Full auto prices

You are right Yotehunter, I am very pro-gun. I work a part time job selling guns at Sportsmans Warehouse. I have no problem with citizens buying guns for hunting, recreation or for self defense. I also dont disagree with the principle of what you are saying. I honestly wish things were different in this great nation of ours where things could be different. However, do you think our founding fathers intended for you or I or anyone to purchase a permit to hunt deer, elk antelope, etc. etc? Yet we do without batting an eye. Do you consider hunting a right? I do. Yet you willingly buy a license or apply for a permit. Do you think they ever even considered requiring a permit to drive your horse and carriage down the street? We do though. Its called a drivers license. Is it too far off base to compare a carriage to a vehicle as opposed to a flintlock rifle to an M16. Both are probably beyond the comprehension of our founding fathers much like the problems that face society in these modern times. I do not oppose American citizens having the right to bear arms as stated in the Bill of Rights. My point is that some Americans have LOST some of their rights that were granted them in the Constitution by our founding fathers. Their actions and lifestyles have made them a threat to society. Without some sort of system in place, how can we keep evil people from legally possessing a weapon? How do we keep the people who would readily harm you or your family without batting an eye or without a second thought from legally carring a concealed weapon? Or an automatic weapon? I guess you could make an argument and it would be a strong one, that reqiring a permit or applying for a license is a form of gun control. But whats the alternative? Forget about doing background checks? Let anyone walk into Walmart or any sporting goods store and buy a gun without proving somehow that they have not lost the right? Do you believe people can lose their rights through criminal action or behavior? If nothing else, some of you have to see that I certainly view this issue from a different perspective and probably more because of how I make a living than any other reason. The simple truth is that things are not as simple as, "Its our right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution" You really cant argue that anything in our world is simple anymore. Because of that fact, many law abidding citizens have to jump through hoops, be inconvenienced and sometimes even humiliated to excercise a right that our founding fathers granted them. I would be the first to say thats not right. But someone please give an alternative other than everyone, regardless of their background, should retain their right to bear arms without question. That is not an option and you will never convince me that any of our founding fathers ever intended that. At least consider what I am saying before reverting back to this issue being a simple one because it is no longer that simple. Our founding fathers could never have known that American society would be infested with the violence, drug abuse and hatred that it has today.
That being said, I do not want stronger gun laws. I am in favor of relaxing gun laws in as many ways as it is humanly possible. In my home state and the city I live, it is legal for citizens to carry a firearm, in the open, anywhere in the city within reason. Further, it is legal to have a fully loaded firearm, concealed in a vehicle, without possessing a permit. That is unless you are a convicted felon or have been convicted of Family Violence. I have no problem with that and hope it never changes. Concealed weapons on the person require a permit. That does not take away that citizens right to bear arms. It simply permits that citizen to carry his arms hidden on his person and I firmly believe to have that right, you should be required to prove that you have not done something to lose it. As far as automatic weapons go, as long as you are not a felon or Family Violence offender, and can prove it, I believe Americans should be allowed to posses them. If its still shameful and disgusting of me to feel this way then so be it. Also Yotehunter, I disagree with the statement that most of what modern law enforcement does is reactionary although that is a good part of our job. Crime prevention is alive and well and is a huge part of what we do. Ever hear of Community Policing? A simple traffic stop for a traffic violation although appearing reactionary on the surface can be considered prevention in high accident areas. The simple act of patrolling and being seen by the public is the simplest form of crime prevention. There are many crime prevention programs out there that law enforcement is very involved in. DARE and Neighborhood watch to name a few.
Mauser,
In 17 years of law enforcement, I have never seen the code of silence and probably would not know it if I fell over it. As far as the oilfield workers being referred to as oilfield trash, they refer to themselves as oilfield trash. It is not a derrogatory term any more than Redneck is a derrogatory term. In most instances it is a term of endearment especially among themselves. To answer your question, I have never "worked anyone over" anywhere in Casper or Mills. I have however used reasonable and necessary force whether it be hands on, pepper spray, TASER, impact weapons or the display of a firearm to control many many situations. It is what Police Officers do.
 
You guy's been buzzy. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I have no problem with the background check or a card stating that I've had a background check. "permit" does'nt seem like the proper word though. Because I submitted myself to a background check, I'm permitted to carry concealed? Sounds reasonable to me in this day and age. A 3 day waiting period on handguns or a quick 20 minute check on rifles? Whats wrong there? Are handguns more deadlier than rifles or shotguns. When the FBI does a 20 minute check on rifle purchases they have all the information they need. On a handgun purchase- They have'nt got quite enough information and will take 3 days to recieve it?
This law was brought in by anti's. The same ones that made a rifle with a pistol grip illegal for five years. Well...you can have a pistol grip and a flash surpressor but the rifle has to be 30" or so in lenght, or you can have a 30 round clip and a pistol grip but the baonet lug makes the rifle ugly /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif and is not lawfull. This law was not reasonable! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif and is still teetering on which party is elected to office.
I've been on the NRA website looking for a way I mite help. It seems like the NRA is made up of a bunch of reasonible people that realize that some things have to be done to keep outlaws from getting guns but on the other hand the anti's will trample over our rights and never look back.
There site is very interesting. They've got a few ongoing battles and have made some headway. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
If the FBI can do a 20 minute check and there is nothing wrong in that period of time how is the 3 day waiting period going to be any better. I bought a 870 yesterday here in Mo. the clerk had an ok in less than 3 minutes.this is my opion if it can be done in 3 minutes on a shoot gun it can be done in 3 minutes on a handgun. A gun is a gun. Stand in front of it when fired down you go, muzzle loader,rifle,shotgun,or handgun. Criminals will have guns no matter what fully auto,single shot, or pumps, they will have them no matter what. It's like buying beer when under age it just takes a little longer. Carry a concealed weapon I think has made a difference. A street punk will back off if there is a chance there is a weapon on you,a big time criminal may not. The problem with the concealed weapon is you had better have balls enough to use if needed and be able to take what happens after pulling the triger. You will see what it is like to be treated like a criminal,I have a freind going throught the process now because he shot a would be car jacker. We have to many permits now, to many peolpe looking up your skirt on these so called background checks,but it creates jobs and income for the ones doing the checking. The cops are overworked,under paid,unapperciated,the courts are overloaded,the jails are overcrowed,but the
honest citizen cann't own a fully auto with out paying a high price for it. Something is wrong here I don't think our for fathers meant it to be this way Mauser
 
Boy! has this thread changed, WOW.

WyoSongDog, when I was talking about your job being reactionary, I meant it in the context of this for example; I get mugged on the street, I cannot nor should I be able to sue the police department for not protecting me. The purpose of law enforcement was to be reactionary,but with all the little squabbles that everyone seems to have today, they have created a monster. How many Bullsh%$ calls do you go to? Granted some can escalate into something worse and society is demanding that the police take care of it. Again, security over freedom. I'm not saying that we need to go back to an era when "DUELS" were the way to handle things, but honor was big back then. Today, a fistfight is no longer allowed, so what happens? You get a kid taking a gun to school or something similar because the parents cannot spank thier kids, or the principal cannot correct the student. The anger has had no place to go for so long that it get's pent up and explodes. Today, we have very little honor and most people will not stand up for what is right. There was a time when a fistfight was just that, a "FISTFIGHT". It settled a dispute and usually the loser backed off. Today it has gotten to the point that it has gotten carried away to the point of lethal use of weapons, because of being pent up for so long.

It is true, that this is not a simple thing, but when you have a City Council, State Gov't or Fed. Gov't making laws that by design are not ment to control crime but reduce ownership of personal firearms. We have open carry laws here in Nevada, we also have the ability to carry a loaded pistol in our car (under the seat, on the seat,dash or where-ever). There is no concealment unless it is on your person. Also, if it is on your person, but a reasonable person can make out what it is, the weapon is still NOT considered concealed.

Dare and Neighborhood Watch are the programs that are preventive yes, but Neighborhood Watch still has the Police in the reactionary mode as they should be. The watch program is the people calling the police to a crime in progress (hence "reactionary"). A traffic stop is you witnessing a violation of traffic laws and reacting to the crime, even if it is a coordinated event of sitting at a high accident intersection or sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun. The job you do is an important one and is needed very much, but you would not be able to prevent any crime, if it was not in the process of happening. You would never make a case of arresting someone at there house because they were going to do something illegal later in the day (now I am not talking of someone planning a crime through conspiracy or planning, then you finding out about the plan of something similar). If you got a call to go to a house and the girlfriend told you her boyfriend was going to rob a convience store, you would again be reacting to information provided to you.
Yes there are certain situations where your actions may look to be preventive, but for the most part, your job is to be reactionary in nature. Even the Supreme Court has held up that position, and it was the right decision.

Along with any "Rights", comes taking the responsibility for ones actions. Giving up "Rights" for "Security" is not something anyone should want. This is where I stand. This has been a good conversation (as I'll call it), and we are on the same side, just see thing from differing views. Nobody is wrong or right, but BEATING someone up for their opinion is not right and will only drive them away and put them on the defensive. I have enjoyed this exchange and still highly respect your opinion. I understand your view and duty as an Officer. I understand that not everyone is capable of protecting themselves or have the desire to do so. I for one, and I am sure that most on this site can say the same thing, do not fall into that catagory. Prevention begins at home, thru education and up-bringing. Standing up for the things that are right, does not mean you have to be a "predator" and be aggressive.
You just have to learn to stand up and be counted, whether making a phone call to report a crime in progress or to act on a personal assault on yourself.. I am not talking in a MACHO type of attitude, sometimes it may be just being a good witness.

I enjoyed this more than you will ever know. Stay in touch, and be safe...JOHN
 
i used to be an NRA member, but they really dropped the ball on the parts kit barrel ban. the NRA did absolutely nothing about it. and it took them 4 days before they even condemned the NOLA gun confiscations. if Uncle Ted becomes the pesident of the NRA ill join back up
 
I agree Yotehunter. It has changed and I thank you, Woodcock and Mauser for your contributions in turning something that was heading in an ugly direction into something civil and respectful. It seems that GonHuntin,George Ackley, 5 shots, Stoney and Farmer J have bowed out of the discussion. I think their judgement of me was quick and harsh but I consider it water under the bridge and I bear no grudge. I can only hope they feel the same.

Woodcock and Mauser, I am not sure what you are talking about when you refer to a 3 day wait for handguns or any type of firearm. As I stated earlier, I have a part time job where I work behind a gun counter selling guns on my days off. I routinely sell handguns of every shape and size, shotguns and rifles including hunting rifles, AR15's, M-4's, Socoms, M-1's and everything in between. Almost always the customer can walk out of the store with their purchase after filing out the proper paperwork and waiting for the quick and painless Federal name check. It takes less than three minutes and rarely do customers ever get delayed. Its rarer still to get denied. Conceal carry permits are almost as easy to get but they do require an application and approval process. I do recognize the fact that some states (California is ridiculous) have much stricter laws and regulations governing the sales of firearms. This may contribute to some of our difference in view points since I just do not see things nearly as bad as some of you in other states. I do tend to agree with Woodcock and Mauser that within reason a gun is a gun and it should make little difference if its a rifle, handgun or shotgun when it comes to the process. I also agree that the inflated prices for FA weapons is crazy and there is something wrong with the system. Where we still most likely disagree is I still think that there should be a special license or a permit for individuals to posses FA weapons although it should not be out of reach of those who care to obtain them like it seems to be now. A system where someone with no firearms competancy or knowledge can just walk in and buy a FA weapon frankly scares the heck out of me. Not to mention, what about the mental competancy of some that could become an issue. I truly believe that a vast majority of Law Enforcement officers would agree with me and I wish we could get some of them in here to pipe up on this discussion.
 
So when was the last time you or your department stood up and expressed this to the media?

Or asked them why a story such as this:
http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf
Was not covered in great detail?

Or asked the media to clear up the mistakes in a weapons relate story?
http://keyetv.com/local/local_story_025163123.html

Not bowed out, just don't feel like seeing how many times you change your story.

Quote:
Just the same, from a Police Officer standpoint, I am glad that possessing a full auto weapon is difficult and expensive at best. Otherwise too many people that don't belong having them would.



Quote:
Sorry if I offended anyone. I don't want to prevent good law abiding citizens from having these weapons and I agree that most all of the people that can and do get them deserve to have them and use them responsibly. I guess what I was trying to say is I am somewhat thankful they are not as easy to get on the street as a Saturday night special.



It's not the weapon, car, alcohol or object that commits the crime. It is a PERSON. Too often I hear LEO say, "If only they had less access to guns", "If the BAC was lowered to 0.XX%"

Bull, if only the courts held the person accountable for their actions. I keep my nose clean for a reason. I have rights guaranteed to me under the constitution as a part of the American Constitution. The only condition being that I abide by that constitution. I view it as our countries "Golden rules." If I don't, then I loose those Rights. But that would be under my choosing to violate those "Rules".

Unfortunately, our LEO community and law makers have gotten it to the point everytime we turn around, we can guarantee that we are breaking someones law in one way or another. It's inevitable.

So when was the last time you went to your chief and asked him to make a statement that Class III weapons should be relaxed? That the gun acts in 1986 are too strict?

Is he a proponent for the Nationwide CCW permit for citizens?

Are YOU a proponent for the Nationwide CCW permit?

Are you or your chief a proponent of "Shall Issue" permits for states that are too restrictive?

Should California or looking like Illinois be allowed to remain so restrictive?

Plain and simple, the police are not their for our protection, the US Supreme Court has even upheld that and stated it clearly.

So it is up to the indiviual to provide that protection. And the only way to do that is meet force with force. LEO are not the only one with knowledge of the Force Continuem.

I forget the link, but what you you have done in this situation?

A officer is involved in a shooting and killed, the first responding is shot and injured. In the meantime, citizens are standing around and WATCHING it happen. Yet no one does anything to help.

I would be terrified to death to step up and use deadly force to help the officer. More in fear of being shot from the very person I am trying to help as well as being held as an accomplice to the punk that shot the officer.

That is the enviroment I see our LEO community as having created along with our court system.

The scary part is, It has actually happened.
 
Last edited:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC3

Pretty good description of "Rights" and "Shall not be Infringed upon"

Quote:
The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act [a federal gun control law] violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." . . .




Quote:
My approach, as my Article concedes, has its difficulties. 51 But at least it doesn't lead to a right mysteriously vanishing on the grounds that some find it "meaningless" and "outdated." That, it seems to me, is a point in favor of my method -- especially when there are other rights that many would happily read out of our Constitution.

 
Last edited:
Not sure where you are coming from when you say I have changed my story. I clarified what I originally said, or ment by my statement. Other than that I have not changed my position. Its obvious to me FarmerJ that you have not read my posts since my first comment. or at least you are not digesting them. I have pretty clearly stated my position. Also, what the court system does with criminals has nothing to do with the police. We have nothing to say about the process and many many times are frustrated at the criminals who we have arrested that are let go or slapped on the hand. As far as citizens carrying concealed, I am all for it as long as they submit an application and pass a background check. I do believe there are some states that very much need to relax their laws when it comes to firearms. I am however against a system that allows American citizens to carry concealed firearms, posses FA weapons or to even posses a weapon period if they live a life that has caused them to lose the right. Without background checks and application processes, how can we determine who can and who cant. As I asked before Farmer J. Do you think that an American citizen can lose the right to bear arms? If you answer that they cannot lose the right, then you are the one with the problem and not me. I know some very bad people that I would never want having the legal right to posses a firearm. I do agree with you and have from the beginning that American citizens losing their gun rights for any reasons other than criminal history reasons is wrong and should be corrected. If you would actually read my posts, you would see where I called California gun laws ridiculous. As far as the media goes Farmer J, Law Enforcement has no control or say so and the media is often our worst enemy as well so I dont know what to tell you there. The media reports what they want and what stirs people up and sells newspapers. It has always been that way. Look at what the media has done to American soldiers and their efforts in Iraq.
 
Please kind sir,
Show me where in the Constitition, Bill of Rights, the rest of the ammendments it says that a Citizen should lose any Rights given by God and "guaranteed" by the BOR. I am anxiously waiting to see where anyone has lost any of the other 9 Rights due to criminal conviction. I submit to you that even a convicted criminal who is now out on the streets having paid his/her debt to society has the same right of self protection that you or I do.
As for CCW, how many folks who choose to exercise any of the other 7 rights (those that apply only to individuals) have to give up the rights guaranteed by Ammendment 4 to do so? In fact haven't you and I just freely exercised our First Ammendment right here on this forum without having to give up any of our other God given rights?
Oh, and another thing - LEA by virtue of the Fourth Ammendment cannot protect us!
The founding fathers did discuss licensing the horse and/or carriage and anything THEY didn't forsee. Read tha 9th and 10th ammendments to the Constitution.
nuf said,
cb
 
Quote:
I submit to you that even a convicted criminal who is now out on the streets having paid his/her debt to society has the same right of self protection that you or I do.


You actually believe this BS your spouting CB? I would fight you to the ends of the earth that a convicted felon, especially a violent felon, has any gun rights after paying their debt to society /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif. You can carry on all you want but I made my stance and I stick by my guns (forgive the pun). I am done with this thread.
 
I think Charliebee in his first sentence asked you a question? The man asked several questions,all he got was an [beeep] chewing. Mauser
 
Quote:
Show me where in the Constitition, Bill of Rights, the rest of the ammendments it says that a Citizen should lose any Rights given by God and "guaranteed" by the BOR. I am anxiously waiting to see where anyone has lost any of the other 9 Rights due to criminal conviction.


A civil sanction imposed on U.S. citizens convicted of a felony includes the loss of competence to serve on a grand or petit jury or to vote in elections even after release from prison. While controversial, these disabilities are explicitly sanctioned by the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or so the Supreme Court has ruled.

They don't call it "a loss of rights", since in legal theory a right can't be lost. Instead they call it a "disability of rights", but it amounts to the same thing.


Quote:
I submit to you that even a convicted criminal who is now out on the streets having paid his/her debt to society has the same right of self protection that you or I do.


"All legislative Powers" granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, as stated in Article I, Section I, are vested in a Congress of the United States. Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § § 921 - 930, and it has been challenged and upheld in the Supreme Court (Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, among others).

You or I may disagree with the legislature and/or the court, and may even feel that the Supreme Court didn't "uphold the Constitution", but they are the final arbiters of a law's constitutionality. At least untill new justices may make different rulings, we're stuck with it, and LEO's are sworn to uphold it.

§ 924 § 924. Unlawful Acts

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
 
Now that is what I call an intelligent answer. Though I may not agree with the Supremes about this and a lot of other things, at least you have the decency to show me that you thought my questions legitemate.
As for our dear friend in Wyoming isn't it interesting that part of his signature is as follows?
"To constantly question the assumptions, to stop the slide into atrocity."
one man's way of life could be another's atrocity, and atts all I'ma doin questioning the assumptions trying to stop the slide into the atrocity of a police state.

cb
 
Back
Top