful imaging. Oddly this was a state controlled action.
    The decree lately is for States rights.

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #1132548

    I don’t generally watch the liberal media anymore so maybe I’ve simply missed this. I find it ironic that there is an all out war on black rifles when in fact they weren’t even used in this Newtown shooting?

    Does anyone have any other reports confirming this?

    http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

    joemama
    North St Paul
    Posts: 392
    #1132659

    Quote:


    Why don’t you guys write the NRA and organize a march on the capitol? The NRA could give free tee shirts for the marchers with NRA across the chest.

    ( All the gun guys can relax, this was said tongue in


    NRA doesnt give free anything

    eyejacker
    Hudson, Wisconsin
    Posts: 1890
    #1132675

    Got to go to president Santa Claus for the free stuff!

    flatfish
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 2105
    #1132685

    Quote:


    Quote:


    It is for self protection and self preservation…from an out of control government.


    It is for self protection and self preservation…from ANY out of control government. This includes domestic and foreign governments.

    Good post Mr. Stratos


    Yes, very well done!

    buckshot
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 1654
    #1132953

    I hadn’t seen that yet Kooty…thanks for posting.

    http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

    Looks like the Sandyhook hoax post got deleted, I couldn’t find it but for those that watched it….didn’t the Med Examiner expressly say the wounds were inflicted by a long gun?? Pretty tough if it was in the trunk.

    eisert
    Posts: 76
    #1132959

    Instead of banning more guns and limiting the size of a clip you can have, why don’t we just make it illegal for lazy people to have kids? Seems to me like every time a shooting in a school happens, people start marching around saying “you don’t need that gun” and “this could have been avoided by making that illegal”. Rather than more anti-gun legislation, maybe these tragedies can be avoided by parents becoming more active in their kids lives. Seems to me that if your kid is planning to go to a school and kill a bunch of people, there are probably some warning signs that an attentive parent should catch. So maybe we should be marching around saying “This could have been avoided by spending more time with your kid, instilling a stronger system of values, and paying closer attention to what they have been doing.” Just my opinion.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.