Giving photogs a bad name?

In article 2014060210362690650-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-02 17:05:19 +0000, android said:

In article 2014060209521951219-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-02 16:29:56 +0000, android said:

In article 201406020904224435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

We have to live with a bunch of that silliness in California with 10
round mags, and oddly defined "assault rifles".

All those rattle snakes are a true pest, aren't they?!?

You have a strange idea about life in the US don't you?

Where the hell do you get "rattle snakes" out of what has been written
on this subject so far?
The firearms I own are divided into three categories, target weapons,
defense/combat weapons, & antique. My defense/combat weapons, a Kimber
1911 type .45 ACP, and a Glock M23 .40 S&W are intended for defense
against other than rattle snakes.

I seee... Zzzzzidewwwiiiindersssss??????
I thought that you lived in the dessert... Opsisis et sorryy!1!

The spelling control don't give out warnings when you misspell with an
existing word. Jupp. I type to fast... ;-p

I would love to live in a chocolate mousse, or did you have some other
dessert in mind?

I live on the Central Coast of California right between San Francisco &
L.A., and yes, we do see rattle snakes, mountain lion, black bear,
bobcats, coyote, foxes, deer, elk, and wild turkey all around where I
live.
...and as much as I enjoy living in a rural area, I also have other
things to consider as a retired law enforcement officer, and that is my
primary reason to own and be qualified with defense/combat weapons.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_731.jpg
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

On 2014-06-02 17:38:27 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

android wrote:
In article 2014060209521951219-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-02 16:29:56 +0000, android said:

In article 201406020904224435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

We have to live with a bunch of that silliness in California with 10
round mags, and oddly defined "assault rifles".

All those rattle snakes are a true pest, aren't they?!?

You have a strange idea about life in the US don't you?

Where the hell do you get "rattle snakes" out of what has been written
on this subject so far?
The firearms I own are divided into three categories, target weapons,
defense/combat weapons, & antique. My defense/combat weapons, a Kimber
1911 type .45 ACP, and a Glock M23 .40 S&W are intended for defense
against other than rattle snakes.

I seee... Zzzzzidewwwiiiindersssss??????
I thought that you lived in the dessert... Opsisis et sorryy!1!

Looks like you've got it nailed!

In most of the US of A men buy guns to make up for a
certain amount of penis envy. Lacking in one area, they
purchase a larger caliber in another area. The guns
aren't useful for anything other than ego, or to dream
of shooting imaginary guys with bigger dicks.

Up until I became a peace officer all of my weapons were specifically
for target shooting.
My two defense/combat pistols are tools of the trade. I am not a hunter.

Where I live we use guns as tools for food production.
If I wanted to carry a concealed a weapon... I'd find a
guy with a pistol for sale, and the procedure here is
simple: I give him money (and nothing else) and he gives
me the gun. No paperwork, no police, nothing. I put the
gun in my pocket and walk off.

That's nice. I believe Alaska is an open carry state(not concealed),
Your only obligation under Alaska State Law is if contacted by a Law
Enforcement officer to advise him/her that you are armed, and to
surrender the weapon to him/her if they request.
However, there are still issues when it comes to carrying concealed
handguns in Alaska.
http://www.dps.alaska.gov/statewide/...ng/permit.aspx

What I'd do with a pistol in my pocket though, I can't
imagine.

Neither could I. These days I only have a gun with me on road trips,
and readily at hand at home.
I don't walk around with a gun on my hip even though I am qualified to do so.

I do own guns. A couple different models of stainless
.243 caliber rifles and a 12ga pump shotgun. I might
shoot a caribou with a .243, but actually the main
purpose of all three guns is to scare off (with the
noise) a pesky polar bear now and then. Dang things
think photographers make good snacks, it seems.

That makes sense.

We should have better gun control.

Yup! There needs to be some sort of change.

People who are nuts should not be allowed to have guns.

Absolutely, too many folks with mental health issues slip through the
cracks of the background check system, where it exists. Obviously those
background checks in Alaska are not noticeable at all, or any sort of
deterrent.

That includes gun nuts.

Definitely some, but not all gun nuts.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 June 2014 14:30:57 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
"Whisky-dave" wrote in message

...

On Friday, 30 May 2014 19:34:20 UTC+1, PAS wrote:
Our rights to own guns is not predicated on our proving a need to
have

one.

Them maybe that's the problem or the cause.


No, that's not the problem. Must you justify a need to the government
to

exercise every right you have?


Do I need to justify to the govenment if my hobby were collecting
nuclear
weapons, would I have to justify my collection of diseases such as the
bubonic plague ?
I think that if you have a hobby or pastime or do anything that is
likely
to endanger someone else that that hobby should be controlled in a way
to

minimise the efect on others.



You don't seem to grasp this, otherwise you wouldn't be using this
ridiculous analogy. There is a Cosntitutional right to keep and bear
arms.

Your right I don;t get it.

There isn't one to collect diseases. It's fairly simple.


A Constitutional right is not a hobby or pastime. Do you consider your
right to free speech where you live to be a mere hobby?

Free speech isn't what it is, there are limits.
Free speech as far as I know hasn't killed anyone, but is free speech part
of the constitituion?

Of course there are limits, as well as responsibilities when exercising your
rights. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution,
the right to have arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's bvious that
the founders placed a very high priority on the right to be armed.

Yopu don't just hand pout guns to anyone do you, surely there are some
checks, yuor govenrment seems quite keen to keep a check on other
countries do you have a problem with that ?

There are checks, many of them.

But that in no way limits teh constitition or does it ?

Many of the checks have attempted to usurp the Constitution. In Washington
D.C., it was illegal to own a handgun for quite a period of time. And for
the anti-gun nuts, that city had the highest rate of handgun murders in the
country despite a complete ban on them. The Supreme Court eventually ruled
that it was unconstitutional to ban handguns and the city's ban was
overturned. The same in Chicage which is a more recent case. In my
opinion, and it's shared by others, many of the current restrictions are
unconstitutional. But until a case reaches the courts, they remain in
place. There is no uniform "code" across the country. Each state has its'
own laws as well as cities, counties, and towns. There are federal laws
which take precedence over any other locale's laws. The gun laws in one
state such as Florida are far less restrictive than in New York where I live
which are some of the most restrictive in the country.

The process I had to endure in order to get a license for a handgun was a
long one.

So some are restricted under the 'constitition' it doesn't apply to
everyone does it.

The restrictions are imposed by federal, state, city, and local laws. The
constitution doesn't impose those. The laws can be seen as restricting the
Constitution but the recourse is to bring suit so the case can be rules on
in the courts, possibly ending up in the Supreme Court which. They rule on
the constitutionality of a law, as they did in the case of the handgun ban
in Washington D.C.

I'm hoping assume that if america goes back to the moon or mars that they
won;t feel teh need as the constitiution says to bear arms up there.

We'll bring our ray guns with us.


Do you think iran or iraq or North Koera have to justify their
weaponary
to the USA or anyone else ?

This has no bearing on the subject.

IS your constitution only for amercans or those living in america ?
You do know that outside of the USA your constitition doesn't apply.

And I still fail to see where this has any beairing on the right of a US
citizen to own firearms.

Our rights are not subject
to culture, public opinion, etc. There is a specific process that has
to
occur in order to amend the Constitution.

And what would that be war or revolution ?

Now you are talking nonsense. There is a specific process outlines in
the
Constitution by which it can be amended, and it has been amended before.

Yes I know 27 times or so, can't remmeber.....
but everyone talks as if the gun law can't be changed.
and I'm betting if they were something more powerful and destructive than a
gun then that would be added to the consittion in that you would be allowed
one of those too. I'm thinking along the lines of a phaser.

Gun laws are changed constantly, it's the Constitution that is not changed
often. These are two entirely different things.

The constition is over 300 years old, sometimes you just have to move
on.

We value the rights we have, they never get old.

A blinkered view.

You can call my view whatever you wish. When you don't stand firm on our
rights and they get taken from you one day then you are the one to blame.

Suppose someone invents a new weapon that can be used via thought, when
those appear will the constition see them as arms and give americans the
right to own one ?

The Constitution doesn't "see", it is what it is. It's the court system
that rules on the Constitutionality of the laws that are passed.

It's fairly evident what a Constitutional right is. No one has said
they
are cast in stone forever. But they are not subject to public opinion
or
the whims of any politician. There is a specific process in place in
order
to amend the Constitution. Until it is amended, the righte enumerated
in
it
are final.

So why not ammend it?, it's been done before and it can be done again.


It can be amended, as I've said more than once. But it not something done
lightly, as by design of the founders.

The founders lived in a differnt world in a differnt time.

SO then we should revisit the right of people to have free speech, freedom
of religion, freddom of the press, etc. This is the road you seem to want
to walk down. Our rights are not to be eroded with the passage of time.

Do you think it is an easy task to
wipe away a Constitutional right such as freedom of speech?

We in the UK do not allow so called freedom of speech when it incite
racsism
or hate speeches of anothers, you do not have to elimite free speech to
spot
this sort of thing.
I dounbt the USA would let abu hamza have his free speech.

We are far more lenient in this area than in the UK and even Canada. People
have the right to their hate speech. If it leads to inciting violence and
causing harm to someone, then it becomes an issue. But someone can spout
off all the hateful and racist views they have if they want to, hay have the
right.

The founders
placed a high value on the freedom to keep and bear arms as evident by
the
fact that it is the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. That, and any
other
right, cannot be taken away so easily.

It wasn;t easy getting to the moon and back but it was done, and remmeber
that speech do you.
There's little in life that's worthwhile that is also easy.

You are correct, worthwhile things are not always easy but we differ on what
is worthwhile. I think it's is worhtwhile to stand up and fight to protect
our rights.

What was the last one something about 18 year-olds voting I remmeber
that
from school. The constitution as ammended.


Socireties civerlised or otherwise update their laws and cultures to
some

extent which is usually led by laws, but the idea of a law is to shape
the

peoples culture.

Laws and cultures are one thing, Constituitionally protected rights are
another matter.

And that's where the problem lies. Very similar in the way religious
zealots
claim that their god exists and no other can, there's onl;y one rule and
that is 'ours' cos we know the facts.

No, that is not the problem. The Constitution was drafted to provide
limited power to the federal government and codify what those limited pwers
are. Our founders knew full well the abuses of unchecked government and
sought to protect the citizens from government abuse. There is no
connection ata l to religious zealotry and what I stated.



No I'm trying to explain how society changes and adapts with time.
But that is not analagous to our Constitution.
That's obvious but what does it mean that the Constitution can't be
changed.

It can be changed, but not lightly. Constitutionally protected rights are
not simply subject to a changing culture.

Then they should be then as laws should support the people of the country
in
the way they wish to live, or die.

And that's why the Constitution can be changed if the representative's of
the people vote to do so. We have a representative government, we elect
people who represent us and they cast their votes. You should keep in mind
that it is not a hard and fast rule that the "majority rules". If the
majority of people in the USA voted to bring back slavery, should that be
permitted to happen?

In the UK (as with other countries) we used to refuse to allow women
to

vote.

So you may now say I'm comparing gun control with voting.

I'm saying the way the population of a contry can be controlled is by
changing the law of the land which in turn will affect the way peole
behave.

Constituional rights are not simply just laws that can be changed easily.

Well that's obvious it's like a tramps underwear is it.

And that's the way we like it.

We have laws here too and they get changed, it can take a while but if the
people agree then the laws eventually get changed.
We've had our laws changed by Europe too.

Havng your laws changed by Europe is another matter. I don't believe that
the UK should ever give up it's sovereignty to the EU.

yes and other contires have their versions of what rights they have
too.

And this fits into the discussion about the US Constitution in what
way?


What's so special about the US constitiution that makes it so difficult
to
change compared with say other laws.

The Constitution provides for a process for it to be amended. It can be
changed but is not something done lightly.

Few important laws are changed lightly.

Sweden changed it's traffic direction in ~1967 the whole countrys changes
from driving on the correct side of the road to the wrong side in a day ;-)

I would not have wanted to be on those roads when that happened. I can't
imagine the confusion on those streets.


Itv seems that the UK has managed to get away from the idea that yuo
need
a gun to protect ourselves from either ourselves or invading peoples,
but
in the US you NEED a gun to protect you from yourselves, which I think
is
a bit sad.

Not once did I ever say I "need" a gun. I have a right to have one if I
choose to. I have made the choice to exercise that right.

As a fair few do I assume.

Quite a few, yes

I very rarely hear of anyone being protected by a gun unless it's in the

hand of the armed forces (including the police).



Where were all the gun heroes here ?

http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/14/t...in-kansas-usa/

Despite what you think, the majority of people here don't carry guns with
them. If more did, we'd see less tragedies like the one you noted.

Why would it be less, the stats prove that in most countires where people
commonly carry guns more people get killed by them.

Introducing guns isn't like a small pox vaccine, where ther populatiojn
builds up an imunity.

There are just as many stats that prove that where people carried weapons
with them, the crime rate plummeted. If you were a criminal would you go to
an area to committ crimes where you knew people carried guns or would you go
to one where people didn't carry them. If I recall, the incidence of
violent crime, including handgun use, increased in the UK as gun conrol laws
got stricter and stricter
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...her-countries/

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:53:12 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:30:57 -0400, "PAS" wrote:


Move to Florida. The requirements here to obtain a license for a
handgun a

1. You must be 21 years of age or older
2. You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm.

That's it, but there are exclusions. You can't be a convicted felon,
be so physically impaired that you can't handle a firearm safely, be
committed to a mental institution, be a fugitive from justice, and a
few more restrictions based on criminal charges.

The gun store will provide training to allow you to demonstrate
competency with a firearm. The training is rigorous and requires that
you can point to the trigger and the barrel and know which way to
point the gun when firing it. The training process can last as long
as five minutes.

You have to endure a bit more if you want a Concealed Weapon Permit.
You have to take a course, have a photograph taken, have your
fingerprints taken, sign the application form, and pay $112 for a
permit that is good for seven years.

The course required is arduous. You are required to attend a two hour
class and then a range session. You are required to bring 5 rounds of
ammunition to the range session. The cost of a course varies, but
this one charges $50.00. They point out that it is not necessary to
take notes at the course.

http://floridagunexchange.com/concea...-permit-class/

So, in Florida, to license your Kel Tec PF-9, the gun that George
Zimmerman used to shoot and kill Travon Martin (who was armed with a
box of Skittle candy) and get a permit to carry concealed, you have to
take a few hours of training and be able to fire five shots on a range
without hitting your instructor or your foot.

If, instead of owning a gun, you decide to arm yourself with scissors
and become a barber, you must take 1,200 hours of instruction at a
licensed barbering school.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

I'll take Florida's way of doing things any time. In Suffolk County on
Long Island, here is what I had to do to get my handgun license which
permits me to have a gun in my home (no open carry, no concealed & carry):

Wow. Quite a process to protect yourself from Skittle-carrying hooded
thugs.

I prefer to shoot at M&M carrying hoods.

If it takes all of that to arm yourself, what must the requirements be
to be a barber?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

No one has a Constitutional right to be a barber, we do to have guns.

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 17:38:27 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

android wrote:
In article 2014060209521951219-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-02 16:29:56 +0000, android said:

In article 201406020904224435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

We have to live with a bunch of that silliness in California with 10
round mags, and oddly defined "assault rifles".
All those rattle snakes are a true pest, aren't
they?!?
You have a strange idea about life in the US don't
you?
Where the hell do you get "rattle snakes" out of
what has been written
on this subject so far?
The firearms I own are divided into three categories, target weapons,
defense/combat weapons, & antique. My defense/combat weapons, a Kimber
1911 type .45 ACP, and a Glock M23 .40 S&W are intended for defense
against other than rattle snakes.
I seee... Zzzzzidewwwiiiindersssss??????
I thought that you lived in the dessert... Opsisis et sorryy!1!
Looks like you've got it nailed!
In most of the US of A men buy guns to make up for a
certain amount of penis envy. Lacking in one area, they
purchase a larger caliber in another area. The guns
aren't useful for anything other than ego, or to dream
of shooting imaginary guys with bigger dicks.

Up until I became a peace officer all of my weapons were
specifically for target shooting.
My two defense/combat pistols are tools of the trade. I am not a hunter.

I don't quite see the point of a .45 or .40 caliber handgun in
that case. Sounds more like you are looking for the chance to
commit legal murder...

Where I live we use guns as tools for food production.
If I wanted to carry a concealed a weapon... I'd find a
guy with a pistol for sale, and the procedure here is
simple: I give him money (and nothing else) and he gives
me the gun. No paperwork, no police, nothing. I put the
gun in my pocket and walk off.

That's nice. I believe Alaska is an open carry state(not
concealed), Your only obligation under Alaska State Law
is if contacted by a Law Enforcement officer to advise
him/her that you are armed, and to surrender the weapon
to him/her if they request.

Concealed is legal in Alaska. (It actually always has
been, but is now formalized in Alaska Statutes.)

However, there are still issues when it comes to
carrying concealed handguns in Alaska.
http://www.dps.alaska.gov/statewide/...ng/permit.aspx

The purpose of the permit is not related to concealed
carry in Alaska. It allows presenting an Alaska permit
for recognition in other states that have reciprocity
agreements with Alaska.

Concealed carry in Alaska is restricted to those at
least 21 years of age, and there are specific conditions
and locations where it is not allowed.

What I'd do with a pistol in my pocket though, I can't
imagine.

Neither could I. These days I only have a gun with me on
road trips, and readily at hand at home.
I don't walk around with a gun on my hip even though I am qualified to do so.

I do own guns. A couple different models of stainless
.243 caliber rifles and a 12ga pump shotgun. I might
shoot a caribou with a .243, but actually the main
purpose of all three guns is to scare off (with the
noise) a pesky polar bear now and then. Dang things
think photographers make good snacks, it seems.

That makes sense.

We should have better gun control.

Yup! There needs to be some sort of change.

People who are nuts should not be allowed to have guns.

Absolutely, too many folks with mental health issues
slip through the cracks of the background check system,
where it exists. Obviously those background checks in
Alaska are not noticeable at all, or any sort of
deterrent.

There is no background check!

That includes gun nuts.

Definitely some, but not all gun nuts.

You present a really interesting and very significant
value point in this sort of discussion. More and more
we find professional law officers siding with the need
for effective gun control. It is exactly the opposite of
what the NRA argues. That you and I basically agree on
this issue is of interest, but frankly your beliefs come
from a position of experience that has vastly more
import than mine.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"PAS" wrote:
Of course there are limits, as well as responsibilities when exercising your
rights. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution,
the right to have arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's bvious that
the founders placed a very high priority on the right to be armed.

With all due respect, the Founders said nothing about
any "right to be armed". What they wrote was a
*requirement* to be ready and able to serve in militia
to defend the country.

It was the Supreme Court of the United States that
inserted the concept of a right to bear arms. And we
necessarily, like it or not, have to accept that the
Court has the authority to do that. If we don't like it
there are ways to change it.

I believe it should be changed and some day will be, but
clearly it is unlikely that such changes will be made
any time soon. Hence while I don't like it, I accept
that what the Constitution of the United States says
/today/ is that there is a "Right to Bear Arms".

But don't claim that is what the Founding Fathers meant
when the wrote the Second Amendment; they didn't.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"PAS" wrote:
Of course there are limits, as well as responsibilities when exercising
your
rights. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the
Constitution,
the right to have arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's bvious
that
the founders placed a very high priority on the right to be armed.

With all due respect, the Founders said nothing about
any "right to be armed". What they wrote was a
*requirement* to be ready and able to serve in militia
to defend the country.

It was the Supreme Court of the United States that
inserted the concept of a right to bear arms. And we
necessarily, like it or not, have to accept that the
Court has the authority to do that. If we don't like it
there are ways to change it.

I believe it should be changed and some day will be, but
clearly it is unlikely that such changes will be made
any time soon. Hence while I don't like it, I accept
that what the Constitution of the United States says
/today/ is that there is a "Right to Bear Arms".

But don't claim that is what the Founding Fathers meant
when the wrote the Second Amendment; they didn't.

The Supreme Court seems to fall on my side on this one. What part of the
"Right to keep and bear arms" do you not interpret to be "the right to be
armed"?

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201406020904224435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-02 14:53:12 +0000, "PAS" said:


I'll take Florida's way of doing things any time. In Suffolk County on
Long
Island, here is what I had to do to get my handgun license which permits
me
to have a gun in my home (no open carry, no concealed & carry):

1) Fill out a long application including previous addresses. I had to
list
three personal references as well as employer, etc.
2) Provide three affidavits from the personal references
3) The references were all interviewed by a police investigator
4) I was interviewed by a police investigator
5) I had to be finger printed at a cost of $ 100.00 (in addition to the
application fees)
6) You are warned that if you get so much as a speeding ticket during
the
application process, you can imperil your chances of getting approved
7) Finally received approval after a six-month period

Holy crap!
Even in California there is only a ten day waiting period for firearms
purchase.
For non-LEO purchases the buyer has to complete a gun safety course, or a
hunter's safety course. Either one will do.
For normal purchase no finger prints are required. After the registered
dealer files the purchase with the Cal DOJ and only releases the firearm
to the buyer after 10 days. If a flag shows in the 10 day review period
the DOJ can have an additional 30 days to complete an in-depth background
check. At that point the DOJ has to release the weapon, or deny firearm
ownership with a full declaration of the disqualifying reason, and provide
a notice to appeal the decision.

The only time fingerprints come into play is for a non-LEO CWP, then a Cal
DOJ *Live Scan* of prints are run through the system.
In my case I was able to carry an off duty weapon. When I retired I had to
state that I intended to extend my right for 50 State concealed carry
under LEOSA of 2004. I prove that at the time of my retirement I was
qualified, I then had to go through the *Live Scan* procedure, and my
retired ID was only endorsed for concealed carry after full clearance.
Additionally I have to maintain annual qualification with any weapons I
might carry. In my case they are my Kimber CDP II 45 ACP, and my Glock 23
.40 S&W.


http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...afety-act.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosasummary.pdf

To purchase a handgun, I go to a gun dealer and make my purchase. I am
not
permitted to take possession. I get a form filled out by the gun dealer
that I then have to take to the police department for their approval.
With
that approval, then I go back to the gun dealer with the stamped form and
take possession. Then I have to bring the handgun to the police
department
for their inspection and recording of serial number and they put the
serial
number on my license.

In California you only deal with the gun dealer who enters the transaction
into the State DOJ registration system.

I am only permitted to take the handgun to a range. I have to go from my
home directly to the range and then directly back home. No stops in
between, not even to get gas for the car. Get caught stopping and your
license is revoked and your handgun confiscated. These regulations are
made
at the whim of the police commissioner, not by any elected official.

It sounds as if you have some questionable local regulations. I am
surprised they have not been challenged, if not in NY Court the perhaps
the US Supreme Court.

In New York State under the new so-called "Safe Act", we law-abiding
citizens were made into felons overnight if we had any magazines that
hold
more than seven rounds even though the magazines were legal before the
law
was enacted and were manufactured before the law took effect. Since the
law
was rushed through in the dead of night without anyone really reading it,
in
violation of the NY State Constitution that requires a three-day waiting
period for a new law so that the public can read it and react to it (the
governor got around this provision of the state constitution by declaring
the law an "emergency" which doesn't require the three-day waiting
period),
no one realized that the law failed to exempt law-enforcement from the
seven-round limit in the magazines so they too were in violation of the
law.
A provision had to be rushed through to compensate for that. The other
issue is that there are no magazines manufactured for seven or less
rounds
for many rifles. Anyone with an "assault rifle" must now register them.
An
assault rifle is an automatic rifle. We have not been permitted to won
them
since the 1930s If a rifle resembles a military rifle, it's an assault
rifle even though it's not an automatic rifle. Take the same
semiautomatic
rifle and make it without a pistol grip stock and its not an assault
rifle
under the law. Ammo sales are now reported and there will be background
checks for all ammo sales, even for licenses handgun owners. Internet
sales
of ammo must now be shipped to a state licensed dealer so that the sale
can
be recorded and reported.

We have to live with a bunch of that silliness in California with 10 round
mags, and oddly defined "assault rifles".



--
Regards,

Savageduck

Holy crap is right. I frankly don't know why some of these severe
restrictions haven't been challenged. The so-called "NY Safe Act" is being
challenged and hopefully will be overturned.

Even Walmart imposes special rules for us. They will sell handgun ammo if
you present a license that indicates you own a gun that uses the caliber
ammo you want to buy. It's not the law here just their policy and it's not
a policy in all stores outside of Long Island. I've got a rifle that uses
45 cal ammo. Because I don't have a 45 cal handgun listed on my handgun
license (I have a 38 Special), they won't sell me the 45 cal because it's
handgun ammo. Arguing that it's also used in a rifle is fruitless.

"PAS" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"PAS" wrote:
Of course there are limits, as well as responsibilities when exercising your
rights. Free speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution,
the right to have arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's bvious that
the founders placed a very high priority on the right to be armed.

With all due respect, the Founders said nothing about
any "right to be armed". What they wrote was a
*requirement* to be ready and able to serve in militia
to defend the country.

It was the Supreme Court of the United States that
inserted the concept of a right to bear arms. And we
necessarily, like it or not, have to accept that the
Court has the authority to do that. If we don't like it
there are ways to change it.

I believe it should be changed and some day will be, but
clearly it is unlikely that such changes will be made
any time soon. Hence while I don't like it, I accept
that what the Constitution of the United States says
/today/ is that there is a "Right to Bear Arms".

But don't claim that is what the Founding Fathers meant
when the wrote the Second Amendment; they didn't.

The Supreme Court seems to fall on my side on this one. What part of the
"Right to keep and bear arms" do you not interpret to be "the right to be
armed"?

The Founding Fathers provided a context for that right.
Nowhere in any of their writings did even a single one
of them ever suggest it had the universal meaning you
give it. What the Constitution in fact says is,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The context is that a citizen's duty to be prepared,
as part of a militia, to defend the United States, shall
not be infringed. It does not say anyone can keep a gun
intended to be used to shoot the neighbor for any
reason, including to protect one's self.

The US Supreme Court recognized the original meaning of
the Founding Fathers for well over 200 years. In 1876
the Court said,

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence"

That was again upheld as recently as 1939, when the
court specifically said the context required a

"reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Some 217 years after the Second Amendment was added to
our Constitution the US Supreme Court decided to change
the meaning such that it included a context outside that
provided by the Founding Fathers, and protect a right of
any citizen at any time to own a gun.

Today, because the Supreme Court has made it so, that
*is* what the Constitution means. But that was not what
the Founding Fathers meant, is not what the Court in
1876 said it meant, is not what the court in 1939 said
it meant, and is not what any court from 1791 until 2008
was willing rule it meant.

Get your history straight.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2014-06-02 19:11:41 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-02 17:38:27 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

android wrote:
In article 2014060209521951219-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-02 16:29:56 +0000, android said:

In article 201406020904224435-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

We have to live with a bunch of that silliness in California with 10
round mags, and oddly defined "assault rifles".
All those rattle snakes are a true pest, aren't
they?!?
You have a strange idea about life in the US don't
you?
Where the hell do you get "rattle snakes" out of
what has been written
on this subject so far?
The firearms I own are divided into three categories, target weapons,
defense/combat weapons, & antique. My defense/combat weapons, a Kimber
1911 type .45 ACP, and a Glock M23 .40 S&W are intended for defense
against other than rattle snakes.
I seee... Zzzzzidewwwiiiindersssss??????
I thought that you lived in the dessert... Opsisis et sorryy!1!
Looks like you've got it nailed!
In most of the US of A men buy guns to make up for a
certain amount of penis envy. Lacking in one area, they
purchase a larger caliber in another area. The guns
aren't useful for anything other than ego, or to dream
of shooting imaginary guys with bigger dicks.

Up until I became a peace officer all of my weapons were
specifically for target shooting.
My two defense/combat pistols are tools of the trade. I am not a hunter.

I don't quite see the point of a .45 or .40 caliber handgun in
that case. Sounds more like you are looking for the chance to
commit legal murder...

What would you use for a defense/combat handgun, a .22?

Particularly in a Law Enforcement scenario .45 & .40 S&W are the
standard for most agencies. They will very effectively stop a threat.
Some still use the 9mm, very few use the .38SP or .357 Mag any more. At
one time the FBI went to the 10mm, but found that it was too powerful
and had too harsh a recoil to permit effective *double tap* shots. So
today the FBI uses .45 ACP, .40 S&W, and .357 SIG (basically a 10mm
case necked down to 9mm to produce very high velocity and projectile
energy).

My agency went from .38 SP to 9mm, to .40 S&W, duty weapons, with a .45
ACP as an option for personal weapon.
LAPD & LASD use 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP for tactical units.

I bought my Glock M23 .40 S&W to supplement my issue S&W M1040 .40S&W
in 1990. I bought my Kimber CDP III .45 ACP in 2004 as a carry weapon.
It is lighter than the Glock loaded with 13 rounds. The .45 uses a
single stack 8 round magazine and is more comfortable to carry
concealed than the Glock.
https://db.tt/hScSCe9b
The two together, note the holster wear on the Glock slide.
https://db.tt/ajLw4Zm4

Where I live we use guns as tools for food production.
If I wanted to carry a concealed a weapon... I'd find a
guy with a pistol for sale, and the procedure here is
simple: I give him money (and nothing else) and he gives
me the gun. No paperwork, no police, nothing. I put the
gun in my pocket and walk off.

That's nice. I believe Alaska is an open carry state(not
concealed), Your only obligation under Alaska State Law
is if contacted by a Law Enforcement officer to advise
him/her that you are armed, and to surrender the weapon
to him/her if they request.

Concealed is legal in Alaska. (It actually always has
been, but is now formalized in Alaska Statutes.)

However, there are still issues when it comes to
carrying concealed handguns in Alaska.
http://www.dps.alaska.gov/statewide/...ng/permit.aspx

The purpose of the permit is not related to concealed
carry in Alaska. It allows presenting an Alaska permit
for recognition in other states that have reciprocity
agreements with Alaska.

OK.

Concealed carry in Alaska is restricted to those at
least 21 years of age, and there are specific conditions
and locations where it is not allowed.

OK.

What I'd do with a pistol in my pocket though, I can't
imagine.

Neither could I. These days I only have a gun with me on
road trips, and readily at hand at home.
I don't walk around with a gun on my hip even though I am qualified to do so.

I do own guns. A couple different models of stainless
.243 caliber rifles and a 12ga pump shotgun. I might
shoot a caribou with a .243, but actually the main
purpose of all three guns is to scare off (with the
noise) a pesky polar bear now and then. Dang things
think photographers make good snacks, it seems.

That makes sense.

We should have better gun control.

Yup! There needs to be some sort of change.

People who are nuts should not be allowed to have guns.

Absolutely, too many folks with mental health issues
slip through the cracks of the background check system,
where it exists. Obviously those background checks in
Alaska are not noticeable at all, or any sort of
deterrent.

There is no background check!

So that is a pretty wide crack for those with mental health issues to
slip through.

That includes gun nuts.

Definitely some, but not all gun nuts.

You present a really interesting and very significant
value point in this sort of discussion. More and more
we find professional law officers siding with the need
for effective gun control. It is exactly the opposite of
what the NRA argues. That you and I basically agree on
this issue is of interest, but frankly your beliefs come
from a position of experience that has vastly more
import than mine.

There are very few law enforcement agencies which hold to unregulated
firearm sales. We see the consequences every day.



--
Regards,

Savageduck