Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Colorado sheriff announces that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Colorado, Weld County, John Hickenlooper, Colorado sheriff, El Paso County, undue burden, gun laws, Columbine High School  
•       •       •

15300 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 5:40 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



462 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-17 09:16:02 PM  

Cheviot: redmid17: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

"I tried enforcing the law, but with no records requirement the law relied entirely on the word of the participants. We've had a few cases where it could have been successful, but the lack  of evidence did it in."

Do you seriously think that anyone could prosecute these sheriffs?

So you're saying the sheriff would commit perjury to avoid conviction? Do we really want people who would commit perjury to be sheriffs? Do you?

Why wouldn't the state prosecute a sheriff that refused to enforce the law?  And yes, the sheriff could say the things you suggest. Then the prosecution would ask about his public statements with regards to refusing to enforce the law. Then they would ask for any and all records for the cases he claimed to have investigated but dropped for lack of evidence.  The sheriff, of course, would have no records, as he's not enforcing the law. He'd be toast and you know it.


There's a paperwork requirement for all private sales going forward. How do they prove who owned what gun as of now? Like I said, they'd be relying almost exclusively on statements from the seller and buyer. Since either buying or selling the gun without the background check is illegal, neither of them is going to say a god damn word unless they're idiots. Without those statements or possibly a third party, they will have no evidence to go on. This isn't rocket science.
 
2013-03-17 09:17:16 PM  

iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.


The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.
 
2013-03-17 09:18:13 PM  

Cheviot: Imagine if you had a police officer that decided he wouldn't enforce speed limits on roads because he decided personally it was against his beliefs. What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.


I guess he'd spend more time on non-victimless crimes. Sounds good!
 
2013-03-17 09:18:56 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."


see
If he had JUST said that.
"This is an unfunded mandate. I am putting it in the pile of other unfunded mandates sitting over there. And will prioritize right after I spend my funding on important things. Like parking tickets and murder."

But instead he got all derpy about it.
 
2013-03-17 09:20:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.  He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."


sighted, of course :-P
 
2013-03-17 09:20:15 PM  

Bucky Katt: The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.


Try to explain that to the feds who are using the Commerce Clause to justify everything from "drugs are illegal" to "you cant grow wheat for home usage".

farkem
 
2013-03-17 09:22:20 PM  

Bucky Katt: iheartscotch: dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.

In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.

The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.


Theoretically they don't but they've made plenty of regulatory decisions that were about in-state commerce. You can't grow crops beyond a maximum threshold because it would affect the price of feed for other farmers. ATF busted a former felon who was building his own machine guns for his own personal use (prior crime was not registering NFA weapons or something similar, aka nonviolent). Regardless of the fact that he was prohibited from buying or selling his weapons anyway (no serial # and felon status), federal court said his building of non-sellable guns he couldn't legally acquire somehow affected interstate commerce.
 
2013-03-17 09:22:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.


I think something getting lost in the shuffle here is that a number of state reps and senators also said publicly they would neither obey nor enforce this law.
 
2013-03-17 09:23:16 PM  

namatad: Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."

see
If he had JUST said that.
"This is an unfunded mandate. I am putting it in the pile of other unfunded mandates sitting over there. And will prioritize right after I spend my funding on important things. Like parking tickets and murder."

But instead he got all derpy about it.


You want even more fun? Go read the law. Then write down all the things the sheriff actually has to do under the law. Don't worry, your pencil won't get much of a workout. There is NO requirement for the sheriff to enforce anything. Seriously. None. Go read the law. This sheriff is trolling us.
 
2013-03-17 09:24:20 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It'll end up like a TSA list - you'll get on there for a) political free speech, b) mistakes, c) vendettas, d) bureaucratic incompetence, and at worst, because maybe you needed some kind of help in your life. 1) ADHD prescriptions? on the list, 2) Smoking cessation? (with wellbutrin) Yep, 3) Mom died last week (xanax), yep. 4) Combat stress (anti-anxiety), yep, 5)  teen anxiety, yep. Once on, you're not getting off. Hell, Ted Kennedy made it on the TSA list, and was only able to get off because of his position - the rest of us won't have that luxury.

Make this database applicable for violent video games and the liberals will come around - they will see the light once their own interests are threatened.


At that point, every Congresscritter would be on the list and they would obviously.. do the right thi..

Sorry, no. Of course they would continue to collect their paychecks.
 
2013-03-17 09:24:51 PM  

kellyclan: It's really funny that the left wing wants to make it so expensive to own a gun, that only rich white people will be able to


Aw, did someone get their latest BULLSH*T from this year's CPAC?
 
2013-03-17 09:25:23 PM  

Cheviot: What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.


Include anti-drug laws and anti-gambling laws and you have a true american hero!!
Esp if he spent all his time trying to reduce crimes with actual victims!!
"I spend most of my resources on trying to put rapists and murderers behind bars. I dont waste my time with victimless crimes."

/FFS, I would move to that county in a heartbeat. well maybe more, given the whole selling my house thing.
 
2013-03-17 09:25:27 PM  

Cheviot: namatad: Satanic_Hamster: A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."

see
If he had JUST said that.
"This is an unfunded mandate. I am putting it in the pile of other unfunded mandates sitting over there. And will prioritize right after I spend my funding on important things. Like parking tickets and murder."

But instead he got all derpy about it.

You want even more fun? Go read the law. Then write down all the things the sheriff actually has to do under the law. Don't worry, your pencil won't get much of a workout. There is NO requirement for the sheriff to enforce anything. Seriously. None. Go read the law. This sheriff is trolling us.


He has to arrest people who don't adhere to that state law in his county, so he clearly has some requirement to enforce the law.
 
2013-03-17 09:26:26 PM  

mrmopar5287: Happy Hours: I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can.

To me, this attitude right here is the most terrifying thing about the times we are currently living in.  I've heard the same thing from multiple people in the past 4 months.

When we have reached the point that average, intelligent Americans living safely in Middle-class lifestyles has to think "I'm afraid of what my government is going to do" we've reached a pretty low point.


So, ban AM radio?
 
2013-03-17 09:27:38 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: I guess I'll just start picking and choosing which laws I'm going to abide by.

Fark Colorado.



"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them;
if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
I am free because I know that I alone am
morally responsible for everything I do."

R. A. Heinlein
 
2013-03-17 09:35:21 PM  
This reminds me of the piss poor enforcement by the federal government to enforce illegal immigration laws... Libtards pass gun laws and get outraged when someone takes a rule from their play book on illegal immigration... Oh wait, I apologize - libs don't like that word 'illegal', so sorry if I offended anyone.
 
2013-03-17 09:37:20 PM  

Cheviot: Imagine if you had a police officer that decided he wouldn't enforce speed limits on roads because he decided personally it was against his beliefs. What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.

These are not decisions that the police get to make. Their job is to enforce the law, like it or not.


You're funny, either that or you actually believe there are sheriffs that don't already do this.  A classmate of mine was allowed to drive drunk every weekend in HS, because grandpa was sheriff.  They also never wrote speeding tickets.  It may be their job, but there is no way of forcing them to enforce every law.  Go ahead, try.

All this is just silly, since his announcement is only for political reasons.  If he simply disagreed with the laws, he would just simply not enforce them and move on SOP.

/you are funny, I think I'll get some ice cream
 
2013-03-17 09:43:48 PM  

jaytkay: kellyclan: In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.

Protip: Your favorite sovereign citizen web site is not a reliable source for legal advice


Neither is watching CNN or Fox News.

/just sayin'
 
2013-03-17 09:45:56 PM  

redmid17: He has to arrest people who don't adhere to that state law in his county, so he clearly has some requirement to enforce the law.


Auto insurance is required in your state.

Does the sheriff go door-to-door demanding auto insurance papers?

No.

But overly-emotional conservatives think every law regarding guns portends "the government" physically confiscating weapons.

It's comical. I have lived through several cycles of this. 20 years ago conservatives were freaked out about the same imaginary threat.

You are impressionable, gullible, ill-informed, paranoid, and ignorant assholes.

The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.
 
2013-03-17 09:47:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.


You're right for once.

Speeding laws are actually somewhat effective.
 
2013-03-17 09:48:51 PM  

Cheviot: More to the point, however, the Supreme Court has already found that both registration of and background checks being required to obtain automatic weapons is constitutional.


Citation needed.
 
2013-03-17 09:53:30 PM  
Obama knows laws he won't ever ask to be enforced.  This is nothing new, a law enforcement entity that chooses not  uphold certain laws, and the only reason it might be "news" is because this time it might be considered a conservative stance when it is truly a liberal idea.

Ever hear of sanctuary cities?
 
2013-03-17 09:57:40 PM  

jaytkay: redmid17: He has to arrest people who don't adhere to that state law in his county, so he clearly has some requirement to enforce the law.

Auto insurance is required in your state.

Does the sheriff go door-to-door demanding auto insurance papers?

No.

But overly-emotional conservatives think every law regarding guns portends "the government" physically confiscating weapons.

It's comical. I have lived through several cycles of this. 20 years ago conservatives were freaked out about the same imaginary threat.

You are impressionable, gullible, ill-informed, paranoid, and ignorant assholes.

The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.


No but when someone is pulled over they are asked for their license, registration, and proof of insurance. When there is a suspected gun crime and the DA wants proof of ownership of the weapon, guess who is going to be responsible for investigating that if the owner doesn't say a word to prevent self-incrimination?

Hint: It's most likely going to be the sheriff's department unless it's within the city limits. Plenty of crime occurs outside of it.

/not an NRA member
//actually understands the ramifications of somethings, unlike yourself
 
2013-03-17 10:03:09 PM  

jaytkay: super_grass: Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.

So you are fighting for the oppressed white people in the US.

The terribly, terribly oppressed white people.


There are PLENTY of oppressed white people in the united states. Discrimination (negative) is not just skin color, but age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and social class.
I know plenty of white folks who feel pretty sore because they see their "minority" neighbors getting all sorts of breaks while they get nothing. I know why those programs are the way they are but I still understand why those white folks feel that way.
No, I'm not white. But I learned early on not to keep drinking the "white people are the bad oppressors of the minority" juice.
 
2013-03-17 10:06:18 PM  

redmid17: Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.

Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.


This is correct. the BH Mauser is in a special class all of its own. It is one of the few guns for which the big laws don't apply... possibly (my secret belief) because of Star Wars.... (look closely at Han Solo's gun...)

The BH Mauser was a VERY good gun for its time. I don't know why you'd say that about it.
 
2013-03-17 10:07:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and


There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.
 
2013-03-17 10:09:13 PM  

duenor: redmid17: Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.

Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.

This is correct. the BH Mauser is in a special class all of its own. It is one of the few guns for which the big laws don't apply... possibly (my secret belief) because of Star Wars.... (look closely at Han Solo's gun...)

The BH Mauser was a VERY good gun for its time. I don't know why you'd say that about it.


I can say this, for as ungainly as it looks, and for being nearly 90 years old when I shot it, it's surprisingly accurate and fun to shoot.
 
2013-03-17 10:12:11 PM  

jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.


Manufacturers have not increased prices one bit....if they have do you have citations?
 
2013-03-17 10:12:41 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.


The C96 ain't smoothbore either.
 
2013-03-17 10:14:54 PM  

duenor: redmid17: Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.

Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.

This is correct. the BH Mauser is in a special class all of its own. It is one of the few guns for which the big laws don't apply... possibly (my secret belief) because of Star Wars.... (look closely at Han Solo's gun...)

The BH Mauser was a VERY good gun for its time. I don't know why you'd say that about it.


It's production run ended in 1937 and only a few were issued to Luftwaffe soldiers in WW2. My comment had less to do with their efficacy and more to due with their general availability. They weren't a standard sidearm or weapon, and the only real reason to use one would be if there were any normal sidearms left.
 
2013-03-17 10:18:55 PM  
catflag.files.wordpress.com

This thread just keeps...
 
2013-03-17 10:19:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.



No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.
 
2013-03-17 10:22:11 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.


Note handle. Reasonable / intelligent conversation not possible.
 
2013-03-17 10:25:33 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.


I'm not the one who automatically assumed that a Mauser C96 fell under the NFA.
 
2013-03-17 10:25:59 PM  

Giltric: jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.

Manufacturers have not increased prices one bit....if they have do you have citations?


Impressive dishonesty there, changing the subject from "sellers" to "manufacturers".

Wow
 
2013-03-17 10:27:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: Nobody would ever need more than 15 rounds for protection?  Right?  I wonder why law enforcement was given an exemption then...oh, wait, this just in, sometimes more than 15 rounds might be needed.


Well they do routinely fire 200 rounds and not hit a damn thing.
 
2013-03-17 10:29:11 PM  
lack of warmth:
 A classmate of mine was allowed to drive drunk every weekend in HS, because grandpa was sheriff.

All it would have taken was a state prosecutor with an axe to grind and that sheriff would have been toast.  Hell, a  local news reporter would have been enough. And that's just some local yokel protecting his grandson.

Now imagine he was protecting random criminals. This wouldn't end well.
 
2013-03-17 10:31:43 PM  

jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.


Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

I mean, in the very article is in reference to gun bans, and most of the anti-gunners posts all stem around a desire to actively ban and possibly confiscate firearms.
 
2013-03-17 10:33:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


No shiat sherlock......

Point was that there are different things covered by the NFA...that it does not just regulate full auto weapons.

But like many anti gunners you have no idea what laws or criteria already exist.

I'm not the one who automatically assumed that a Mauser C96 fell under the NFA.


It was an NFA item. A pistol having a shoulder stock is defniately part of the criteria. It is considered a short barelled rifle. They removed it from the registry and put it on the curio and relic or collectors registry where you would still need a FFL to aquire it and keep it....just not a tax stamp.
I would not let a cop catch a glimpse of a pistol with a shoulder stock though......they might not know a specific weapon has been removed from the list of NFA items and it is hard to get a firearm back after confiscation even if you prove to be in the right for owning it.
 
2013-03-17 10:34:45 PM  

kellyclan: uphold a fundamental right of all people above enforcing state law.


a right which it should be noted is in no way being infringed funny enough. Also given what happened in Colorado, and why, a psychologist had no one to tell he had someone who was cuckoo for cocoa puffs as a patient, a patient who then had no problem shooting up a theater, I'd expect a sane ration sheriff to find the new laws something to make such occurances a bit less likely.
 
2013-03-17 10:36:43 PM  

ChuDogg: most of the anti-gunners posts all stem around a desire to actively ban and possibly confiscate firearms.


This is a great case of people not smacking down idiots on their own side. Granted when those idiots have a well funded lobby, eh, yeah, kinda hard to slap down the NRA. Instead of whining about some mythical gun grabbers, perhaps you should be more worried about what certain people who you think on your side are advocating and saying.
 
2013-03-17 10:37:23 PM  

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


I bet all of the anti-gun nuts who decry this would be call for the use of the hero tag if he said," You know, I don't think I'm going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Yes, different people have different priorities. Welcome to the planet and species.
 
2013-03-17 10:37:47 PM  

Giltric: It was an NFA item


It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.
 
2013-03-17 10:38:39 PM  

jaytkay: Giltric: jaytkay: The NRA is laughing at you. Gun and ammo sellers are laughing at you for hoarding their products at inflated prices.

Manufacturers have not increased prices one bit....if they have do you have citations?

Impressive dishonesty there, changing the subject from "sellers" to "manufacturers".

Wow


You jelly?

Fight fire with fire I say....
 
2013-03-17 10:39:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.


You still need a ffl 03 to own it.
 
2013-03-17 10:40:16 PM  
Defense of Marriage Act?  Obama does it all the time.
 
2013-03-17 10:40:42 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ChuDogg: most of the anti-gunners posts all stem around a desire to actively ban and possibly confiscate firearms.

This is a great case of people not smacking down idiots on their own side. Granted when those idiots have a well funded lobby, eh, yeah, kinda hard to slap down the NRA. Instead of whining about some mythical gun grabbers, perhaps you should be more worried about what certain people who you think on your side are advocating and saying.


I have no idea what this post means. But as far as "mythical gun grabbers" comment, proposed and instituted gun prohibitions have been making headlines daily for the last several months.

I mean, maybe it's time to update the talking points rotation from 2 years ago.
 
2013-03-17 10:41:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


Its a short barreled rifle when paired with the original holster/stock, also can qualify as Curio & relic (hence a few legal exemptions).

dl.dropbox.com

If I recall there was also full auto model.

As time marches on and technology delivers terrible new weapons to our streets, I think we'll look back one day and wonder what all the fuss was about.
The NFA only passed muster because so few people had interest in expensive and mechanically troublesome guns.  The Hughes amendment banning new sales was thoroughly pointless since it affected only a minority of gun owners.

But that is the nature of infringements.  You start with the smallest group and keep working to expand it.
They weren't content with obstructing the sale of military hardware.  They want the look-alikes too.

The problem being: what was a small group of AR owners in 94 is now the mainstream.
Democrats stuffed their hand in the cookie jar again, but it turned out to be a monkey trap.
 
2013-03-17 10:42:02 PM  

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


And what if the people of Weld county are in complete agreement with him on this?  (They are.)
 
2013-03-17 10:42:37 PM  
Do the cops still use Glock 17s?

Why is called a Glock 17?

Are they going to arrest themselves?

I'm actually going to side with the cops on this one.

<b>NEW RULE</b>: No one is who has never actually fired a gun in their life is allowed to write gun laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 462 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report