No Cops To Save You, But Too Bad You Couldn't Get A Gun To Protect Yourself

Registration is the prerequisite to confiscation.

 

I don't mind background checks, just don't pretend it prevents a single sale.
Gun free zones are only good for murderers.
18 is old enough, although I had unrestricted access to guns from age 9. I knew how to handle them safely and that I was responsible for where the bullet ends up. I even knew how to reload ammo.

 

Its illegal to bring ammo in from out of state.

2 exceptions:

-its purchased from a FFL, after a background check, and a recording/documentation of each caliber, bullet type, and amount purchased.

-its purchased out of state and sent to a FFL, it can't be sent to the individual.

You would not be able to show say a receipt for ammo you purchased at a California gun store if caught entering the state with that same ammo.

This creates all sorts of headaches for competition shooters who are coming into california-its very hard for them to get ammo because they don't have the required documentation.

Its also hard on hunters from out of state.

The state will be sued over labeling gun stores "non essential" when all gun sales and ammo sales must go through the state.

Guns can be purchased out of state-but they must remain outside of the state.

 

That is the most amazing thing about this crisis. I mean completely astounding. The first thing the liberals say is "Well, now we just have to let the criminals out of jail because of this. They might get sick." Shitblasio said it yesterday and the local news station anchors nodded in agreement. Just ****ing unbelievable.

 

Yeh so I have heard like 20 times in this thread alone...

 

I have found there is a lot of naivete in California.

They really believe what they see in movies, television, etc.

Many of these people who now need a gun will have forgotten about it in 6 months-and they will gladly vote for more gun control in the future.

 

You didn't know this before you made the suggestion?

 

You don't get it, do you.<<<(Notice that is a period and not a question mark as it wasn't a question.)
If Flaco's cousin legally buys a gun and Flacko steals said gun from him and murders someone, how would Flacko's cousin go on a "list" that would keep him from buying another firearm to replace the one that was taken from him via a criminal act done by someone else?

 

Sounds like a class action lawsuit is in order.

 

That's YOUR value(s) that you are expecting others to follow.

And, seeing as though owning a firearm is a right, it's a good thing the likes of you are not in charge of making the rules.

 

I would disagree. Is it a hassle? Yes. Is it designed to be? Again, yes. However, at the end of the day (or ten days if you will) you can have a shiny new toy if you aren't a prohibited person.

You do believe that some people should be prohibited, right?

So far as I have experienced the state hasn't denied me my 2nd amendment rights by wanting to check if I am one of those prohibited persons.

And, so far as I know, no California resident has ever been denied a firearms purchase who was legally entitled to do so.

So, where, exactly, have your rights been trampled?

Like I said, plan your purchase with state laws in mind. It saves time and frustration.

 

I wonder how my uncle in the Bay Area is doing? I may call my dad and ask. My dad has never owned a gun, but he is interested. He is 76 and still lives in Dallas County. I may even loan him one if he wants. We'll have to do some emergency training with some snap caps. God bless Texas.

 

Which was exactly my point in saying that a firearms purchase in California should be a planned event, i.e., purchased before the need arises.

 

I have heard it, it just isn’t true.

 

If I were in charge there would be no 10 day waiting period if you had already bought another firearm within the previous five years and there would be no ID requirement to purchase ammunition.

I am the one Liberal you do want making the rules.

 

Again, it would monitor patterns. If one gun gets “stolen” then nothing happens, if a gun gets “stolen” every few months he would be investigated.
It would also end transfer to an unauthorized person that is not personally known to the seller.

 

Hook me up with another AR-15 with a 30 round magazine ("Clip" to you, probably) and then I'll consider it.

 

Yawn. How long have you been spewing this nonsense?

It's gotten stale.

Find something else to whine about.

 

And that stops Flacko from murdering someone how?

 

I am for 30 round standard capacity magazines. And you can quit trying to ridicule my firearms knowledge.

It makes you look petty and weak.

 

The same thing that stopped him before. Nothing. He would have extra charges to deal with however.

But Dimitri was unable to buy one at the local gun fair because he couldn’t pass the newly required background checks and didn’t get to shoot up that school though — wouldn’t that be a win?

 

Then why do you and your ilk vote for liberals/democrats that make laws contrary to your belief(s)?

 

Its entirely true and backed by historic examples.

 

Really? Name a single example where gun ownership was encoded in the Nations constitution. I would like to read up about it and perhaps change my perspective.

 

but it's a hassle for no reason. A prohibited person would just get one illegally and they can get one right now illegally. The 10-day waiting. Doesn't really do anything but cause a hassle for the sake of making it a hassle to abide by the law it should be a hassle to break the law.

So it's punitive.

yeah but that's why they have the 4473 form. It takes a few minutes.

that's fine but they're doing it by making punitive rules that serve no real purpose.

making punitive laws that suck no real reason outside of being punitive to discourage people from buying guns.

This isn't about safety it's about harassing people who abide by the law and thus encouraging them to break the law.

False punitive laws regarding purchasing firearms are there to cause frustration, not save it.