(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Agreed.
The problem with it is that the number and type of guns I own is none of the government’s business. It’s none of your business either, but the British clearly have a much broader view of what is permissive for government than Americans do.
… so when I use my gun in public, THEN it can be the government’s business. Until that time, they can stay out of my house and leave me alone.
And there we go with the “reasonable” again. What is reasonable?
It sounds “reasonable” to me that the government stays out of my life and lets me do as I please, since I have not committed a crime. It is also “reasonable” to only prosecute the people who actually commit crimes, rather than punishing people who have done nothing wrong. It is “reasonable” (and supported by recent Supreme Court rulings) that a gun intended for defense should be kept ready to be used in an instant rather than secured by lock and key. And it is entirely “reasonable” to expect a government to obey its founding document rather than ignore it when it is inconvenient.
Is the government going to reimburse me for the magazines that they have just outlawed?
Is the government going to accept responsibility if my ten-round magazine proves inadequate?
As an FYI. Following link shows you where the Patriot Act is violating constitutional rights.
not just rifles, pistols too.
and believe me I think the Patriot Act was one of the biggest mistakes ever. I hate losing any right not just gun rights. I had hoped Obama would do something about Guantanamo like he promised, one of the reasons I voted for him twice. All I can say at this point well at least he wasn’t Romney :(.
It was impossible for Obama to close Gitmo. No way Congress was going to allow it.
Just sayin’.
Maybe people shouldn’t make promises that they don’t have the authority to deliver.
Just sayin’.
Yeah, but it’s not like that is unique to Obama. I don’t believe he made more or bigger promises than your typical presidential candidate.
I’m not generally one to give the prez a pass on not being able to get things through Congress, but I think it’s fair on this point to do so. It wasn’t just the Republicans.
Clearly, that’s why homosexuality was illegal in large parts of the UK until 2003 and people’s houses are seized because their teenaged grandson sold another kid an eighth of pot.
Oh wait that’s not the UK at all, that’s the US.
A crime is an act that’s against the law, and the law can be changed. If the law changes to prohibit a certain kind of gun, and you keep such a gun after the law is passed, then you will be someone who “actually commits a crime”, namely, the crime of owning said forbidden gun.
No, the government bears no responsibility for your feelings of inadequacy.
… and this is why such new laws should not be permitted. You are transforming law abiding citizens into criminals, even though they haven’t hurt anyone.
Do we feel like a big boy now?
(Based purely on US TV) Isn’t the standard LEO weapon also Glock? (17?) Don’t they generally have mags bigger than 10?
So you acknowledge that those policies were wrong? But it’s okay to take guns away from people who haven’t hurt anyone?
Each department has their own choice, but the Glocks are quite common. This is part of the reason there is so much criticism for an AWB… You are taking something normal and common and suddenly declaring it to be criminal. Apparently some people see nothing wrong with this.
Uh huh.:rolleyes:
And the inner city druggy scumbag felon who obtained his weapon illegally is going to jump through all these hoops to make sure he’s in compliance with the law, right?:dubious:
Oh, wait. He doesn’t have to because the courts have ruled that would be a form of self incrimination and thus a violation of the 5th Amendment.:smack:
The gun control act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, the Brady Bill, the 1994 assualt weapons ban, Chicago/Washington DC handgun bans, etc., etc., etc.. All were touted to be panaceas to curbing violent crime. And the criminal elements keep killing and the lawful citizens keep getting the blame. Insanity!
What is this intended to accomplish? I show him my gun, he says “yup, that’s a gun,” and we both go about our day. What does the inspection actually do? Are there really so many people performing illegal modifications that this is necessary? Or are you just trying to make life harder?
Once again, the Antigun groups want to add layers of hassle and bureaucracy but cannot explain what purpose it serves.
I’m thinking you answered your own question.
The left wants all these gun laws that won’t affect the criminal element one iota while they already don’t properly enforce the zillions of othere laws on the books.
For example, here in Wisconsin armed robbery carries a maximum term of 40 years. The average conviction for it receives less than 15% of that. This same standard is applied to other felonies as well (theft, burglary, substantial battery, etc.). Mandatory minimums are also meaningless when judges use it to sentence offenders to probation rather than being locked up. The reality is shopping mall, schoolyard, and movie theater shootings carried out by nut jobs are extremely rare events. The majority of violent crimes are committed by career criminals who go in and out of the system on watered down sentences and never feel the harsh sting of real consequences for their actions. Until they finally kill someone. Then someone is dead, and the liberals scream for more useless gun laws. What a ridiculously vicious circle! The truth that the left refuses to acknowledge is that those who use guns to commit criminal acts tend to get their guns in an already illegal manner. More laws will do nothing to the thug who ignores the laws already on the books. A simple fact is, an armed robber can’t shoot a gas station attendant while he’s still incarcerated for a burglary he committed previously. The tax burden of slapping habitual criminals with real prison time is minute’ when one considers the other costs and human suffering it prevents.
But locking up a piece of shit for a good long time does not make your average bleeding heart “feel good” like a useless gun law does. There needs to be a campaign of “Let’s lockup societies shitbags forever and ever. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!”.
Very well said! That “do it for the children” thing might just work.
That is silly. I presume it includes the .22 semi auto carbine with a “detachable magazine” that belonged to Mrs. Plant v.3.0’s Grandfather.
You do realize that such a law would ban the majority of guns owned in the US, right? I mean, you’re dismissing it as no big deal, but “semi-automatic weapons capable of accepting a detachable magazine” have been the standard in handguns for over a hundred years, and constitute a large percentage of rifles too. That’s a pretty huge deal that you’re just sort of blowing past - it would be the most restrictive, widespread gun ban/restriction in US history.