All of them are available, how much paperwork do you want to fill out and how bad do you want it?
We aren’t talking about “unlimited”, we are talking about “limiting” the type, style, color, that people like you (who still doesn’t get it, unsurprising really) are trying to “limit”.
YOUR argument was that there were 700 available types “limited” to purchase and that was enough.
I used news sources, magazines, and tv stations to turn your argument around, which you didn’t answer btw, and then you double down.
I don’t care what types, styles, colors are available. I care that you can purchase an unlimited amount. “unlimited” by definition cannot be ‘limited’ let alone “severely limited”
If there was only one gun available, but you could buy as many as you wanted, that is still not “severely limited” since you can buy an “unlimited” amount.
It’s amazing to me that you could fill a house with guns, guns stored in every nook and cranny, so many guns that you couldn’t even walk around in the house, and then with a straight face say “My ability to buy guns is severely limited”
Maybe I would wonder. But maybe we aren’t talking about the same thing.
The police can ask you what you are up to at any time for any reason, or no reason. He can briefly detain you only if he has RAS, and can only arrest you on probable cause.
So the police can certainly ask me why I am carrying a rifle. If I reply “piss off I’m busy” and keeps walking, and the police then stop me from walking, that’s a Terry stop. I have to give my identifying identification, and the police have to have RAS. Refusing to answer questions is not RAS. Doing something legal is also not RAS.
No, I don’t. In particular, I have never posted that you must answer questions, or that refusing to answer questions can be made the basis for a detention or arrest.
Why do people so often seem to harbor this silly notion that laws and their related human behavior are inviolable, clearly-delineated, reproducible y consistent phenomenon?
You’re focusing on the wrong “unlimited”. If you can buy as many issues of People magazine as you want, stuffing your bookshelves and every nook and cranny of your house with glossy photos of “Brannifer”, that doesn’t mean your first amendment freedoms aren’t severely limited, if other all types of literature is banned. That also doesn’t mean that nothing should be banned, such as classified information about troop locations or whatever.
But the standard should be, unless there’s a particular reason to outlaw something, it is legal. If California said “guns are legal, except these, and these, and those with these features” that would be one thing. But my understanding is that they have a white list such that “all guns are banned, except for those on this list”, and that’s the “severe limitation” issue here.
It’s a white list versus black list. If a limited number of guns were banned, and all others legal unless a new law was passed based on particular reasons applicable to those guns, that would not be a problem, in my mind. But “all guns are banned, except for a particular few we’ve chosen for arbitrary reasons” is severely limiting, yes. No matter how many you can buy of the approved type.
It’s exactly like saying “here’s a list of approved literature you can publish”. No matter how many pages of that approved literature you’re allowed to publish, your First Amendment rights are severely limited in that case. If literature (or a gun) is to be banned, it needs to be the ban that is limited in scope, not the part that remains legal.
We were talking specifically about bolt action, and that is the whole point, if I were to restrict or “ban” a type of weapon, it would be the semi-auto, leaving you with the bolt action only. Try putting a bump stock on a bolt action rifle and see how many rounds per minute you get.
Deer hunting rifles can also be limited by law as to how many rounds they can carry. People hunting rifles are not. If you are seen in a game forest with an “illegal weapon”, then a game warden will give you an appropriate punishment. If you are seen walking down the streets with something with far more capacity, then a cop cannot.
Rifles for deer usually do actually have a larger caliber round, useful for deer, less useful for people(wasted overkill), and further limits the ammo carrying capacity of both the weapon and the wielder.
Some do not actually have a way of quickly reloading, either with magazines or zip clips, and each round has to be individually loaded directly into the gun. That would be another distinction that I would keep for hunting rifles.
A hunting rifle has no need at all of a threaded barrel. You should not be attaching anything to the end of the barrel, as that would be interfering with your accuracy.
A hunting rifle does not need a folding or detachable stock either. A folding stock is only useful if you want to be able to carry your gun in a more concealed fashion.
Finally, a deer rifle should only be in use by a licensed hunter in an area where deer hunting is permitted during the time in which it is permitted or on an appropriate target range. (For instance, this was not an appropriate target range.)
Couple of things. First, there is actually different versions of the RM700, and there is a different version for the military than there is for civilian use, so it’s a bit disingenuous (or may be just your ignorance) to try to refer to them as the same gun. Second, you just said “with a reduced magazine”, which is one of the things that I have pointed out is a distinction between a gun used for hunting animals and hunting people.
Okay, so a soldier is about to be in the lead while his team storms an ISIS compound. You offer him an AR-15 or a Remington Model 700(civilian version). Which do you think he chooses? Why?
Lawmakers didn’t have trouble defining them, they had trouble getting those definitions passed politically, so it was just the mostly useless cosmetic stuff that ended up getting through.
Are you advocating that people disobey a cop when they are telling you that they are giving you a lawful order?
I thought the idea was that you had to follow their orders, and if you feel that your rights are being violated, you can deal with that later in the courts system.
You are telling me that the proper place to adjudicate your rights are on the side of the road with the cop, now?
In DC, in 2008, you could stuff as many storage lockers with shotguns and rifles as you wanted, but handguns were banned. The Supreme Court rightly viewed this as a “severe limitation” on Second Amendment rights. Again, quantity is not the only question.
Suppose you could stuff your bookshelves with as many bibles as you wanted, but Qurans were banned. Are you going to claim that’s not a severe limitation on the First Amendment right to practice religion? Or does it require more than sheer quantity to say a right isn’t limited?
I am always willing to admit that my take on things can be skewed by my own beliefs. So I checked in this morning with a co-worker who is an avid gun enthusiast. He is also a historical reenactor, so he owns and operates several firearms that many of you here would enjoy playing with. Small sample size I admit, but at least one with a very different take on this topic than mine.
He agreed that he never sees anyone open carrying rifles here in Rhode Island. The last time he could recall anyone openly displaying rifles in Providence was in 1967 during a riot. He also informed me that here in Rhode Island hunting is only allowed with bow, shotgun and muzzle-loaders, so there is no reason for a hunter to carry a rifle. Doubly so since carrying more than one firearm or bow while hunting is prohibited.
He said that he would never carry a rifle just walking down the street, and would expected to be stopped if he did so. He also agreed that if he saw someone carrying an AR 15 down the street he would call the police, even though he knows it it legal to do it because it is just something you never see around here, so it would ping his radar that something was wrong. If it makes any of you feel better, he believes it is easier to be a gun owner in RI than Connecticut which he lovingly referred to as “the glass and chrome fascist state.”
That’s all I got. You can believe me or not, I don’t care. I know that I am not going to change anyone’s mind on this issue, I am just letting you know what the gun culture is here. You can send me cites on the local gun laws, and supreme court decisions, and your autographed copy of the 2nd Amendment, I already know what they say. If I ever see anyone walking down the street here carrying an AR 15, I would call the police and report a suspicious person openly carrying a gun. Because around here, such behavior is suspicious. In other parts of the country I have spent time in, like Ohio and PA, I wouldn’t even bat an eye because it is acceptable behavior there.
Good for the Supreme Court. In my opinion, if you can buy millions of guns that shoot projectiles out of them, then your ability to buy guns is not “severely limited”
The Bible and the Quran are not the exact same thing. Therefore, again, this analogy is worthless.
It’s uncommon. Whether it’s suspicious depends on the viewer. What it isn’t is actionable, at least by the police, other than to ask a question that the person doesn’t have to answer.
That’s okay. I don’t suspect you do. Of course, I’m not the one who would stand in front of a million guns that I purchased and try to claim that your gun-buying is “severely limited”