PDA

View Full Version : Article Aldon Smith - three felony weapon charges


Atlanta Dan
10-09-2013, 03:48 PM
Steelers, Falcons, and Giants are having awful seasons as teams, but leader in the clubhouse for worst 2013 by an individual NFL player (off the field category) is Aldon Smith

Aldon Smith to face three felony assault weapon charges

49ers linebacker Aldon Smith threw a house party in June 2012, and in the aftermath of that, two separate people have sued Smith claiming they were shot at the same party where Smith was stabbed.

On Wednesday, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office confirmed that it had filed three felony charges of possession of an assault weapon against Smith. The news first was reported by NBC Bay Area.

The DA's office said that Smith is expected to surrender later this month. If convicted, Smith could face up to four years and four months in jail.

When it comes to anything involving Smith the 49ers remain in turtle mode

“We recognize the serious nature of this situation as does Aldon and will continue to monitor it closely,” the 49ers said in a statement, via the Baltimore Sun."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24057594/aldon-smith-to-face-three-felony-assault-weapon-charges

Let's see if assault weapons charges are regarded by Goodell to be as serious as being investigated for but not charged with sexual assault

Fire Haley
10-09-2013, 04:50 PM
He is fucked - their citizens should realize by now that California is not a free country

Ammunition, magazines, and five rifles including -- an Armalite AR10-T .308 caliber rifle, a Bushmaster ACR rifle chambered for 5.56mm NATO and a Bushmaster Carbon-15 .223 caliber -- were found in Smith's home by Santa Clara County Sheriff's deputies following the June 29 party. Prosecutors said none of the weapons were registered with the California Department of Justice.

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2013, 06:15 PM
He is fucked - their citizens should realize by now that California is not a free country

Ammunition, magazines, and five rifles including -- an Armalite AR10-T .308 caliber rifle, a Bushmaster ACR rifle chambered for 5.56mm NATO and a Bushmaster Carbon-15 .223 caliber -- were found in Smith's home by Santa Clara County Sheriff's deputies following the June 29 party. Prosecutors said none of the weapons were registered with the California Department of Justice.

Because not being able to stockpile assault weapons is the end of freedom?:sofunny:

43Hitman
10-09-2013, 06:42 PM
Those aren't assault weapons, those are semi-automatic sporting rifles. Every single one of those weapons can be fired just as fast as your normal over the counter semi-automatic pistol. Hell some pistols have more punch than those rifles.

Now I'm not condoning his behavior, but the weapons aren't committing the crime and outlawing them only leaves them in criminal hands.

43Hitman
10-09-2013, 06:45 PM
Also, since when is having 5 weapons stockpiling?

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2013, 07:05 PM
Also, since when is having 5 weapons stockpiling?

What number passes that threshold for you?

It is not as if he is an avid hunter and uses the weapons for sport

And as far as California is concerned one is one more than the limit

43Hitman
10-09-2013, 07:22 PM
What number passes that threshold for you?




There is no number that passes that threshold for me since its our right to have weapons.

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2013, 08:11 PM
There is no number that passes that threshold for me since its our right to have weapons.

Well some (including me) would argue that right is not without restrictions

Even if it was legal that still would not mean it was not stockpiling - canned goods are legal but that does not mean it is not possible to stockpile canned goods

But thanks for the clarification :drink:

43Hitman
10-09-2013, 08:46 PM
Well some (including me) would argue that right is not without restrictions

Even if it was legal that still would not mean it was not stockpiling - canned goods are legal but that does not mean it is not possible to stockpile canned goods

But thanks for the clarification :drink:

What sort of restrictions?

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2013, 09:20 PM
What sort of restrictions?

Justice Scalia laid out what permissible restrictions could be in the Heller case that ruled the DC absolute ban on handguns unconstitutional under the Second Amendment but that that right is not without limits

I will quote from it rather than just link to what someone else said Scalia said

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” .

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. .... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The DC Circuit Court subsequently held that while DC could not have an absolute ban on handguns it could prohibit large capacity ammo magazines and assault weapons with out violating the 2nd Amendment and the holding of the Supreme Court in Heller.

we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large capacity magazines

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290

That of course does not mean those sorts of weapons and ammo must be outlawed, only that they can be - and I personally am glad DC was allowed to outlaw them

But if someone wants to go hunting go for it (several of my cousins are avid hunters). If you want a firearm in the house to protect yourself that is a legitimate concern.

I just do not think you need an assault weapon or a large magazine of ammo for legitimate activities and that a lot of carnage may be avoided if those items are banned

Others disagree:chuckle:

Fire Haley
10-09-2013, 10:00 PM
I personally am glad DC was allowed to outlaw them


hahahahaha

of yeah - like murders in D.C magically disappeared when they put restrictions on guns

you city slickers sure are dumb

tony hipchest
10-09-2013, 10:36 PM
sounds like the hicks in the sticks are the dumb fucks. I understand the hillbillies need an arsenal to protect against the rampant crime in the bush and to gather squirrel to eat but the rules are just the same.

It is certainly fine to be an avid collector of 15 automobiles but at least have them registered and insured. At the VERY least, dont take them out drunk driving and hot rodding and mowing people down.

Killer is a champion of aldons cause. They are like BFFs. How fitting is that? Doped up Aldon is about as smart as a pile of pebbles.

Atlanta Dan
10-09-2013, 10:39 PM
hahahahaha

of yeah - like murders in D.C magically disappeared when they put restrictions on guns

you city slickers sure are dumb

Next I suppose you are going to say the government is restricting personal liberty by infringing upon the rights of the folks in the heartland to use meth and oxy?:chuckle:

Fire Haley
10-10-2013, 12:16 AM
go ahead - move to fucking California if you love it so much

better yet, suck on your communist tit somewhere else - I hear North Korea has the harshest restrictions on gun ownership for it's peasants - go there

tony hipchest
10-10-2013, 12:36 AM
I cant believe you took your grubby little fingers off of vladimir putins nutsack long enough to type that.

I get tired of hearing pussies whine about the imaginary obama boogie man coming to take their little pea shooters away. Maybe they should move to new mexico where the govt straight up takes all of their ranch land to turn it into a nuclear proving ground and prevent their pansy asses from speaking German or Japanese today.

You east coast hicks couldn't even hack it out here. You cry about tony hip chest being internet mod and we give people like billy the kid a badge of the law.

Lmao

43Hitman
10-10-2013, 05:50 AM
Justice Scalia laid out what permissible restrictions could be in the Heller case that ruled the DC absolute ban on handguns unconstitutional under the Second Amendment but that that right is not without limits

I will quote from it rather than just link to what someone else said Scalia said

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” .

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. .... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The DC Circuit Court subsequently held that while DC could not have an absolute ban on handguns it could prohibit large capacity ammo magazines and assault weapons with out violating the 2nd Amendment and the holding of the Supreme Court in Heller.

we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large capacity magazines

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290

That of course does not mean those sorts of weapons and ammo must be outlawed, only that they can be - and I personally am glad DC was allowed to outlaw them

But if someone wants to go hunting go for it (several of my cousins are avid hunters). If you want a firearm in the house to protect yourself that is a legitimate concern.

I just do not think you need an assault weapon or a large magazine of ammo for legitimate activities and that a lot of carnage may be avoided if those items are banned

Others disagree:chuckle:

Thanks for your perspective. You're right, we do disagree, but not to the extent that we need to insult each other. :drink:

GBMelBlount
10-10-2013, 06:18 AM
Next I suppose you are going to say the government is restricting personal liberty by infringing upon the rights of the folks in the heartland to use meth and oxy?:chuckle:

Did the gun restrictions help in D.C?

I personally don't own a gun but I am curious if there are any statistics that show definitively, one way or another, if restricting gun ownership decreases crime or murders...assuming that is the true intent.

Fire Haley
10-10-2013, 07:38 AM
since when is having 5 weapons stockpiling?

When you live in the Peoples Republic of California

Fire Haley
10-10-2013, 07:39 AM
It is not as if he is an avid hunter and uses the weapons for sport

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with hunting

JonM229
10-10-2013, 07:49 AM
5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns (http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html)

I think this part of the article is most fitting to Aldon Smith, and many gun collectors (or stockpilers):

What about the people who actually buy guns? Statistics tell us that fewer people are buying guns, but those people are buying more of them. To the grad students on the anti-gun side of the debate, this looks like a bunch of crazy rednecks, stocking their militia for the coming war on Obamacare. Why else would the NRA be fighting to get states to legalize silencers if they don't want to shoot people and keep it a secret?

But people familiar with gun culture will recognize it as something far sillier: a bunch of grown men collecting firearms like little girls collect Barbie dolls (we're not being insulting -- it's a running joke among gun enthusiasts).

Take another look at the graph of murder by weapon type. Notice what's missing? Assault rifles. They barely chart -- even when lumped in with "other guns." The NRA isn't trying to arm a militia. They want to be able to sell silencers for the same reason Mattel sells hundreds of accessories for the Barbie Dream House. Hell, you can trick out your AR-15 with all pink "furniture" if you want to.

So the rural gun owner in Wyoming buys the biggest, sexiest assault rifle he can find and tricks it out with all the accessories from the catalog, but he never actually uses it because nobody is going to break into his house because he lives in fucking Wyoming. If he wants to murder his wife, he'll get the revolver from the nightstand -- he's not going to go dig out and assemble his huge assault rifle. So why did he buy it? For the same reason his daughter will buy a dinette set for her Barbie Dream House even though she will never get to eat actual food at that table: for the fantasy.

SteelCityMom
10-10-2013, 08:03 AM
Justice Scalia laid out what permissible restrictions could be in the Heller case that ruled the DC absolute ban on handguns unconstitutional under the Second Amendment but that that right is not without limits

I will quote from it rather than just link to what someone else said Scalia said

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” .

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. .... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The DC Circuit Court subsequently held that while DC could not have an absolute ban on handguns it could prohibit large capacity ammo magazines and assault weapons with out violating the 2nd Amendment and the holding of the Supreme Court in Heller.

we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large capacity magazines

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290

That of course does not mean those sorts of weapons and ammo must be outlawed, only that they can be - and I personally am glad DC was allowed to outlaw them

But if someone wants to go hunting go for it (several of my cousins are avid hunters). If you want a firearm in the house to protect yourself that is a legitimate concern.

I just do not think you need an assault weapon or a large magazine of ammo for legitimate activities and that a lot of carnage may be avoided if those items are banned

Others disagree:chuckle:

Assault weapons are already heavily restricted by the federal gov't. Unless, of course, you are referring to the media definition of semi-auto weapons. In that case, you need to understand that it's semi-auto handguns that are largely responsible for gun murders (both in single instances and in mass shootings). Yet most of the focus is on semi-auto rifles, for whatever reason.

And we've discussed before this particular section of DC v. Heller, and the main focus on this section should be, what constitutes "in common use" and "dangerous and unusual". Because I think you have to know that Scalia probably doesn't interpret what would constitute "dangerous and unusual" in the same way you would.

SteelCityMom
10-10-2013, 08:07 AM
Oh, and Aldon Smith is an idiot. I may not agree with the gun laws in California, but he lives there and should know them himself. Move to a gun friendly state if you want to own those kinds of weapons. Dumbass.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 08:15 AM
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with hunting

Actually it does

[T[he Court also said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for other “lawful purposes,” such as hunting, but self-defense is the “corelawful purpose” protected Heller , 554 U.S. at 630."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67622927/DC-Circuit-Rejects-Challenge-to-DC-Gun-Laws

But as discussed above, it has been held that the right to bear arms does not extend to the right to bear assault weapons

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 08:46 AM
And we've discussed before this particular section of DC v. Heller, and the main focus on this section should be, what constitutes "in common use" and "dangerous and unusual". Because I think you have to know that Scalia probably doesn't interpret what would constitute "dangerous and unusual" in the same way you would.

Well we do not know what Justice Scalia would say because the issue has not been put before him - but we do know how DC Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg (who was nominated by Reagan to the Supreme Court but had to withdraw after it turned out he had smoked marijuana) interpreted those terms to mean in his opinion affirming the constitutionality of the DC law banning “assault weapons,” which were defined to include "certain brands and models of semi-automatic rifles, pistols,and shotguns, such as the Colt AR-15 series of rifles, as wellas semi-automatic firearms with certain features, regardless of make and model, such as a semi-automatic rifle with a “pistolgrip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” or a “thumbhole stock.”

Judge Ginsburg wrote

The plaintiffs contend semi-automatic rifles, in particular the AR variants, are commonly possessed for self-protection in the home as well as for sport. They also argue magazines holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed for self-defense and for other lawful purposes and that the prohibition of such magazines would impose a burden upon them. Specifically, they point out that without a large-capacity magazine it would be necessary, in a stressful situation, to pause in order to reload the firearm...

Heller suggests “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned because they are “dangerous and unusual... The Court had previously described the “AR-15” as “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” Although semi-automatic firearms, unlike automatic M-16s, fire “only one shot with each pull of the trigger,” ... semi-automatics still fire almost as rapidly as automatics. See Testimony of Brian J. Siebel, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, at 1 (Oct. 1, 2008) (“30-round magazine” of UZI“was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic”). Indeed, it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between the AR-15 and the M-16....

Judge Ginsburg also addressed the contention in the dissenting opinion that under Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller any prohibition on assault weapons would be unconstitutional

In arguing Heller requires holding unconstitutional the District’s ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, the dissent relies heavily upon the idea that Heller
held possession of semi-automatic handguns is “constitutionally protected.” The Court’s holding in Heller was in fact narrower, condemning as unconstitutional a prohibition of all handguns, that is, a ban on the “entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense.554 U.S. at 628. A narrower prohibition, such as a ban on certain semi-automatic pistols, may also “fail constitutional muster,” but that question has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court....

We simply do not read Heller as foreclosing every ban on every possible sub-class of handguns or, for that matter, a ban on a sub-class of rifles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67622927/DC-Circuit-Rejects-Challenge-to-DC-Gun-Laws


The Supreme Court declined to grant cert and hear an appeal of that decision

JonM229
10-10-2013, 08:51 AM
Judge Douglas Ginsburg (who was nominated by Reagan to the Supreme Court but had to withdraw after it turned out he had smoked marijuana)

So much for becoming a Supreme Court Justice

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 08:57 AM
So much for becoming a Supreme Court Justice

No worries - times change - so do not let that hold you back:thumbsup:

When Clarence Thomas was nominated he fessed up to marijuana use

The White House said today that Judge Clarence Thomas, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, had smoked marijuana while in college, but that the President had decided that it was "a minor matter" that should not disqualify him.

Judy Smith, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Judge Thomas had smoked marijuana "several times" while he was an undergraduate at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., "and perhaps once" when he was at Yale Law School.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/11/us/thomas-smoked-marijuana-but-retains-bush-support.html

SteelCityMom
10-10-2013, 01:28 PM
A planet where apes evolved from men?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjRHrkybyEo

SteelCityMom
10-10-2013, 01:37 PM
Well we do not know what Justice Scalia would say because the issue has not been put before him - but we do know how DC Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg (who was nominated by Reagan to the Supreme Court but had to withdraw after it turned out he had smoked marijuana) interpreted those terms to mean in his opinion affirming the constitutionality of the DC law banning “assault weapons,” which were defined to include "certain brands and models of semi-automatic rifles, pistols,and shotguns, such as the Colt AR-15 series of rifles, as wellas semi-automatic firearms with certain features, regardless of make and model, such as a semi-automatic rifle with a “pistolgrip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” or a “thumbhole stock.”

Judge Ginsburg wrote

The plaintiffs contend semi-automatic rifles, in particular the AR variants, are commonly possessed for self-protection in the home as well as for sport. They also argue magazines holding more than ten rounds are commonly possessed for self-defense and for other lawful purposes and that the prohibition of such magazines would impose a burden upon them. Specifically, they point out that without a large-capacity magazine it would be necessary, in a stressful situation, to pause in order to reload the firearm...

Heller suggests “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned because they are “dangerous and unusual... The Court had previously described the “AR-15” as “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” Although semi-automatic firearms, unlike automatic M-16s, fire “only one shot with each pull of the trigger,” ... semi-automatics still fire almost as rapidly as automatics. See Testimony of Brian J. Siebel, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, at 1 (Oct. 1, 2008) (“30-round magazine” of UZI“was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic”). Indeed, it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between the AR-15 and the M-16....

Judge Ginsburg also addressed the contention in the dissenting opinion that under Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller any prohibition on assault weapons would be unconstitutional

In arguing Heller requires holding unconstitutional the District’s ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, the dissent relies heavily upon the idea that Heller
held possession of semi-automatic handguns is “constitutionally protected.” The Court’s holding in Heller was in fact narrower, condemning as unconstitutional a prohibition of all handguns, that is, a ban on the “entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense.554 U.S. at 628. A narrower prohibition, such as a ban on certain semi-automatic pistols, may also “fail constitutional muster,” but that question has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court....

We simply do not read Heller as foreclosing every ban on every possible sub-class of handguns or, for that matter, a ban on a sub-class of rifles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67622927/DC-Circuit-Rejects-Challenge-to-DC-Gun-Laws


The Supreme Court declined to grant cert and hear an appeal of that decision

I already know about how a semi-auto rifle fires. I own some myself. Personally, it would be a burden on me to have to rely on a shotgun for self defense on multiple attackers. An AR is lighter, has less recoil, and is easy to reload (if need be). I do know how to properly fire shotguns, but it would not be my first, or even my second choice in self defense. They are heavy, and take time to reload. For a well built guy, that might not be a problem...but I'm a 135lb female who doesn't spend every day in the gym...an AR is the right fit for me against multiple assailants.

I also already know about the laws in various states and cities. My contention is that they hinder people, not help them. Focus on keeping any dangerous weapon out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill. I'm all for that, as is any rational person. There are benefits beyond hunting to have semi-auto weapons though. And the crap about pistol grips is just that...political crap. Most politicians and judges just want to look tough on something, anything, to gain votes. Most people don't realize that a protruding pistol grip is nothing serious, and any good shooter can get by without it. Same goes for magazine capacity. I shouldn't have to post any videos about how quickly some people can change out magazines. They are out there if you want to see them.

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 02:04 PM
I already know about how a semi-auto rifle fires. I own some myself. Personally, it would be a burden on me to have to rely on a shotgun for self defense on multiple attackers. An AR is lighter, has less recoil, and is easy to reload (if need be). I do know how to properly fire shotguns, but it would not be my first, or even my second choice in self defense. They are heavy, and take time to reload. For a well built guy, that might not be a problem...but I'm a 135lb female who doesn't spend every day in the gym...an AR is the right fit for me against multiple assailants.

I also already know about the laws in various states and cities. My contention is that they hinder people, not help them. Focus on keeping any dangerous weapon out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill. I'm all for that, as is any rational person. There are benefits beyond hunting to have semi-auto weapons though. And the crap about pistol grips is just that...political crap. Most politicians and judges just want to look tough on something, anything, to gain votes. Most people don't realize that a protruding pistol grip is nothing serious, and any good shooter can get by without it. Same goes for magazine capacity. I shouldn't have to post any videos about how quickly some people can change out magazines. They are out there if you want to see them.

I quoted Ginsburg not to act as if I was lecturing on what constitutes a particular type of weapon but to confirm what types of bans have been upheld by the courts. I apologize if that unintentionally came across as pedantic:drink:

We can differ on whether it is good public policy but the question I thought we were discussing is whether a ban upon assault weapons violates the 2nd Amendment -
Scalia's opinion in Heller did not specifically address the issue, although he has not said how would rule if it were to come before the Court

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted....

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

My personal view is that part of our current governmental dysfunction is that any action by a federal, state or local government with which the opposing side disagrees (that applies to Dems as well as the GOP) is granted no presumption of legitimacy and is immediately subjected to a court challenge by the losing side.

Most public policy issues presumably are supposed to be resolved by elected officials, not federal judges with lifetime appointments, but unfortunately that is not how the system has evolved. The arguments you raise on firearms are exactly the ones elected officials, not judges, should resolve

In an interview with Justice Scalia in New York Magazine this week, (if anyone wants to get some insight into him I would recommend it), he sums up my view on everything being turned into an issue of constitutional rights

A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack! [Pounds his fist.]—STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! ­STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL … [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one.:sofunny:

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

SteelCityMom
10-10-2013, 02:21 PM
I quoted Ginsburg not to act as if I was lecturing on what constitutes a particular type of weapon but to confirm what types of bans have been upheld by the courts. I apologize if that unintentionally came across as pedantic:drink:

We can differ on whether it is good public policy but the question I thought we were discussing is whether a ban upon assault weapons violates the 2nd Amendment -
Scalia's opinion in Heller did not specifically address the issue, although he has not said how would rule if it were to come before the Court

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted....

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

My personal view is that part of our current governmental dysfunction is that any action by a federal, state or local government with which the opposing side disagrees (that applies to Dems as well as the GOP) is granted no presumption of legitimacy and is immediately subjected to a court challenge by the losing side.

Most public policy issues presumably are supposed to be resolved by elected officials, not federal judges with lifetime appointments, but unfortunately that is not how the system has evolved. The arguments you raise on firearms are exactly the ones elected officials, not judges, should resolve

In an interview with Justice Scalia in New York Magazine this week, (if anyone wants to get some insight into him I would recommend it), he sums up my view on everything being turned into an issue of constitutional rights

A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional. I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack! [Pounds his fist.]—STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! ­STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL … [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one.:sofunny:

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

I completely agree that it should up to local elected officials and not judges. Not to sound like a complete nutjob, but there are agendas, deeper than most of us will ever see or understand, from judges and highly elected officials.

I just get tired of gun owners being pigeonholed. For the most part, we're regular people who just know how we would defend ourselves in extreme, and sometimes not so extreme, situations. For the most part, we aren't crazy basketcases who hate the gov't and all it stands for, yet that is how many of us are painted.

I've been attacked by multiple assailants. Before I could even get on my phone and dial 911. I want the best chance for myself and my daughter. That involves a weapon that I know is reliable for me, and is in common use at the time. I want that equalizer, and that is my right. Chances are, any assailant isn't going to have a weapon better than mine (I don't have dealings with drug cartels, so actual assault weapons are not going to be used against me).

Screw the political bullshit. Those people are just trying to buy votes. I'm more concerned about my future safety. It's the right of every person (not convicted of felonies or heinous mental acts) to decide what would commonly protect their own safety. That is what the 2nd amendment is about to me, and many others.

Fire Haley
10-10-2013, 04:25 PM
the right to bear arms does not extend to the right to bear assault weapons

oh do tell us just what an "assault weapon" is

http://cdn.fulldisclosure.net/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/391-AWs.jpg

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 04:53 PM
oh do tell us just what an "assault weapon" is

http://cdn.fulldisclosure.net/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/391-AWs.jpg

I gave you how it was defined in the DC Circuit Court decision that said it did not violate the Second Amendment to ban those weapons - you may want to read it - then again maybe not

As Justice Scalia said in the interview to which I linked previously, whether a particular weapon is or is not protected under the Second Amendment needs to be decided on case by case basis

Other than pretty pictures what is your support for the contention that however you define assault weapons those firearms are subject to Second Amendment protection? :coffee:

Fire Haley
10-10-2013, 05:17 PM
I don't care what the courts say - what do you say?



What is an "assault weapon"?

tell me

btw - both of those guns in the pic are "assault weapons" under the California ban

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 06:26 PM
I don't care what the courts say - what do you say?

What is an "assault weapon"?

tell me

btw - both of those guns in the pic are "assault weapons" under the California ban

I will go with the definition under the proposed 2013 legislation that the NRA torpedoed

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

These specifically-named firearms

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

:flap:

Your turn - what is your basis for contending banning any of these weapons would violate the Second Amendment?

Supreme Court precedent is not going to help you out much. Justice Scalia was asked after The Joker shot up the movie theater in Colorado whether his decision in Heller would prohibit regulating specific firearms and the best he could do for yu was to say this

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

Or do you agree there is no constitutional prohibition upon banning these weapons and that it is purely a matter of who has the muscle to prevail in Congress:noidea:

Fire Haley
10-10-2013, 07:51 PM
Or do you agree there is no constitutional prohibition upon banning these weapons and that it is purely a matter of who has the muscle to prevail in Congress:noidea:


You think this is a society thing? That you can control a population by telling them what they can and can't do?


Guns aren't the problem - it's the criminals that use them that are.

and there's always another side to the issue...


I'll only show some highlights here, to avoid crushing your tiny eggshell mind


7 Reasons Why An Assault Weapons Ban Will Fail to Reduce Violent Crime

1. It didn't work before.

According to studies of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the ban had little effect on reducing gun crime. A Department of Justice study by Roth and Koper of the original ban points out,"We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim."

In addition, the study says,"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."

2. The Assault Weapons Ban targets the wrong firearms.

The vast majority of crime is conducted with handguns and not firearms which are deemed assault weapons. For example, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6220 were committed by handguns, and only 323 were committed by rifles. Most assault weapons are a subset of the rifle group.

"Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and local data sources examined for this and our prior study" and "the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall."

3. The ban targets guns with mostly cosmetic features.

the original Assault Weapons Ban targeted firearms for mostly cosmetic features, as does the current one. The 2004 Chrisopher Koper study of the original ban reinforces this fact: "The gun ban provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on outward features or accessories that have little to do with the weapons’ operation."

6. Large capacity magazines don't matter.

As seen in the Virginia Tech shooting and also Columbine, the shooters carried a large supply of additional magazines and did not go through their cache of ammo before hey had stopped their rampages. Magazine capacity matters little, as switching magazines only takes a few seconds — in this case, less than half a second.

7. Strict gun control measures do not address the root causes of violent crime.

An assault weapons ban focuses on a small subset of firearms that are rarely used in crime. Gun control laws limit the law-abiding citizen's ability to obtain a firearm, but not those of the criminal. Some of the cities with the worst gun crime are those that have strict gun control laws (Detroit, Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, etc.). This is not to say that violent crime proliferates where gun control is strong, but that strong gun control does not stop the proliferation of violent crime.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime

teegre
10-10-2013, 11:32 PM
And the locker room spreads throughout the forum....

Atlanta Dan
10-10-2013, 11:42 PM
And the locker room spreads throughout the forum....

Once a Steeler gets arrested on a weapons charge or takes a position on the shutdown it will conquer the forum:thumbsup:

teegre
10-11-2013, 12:22 AM
Once a Steeler gets arrested on a weapons charge or takes a position on the shutdown it will conquer the forum:thumbsup:

Especially if it's BB or Tomlin... or Wallace. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
10-11-2013, 01:34 AM
funny because James Harrison and Brett Keisel are both avid hunters and gun collectors who responsibly obey the law. It's never been a problem.of course neither of them have the character flaws of Aldon Smith or Aaron Hernandez.

MasterOfPuppets
10-11-2013, 02:39 AM
I just do not think you need an assault weapon or a large magazine of ammo for legitimate activities and that a lot of carnage may be avoided if those items are banned

Others disagree:chuckle:
i hope it works out as well as banning drugs has .. :noidea:

IowaSteeler927
10-11-2013, 04:21 AM
You think this is a society thing? That you can control a population by telling them what they can and can't do?


Guns aren't the problem - it's the criminals that use them that are.

and there's always another side to the issue...


I'll only show some highlights here, to avoid crushing your tiny eggshell mind


7 Reasons Why An Assault Weapons Ban Will Fail to Reduce Violent Crime

1. It didn't work before.

According to studies of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the ban had little effect on reducing gun crime. A Department of Justice study by Roth and Koper of the original ban points out,"We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim."

In addition, the study says,"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders."

2. The Assault Weapons Ban targets the wrong firearms.

The vast majority of crime is conducted with handguns and not firearms which are deemed assault weapons. For example, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6220 were committed by handguns, and only 323 were committed by rifles. Most assault weapons are a subset of the rifle group.

"Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and local data sources examined for this and our prior study" and "the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall."

3. The ban targets guns with mostly cosmetic features.

the original Assault Weapons Ban targeted firearms for mostly cosmetic features, as does the current one. The 2004 Chrisopher Koper study of the original ban reinforces this fact: "The gun ban provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on outward features or accessories that have little to do with the weapons’ operation."

6. Large capacity magazines don't matter.

As seen in the Virginia Tech shooting and also Columbine, the shooters carried a large supply of additional magazines and did not go through their cache of ammo before hey had stopped their rampages. Magazine capacity matters little, as switching magazines only takes a few seconds — in this case, less than half a second.

7. Strict gun control measures do not address the root causes of violent crime.

An assault weapons ban focuses on a small subset of firearms that are rarely used in crime. Gun control laws limit the law-abiding citizen's ability to obtain a firearm, but not those of the criminal. Some of the cities with the worst gun crime are those that have strict gun control laws (Detroit, Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, etc.). This is not to say that violent crime proliferates where gun control is strong, but that strong gun control does not stop the proliferation of violent crime.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime

Couldn't agree more. Gun bans are a joke. The two main things I think need to be changed to lessen or stop the mass shootings?

1. Changes to the Mental Health System. I work in a County Jail and I can tell you first hand that I deal with people that are flat out insane. The problem with this country is that there really isn't a system in place to hold and help people with mental health issues. Jails and Prisons are glorified Psych Wards and eventually the crazies get out of jail and are released back out onto the street. A common theme amongst these mass shootings seems to be that each of the shooters has a history of mental health problems and they weren't getting the proper care in dealing with their mental health issues. We need more facilities where these people can be placed and effectively taken care of by mental health professionals.

2. Stricter restrictions on just who can buy a firearm (of any kind) in the first place. Subjects with a history of mental health issues should be barred from purchasing firearms. There needs to be some kind of database similar to the criminal databases that keep track of an individual's criminal history, that firearms dealers and sheriff's offices across this country can utilize in keeping firearms out of the hands of people with mental health issues. I also think that anyone who has any kind of history of violent offenses, be it a misdemeanor offense or a felony for that matter should be barred from purchasing firearms. Felons obviously aren't allowed but to the best of my knowledge you can have Misdemeanor Domestic Abuse and Assault convictions on your record and still purchase firearms.

Banning weapons themselves does nothing and history has proven that already. The State of Illinois and the City of New York have some of the strictest Anti-Gun laws and yet they have the highest murder rates in the U.S. Weapons bans aren't the answer. You're only keeping weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens when you ban weapons. Criminals don't follow laws, and they're not going to start following them because of some gun ban.

I deal with some of the worst, scum sucking, lowlifes there are working in my profession and I can tell you I don't go much of anywhere without my concealed carry weapon. People who don't work in corrections, or law enforcement for that matter are blissfully ignorant of just how many shitty people there are in this world. If there's one thing I'm not going to be, it's a victim. I know just how awful these kinds of people are and when you start working in this field for the first time it hits you like a ton of bricks just how bad some human beings are to one another. You can never be too safe, and personally I'd recommend to anyone that they should either have a firearm in their home for home defense, or they should think about obtaining a permit to conceal carry.

tony hipchest
10-11-2013, 08:52 AM
want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9YITOeJyFY

Wal-Mart $859

i guess my 100 round calico .22 "fun gun" makes the list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HeiuXGSLgI

i used to go through a 500 round carton of shells in less than 15 minutes just plinking back when ammo was cheap and actually available. you cant even get a carton nowadays unless youre at the door in line as soon as it hits the shelf.

Fire Haley
10-11-2013, 08:56 AM
Happiness is a warm gun

Atlanta Dan
10-11-2013, 09:58 AM
i hope it works out as well as banning drugs has .. :noidea:

It apparently had an impact in Australia but the U.S. obviously is not Oz

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html

And figuring out the impact of possession of certain types of firearms obviously requires assessing a lot of variables

It would appear the NRA intends to discourage those studies from being conducted

The characteristics of gun violence in the U.S. are largely unknown because key federal health agencies have been banned from conducting such research since the mid-1990s.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/06/170844926/debate-rages-on-even-as-research-ban-on-gun-violence-ends

And then it can argue studies that justify further regulations of firearms have not been conducted

tony hipchest
10-11-2013, 10:13 AM
if you ask me, theres only 1 good and legitimate reason to collect/stockpile weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqZ62JpgHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4smSRz8BYk

but i certainly dont want them in the hands of people like aldon, hernandez, or worse, the fuktards who shoot up schools and theaters in colorado.

Fire Haley
10-11-2013, 12:38 PM
i used to go through a 500 round carton of shells in less than 15 minutes just plinking back when ammo was cheap and actually available

the cheapest 500 block of .22 rimfire going is around $30 - $50

you just have to hit them fast when it goes on sale

http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rimfire/22lr/

pistol
10-11-2013, 02:35 PM
He is fucked - their citizens should realize by now that California is not a free country

Ammunition, magazines, and five rifles including -- an Armalite AR10-T .308 caliber rifle, a Bushmaster ACR rifle chambered for 5.56mm NATO and a Bushmaster Carbon-15 .223 caliber -- were found in Smith's home by Santa Clara County Sheriff's deputies following the June 29 party. Prosecutors said none of the weapons were registered with the California Department of Justice.

This. Not a crime.

Atlanta Dan
10-11-2013, 02:48 PM
This. Not a crime.

Well perhaps not as some would prefer, but it is under the California Penal Code

Me saying the Steelers are 4-0 rather than 0-4 does not make it so.

MasterOfPuppets
10-11-2013, 04:08 PM
It apparently had an impact in Australia but the U.S. obviously is not Oz

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html

And figuring out the impact of possession of certain types of firearms obviously requires assessing a lot of variables

It would appear the NRA intends to discourage those studies from being conducted

The characteristics of gun violence in the U.S. are largely unknown because key federal health agencies have been banned from conducting such research since the mid-1990s.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/06/170844926/debate-rages-on-even-as-research-ban-on-gun-violence-ends

And then it can argue studies that justify further regulations of firearms have not been conducted
has it really ?judging by this article , it appears the criminal elements are still packin..:noidea: ...maybe they should try banning motorcycles next ...no bikes = no bikers = no crime

Australian police storm Hells Angels' hideouts

Melbourne (AFP) - More than 700 Australian police swooped on the Hells Angels Thursday in a series of heavily-armed raids, seizing guns, drugs and cash, as authorities intensify a crackdown on biker gangs linked to organised crime.
In a coordinated dawn operation, police stormed 60 clubhouses and properties simultaneously across Melbourne and its surroundings, following an escalating war between rival motorcycle outfits that has sparked a spate of shootings with high-powered weapons.
They seized guns, ammunition, explosive materials, drugs and cash.
The crackdown was launched after new anti-fortification laws came into effect on Sunday, which allow police to tear down barriers, cameras and booby traps at club facilities.
"If they're affiliated with the Hells Angels, they've been targeted," Acting Deputy Commissioner Steve Fontana told reporters, adding that it was the largest operation on a single motorcycle gang in Victoria state's history.
Thirteen people were arrested, including Hells Angels "sergeant-at-arms" Peter "Skitzo" Hewat. Fontana said the full extent of what had been seized would take time to determine as many of the properties were heavily fortified.
But he admitted that none of the "high-powered military-style weapons" fow which police had been searching had so far been found.
"We're determined to track them down," he said.
"We've located a number of firearms, a large quantity of ammunition, we've located drugs, a large quantity of cash, but the investigations and searches are still going (on)."
At one property, so much ammunition was recovered that a truck was needed to take it away.
Fontana added that police were "extremely concerned about these (high-powered) weapons", which reports said were AK-47s or M1 carbines.
"We're extremely concerned about the intel we've got about the tensions and the intentions of these clubs, and so we thought it necessary to make a pretty strong stance."
Recent incidents involving biker gangs in Melbourne have included a tattoo parlour being sprayed with bullets, makeshift bombs -- which did not explode -- thrown at a gym, and shots fired at a Hells Angels clubhouse.
Biker gangs linked to organised crime, particularly drugs, are a growing problem across Australia, with a mass brawl on the Gold Coast last month prompting Queensland police to vow to kick them out of the state.
As part of that pledge, new laws are being drafted in Queensland to ban motorcyclists riding in groups of three or more to stop them using numbers to intimidate, while 50 extra police have been put on Gold Coast streets.
Earlier this year, police launched a series of similar dawn raids across Sydney targeting outlaw motorcycle gangs, seizing firearms, explosives and drugs.
New South Wales state has already banned motorcycle gang members from owning or operating tattoo parlours and barred them from wearing their colours at venues in Sydney's red-light area of Kings Cross after a spate of drive-by shootings last year.
Experts say the biker violence stems from turf wars over drug distribution, particularly methamphetamine or "ice". The gangs are also allegedly involved in the distribution of firearms and explosives, with links to Balkan and Asian organised crime groups.
Australia's worst outbreak of biker violence was a 1984 shootout between the Bandidos and Comancheros in the car park of a Sydney pub, in which six gang members and a 15-year-old girl died.
Tensions also spilled over in a deadly brawl between the Comancheros and Hells Angels at Sydney's domestic airport in 2009, with one biker bludgeoned to death in front of horrified passengers.

SteelCityMom
10-11-2013, 04:24 PM
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1384300_10151658634326884_1610535056_n.jpg

SkipBayless69
10-11-2013, 09:07 PM
Also, since when is having 5 weapons stockpiling?

He can only fire one gun at a time so why do you care how many he has? He isn't David Karesh.

JPPT1974
10-11-2013, 11:11 PM
Guy threw a promising career and life away it seems! Oh well not the first nor will it be the last.

teegre
10-12-2013, 12:19 AM
Happiness is a warm gun

Nice. :hatsoff:

"When I hold you... in my arms... and feel my finger on your trigger..."

MACH1
10-12-2013, 03:11 AM
Well some (including me) would argue that right is not without restrictions

Even if it was legal that still would not mean it was not stockpiling - canned goods are legal but that does not mean it is not possible to stockpile canned goods

But thanks for the clarification :drink:

So more than five cans of beans is considered stockpiling?

MACH1
10-12-2013, 03:18 AM
Actually it does

[T[he Court also said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for other “lawful purposes,” such as hunting, but self-defense is the “corelawful purpose” protected Heller , 554 U.S. at 630."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67622927/DC-Circuit-Rejects-Challenge-to-DC-Gun-Laws

But as discussed above, it has been held that the right to bear arms does not extend to the right to bear assault weapons

Shall we ban the 1st amendment because it doesn't include the internet?

MACH1
10-12-2013, 03:21 AM
oh do tell us just what an "assault weapon" is

http://cdn.fulldisclosure.net/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/391-AWs.jpg

I gave you how it was defined in the DC Circuit Court decision that said it did not violate the Second Amendment to ban those weapons - you may want to read it - then again maybe not

As Justice Scalia said in the interview to which I linked previously, whether a particular weapon is or is not protected under the Second Amendment needs to be decided on case by case basis

Other than pretty pictures what is your support for the contention that however you define assault weapons those firearms are subject to Second Amendment protection? :coffee:

Just admit it, it's because it's black.

SteelCityMom
10-12-2013, 09:29 AM
The rifle on top is just a cute and cuddly rifle, that could never do harm. I think we should put them in a new category called "Beiber Rifles".

The one on the bottom will assault the shit out of you, obviously. I say just slap a restraining order on it now. Ask questions later.

Atlanta Dan
10-12-2013, 09:41 AM
So more than five cans of beans is considered stockpiling?

Nice try:chuckle:

The quantity is related to the nature of what is being stored

stockpile - something kept back or saved for future use or a special purpose
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/stockpile

If I have 5 cans of soup I presumably am going to consume those in the near future - OTOH if I have 500 cans of soup I am stockpiling soup

As someone else points out above, you can only shoot off one weapon at a time unless you are planning to do something like drop by the local elementary school and want multiple weapons on hand

Fire Haley
10-12-2013, 10:26 AM
As someone else points out above, you can only shoot off one weapon at a time unless you are planning to do something like drop by the local elementary school and want multiple weapons on hand

just quit - that's the lamest idea ever


you can only use one knife at a time too - why would you need more than one?

a gun is a tool - a knife is a tool - different tools for different jobs - what business is it of yours anyway?

anybody can kill - it's the person using a tool that makes it a weapon

http://www.iowagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2Acartoon_thumb.jpg

MACH1
10-12-2013, 11:26 AM
Nice try:chuckle:

The quantity is related to the nature of what is being stored

stockpile - something kept back or saved for future use or a special purpose
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/stockpile

If I have 5 cans of soup I presumably am going to consume those in the near future - OTOH if I have 500 cans of soup I am stockpiling soup

As someone else points out above, you can only shoot off one weapon at a time unless you are planning to do something like drop by the local elementary school and want multiple weapons on hand

Hording buried alive. :sofunny:


My guns must be defective they haven't shot any school children or committed any crimes.

Atlanta Dan
10-31-2013, 08:04 PM
Guy threw a promising career and life away it seems! Oh well not the first nor will it be the last.

Nope - he's cured:thumbsup:

Aldon Smith is back with the San Francisco 49ers.

Smith was activated off the non-football injury list Thursday. He went into an alcohol treatment center Sept. 23 -- three days after his second arrest on suspicion of drunken driving since entering the NFL in 2011. He was released from the treatment center this week.

"I met with him face to face today," Harbaugh told San Francisco radio station 95.7 The Game on Wednesday. "Aldon was in the building. ... It was great to see the reaction of others who saw him and Aldon's reaction of being back here with some of the guys. He looks great, and we're having a good day. I mean, that was the object of today -- let's have a great day. I think that's the way Aldon's approaching things each day too ... the goal to have a great day."

San Francisco general manager Trent Baalke said last week he is hopeful Smith will play this season but that the team wants to see "progress" from its young linebacker. Sources said Thursday the team believes Smith is ready to get back to the daily life of being an NFL player and that it is best for him to be with the team.

Not to mention best for the 49ers defense:coffee:

Smith, 24, is expected to play in the 49ers' next game, Nov. 10 at home against Carolina. Smith has 4.5 sacks in three games this season and has an NFL-leading 38 sacks since 2011.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9909389/san-francisco-49ers-activate-linebacker-aldon-smith

Let's have a great day:thumbsup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RAlrzcdfRY