Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 21:01:42 GMT -5
The State Police " shall deliver". If you are legally allowed pursuant to WA law... then you fit the criteria of " provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same". They could ship it to you via a FFL dealer in Washington State (it would be COD probably though). Note that there's no reference to the recipient being required to be a New York resident. There may be some hoops to jump through... but it's still possible to get the guns from someone that dies in New York... contrary to your previous assertion. If (for whatever reason) The State of New York doesn't abide by it's own law, then the rightful heir would have a legitimate case against them for a lawsuit. I assume you don't consider any of this "infringement" either? Two questions: 1)Could you provide us with your definition of infringement? 2)How do you figure any of this crap makes you any safer? It's not infringement, as the DEAD have no rights. But to answer your questions: 1> infringement: The action of limiting or undermining something without reasonable cause (cause to be defined as: legitimate reason, such as when a felon loses his rights due to legitimate punishment for his own illegal actions, or VERY small delay for "waiting period", or very small fee to cover costs of background check) 2> if it stops one person that SHOULDN'T have a gun from getting one... then that, by definition, makes us safer.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 23, 2016 21:08:01 GMT -5
I assume you don't consider any of this "infringement" either? Two questions: 1)Could you provide us with your definition of infringement? 2)How do you figure any of this crap makes you any safer? It's not infringement, as the DEAD have no rights. But to answer your questions: 1> infringement: The action of limiting or undermining something without reasonable cause (cause to be defined as: legitimate reason, such as when a felon loses his rights due to legitimate punishment for his own illegal actions, or VERY small delay for "waiting period", or very small fee to cover costs of background check) 2> if it stops one person that SHOULDN'T have a gun from getting one... then that, by definition, makes us safer. I understood the guns were willed to The Walk Of The Penguin Mich. Since he's posting here, I assume he isn't dead. This brings me to another question. If the dead have no rights, what prevents the government from seizing all of everyone's assets upon assuming room temperature?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 23, 2016 21:07:55 GMT -5
Yeah, right. Would you really want to have to sue NY state? It is best to try to avoid the problems altogether. BTW.... we DID contact a local FFL to try to get the guns shipped. There was a question as to whether he could legally ship something I would be mailing from NY under my CWP to my FFL in WA and turned me down.My choice was to let the state police mail them to me? LOL! Let me offer you a bridge I have for sale. If the police took the guns, that would be the last I'd see of them. If you believe otherwise, you are incredibly naive. I didn't suggest YOU should have mailed them. They were right to turn you down. You didn't have legal standing TO ship them... even to yourself... because they weren't LEGALLY yours in the first place (According to New York law). If you think the State wants lawsuits that it can easily avoid... you are the naive one. So I was supposed to wait until the NY state police mailed them to me? Yeah, right. That would happen.....NOT.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 21:20:31 GMT -5
It's not infringement, as the DEAD have no rights. But to answer your questions: 1> infringement: The action of limiting or undermining something without reasonable cause (cause to be defined as: legitimate reason, such as when a felon loses his rights due to legitimate punishment for his own illegal actions, or VERY small delay for "waiting period", or very small fee to cover costs of background check) 2> if it stops one person that SHOULDN'T have a gun from getting one... then that, by definition, makes us safer. I understood the guns were willed to The Walk Of The Penguin Mich. Since he's posting here, I assume he isn't dead. This brings me to another question. If the dead have no rights, what prevents the government from seizing all of everyone's assets upon assuming room temperature? The guns were willed IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW. As to the second paragraph, wills prevent that... when the will doesn't direct an action that's AGAINST THE LAW.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 23, 2016 21:23:31 GMT -5
Logic evades you, Rick. I think I'm through here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 22:20:02 GMT -5
Logic evades you, Rick. I think I'm through here. LOL... naaah. Logic and I are very old friends. We work very well together.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 15:34:42 GMT -5
When seatbelt laws were first passed they were a secondary offense, only enforced if stopped for another primary offense. Only way to get the bills to pass. After a while a lot of people were still not wearing seatbelts by choice, hence most if not all states made the seatbelt requirement a primary offense. Closing the seatbelt loophole. Now it's "click it or ticket". Once the gun show loophole is closed and we have expanded background checks. The next loophole to close will be registering all guns so the proper authorities will know who's selling to who. I'll coin it as the "gun sale loophole" or equivalent. Inch at a time gun control efforts are alive and well in the US. That's why bills allowing suits to proceed when you take away a gun right are important. And good- give me one reason gun purchases along with serial numbers should not be registered into a database. The old 'gun confiscation' argument has proven fantasy so why hamstring the police? This isn't seatbelts- and guns should be controlled- why not? You think they should sell machine guns at Walmart? I'll give you two, England and Australia. I know people in both countries. Get to know a gun owner in either one and they'll explain to you about "registration" and your "proven gun confiscation fantasy". Machine guns have already been regulated starting in 1934. You wanting to know if I think Wal-Mart should sell machine guns seems a little nonsensical don't you think ? The Firearm Owners' Protection Act banned civilian transfer and possession of machine guns not in circulation before May 19, 1986. Specifically, it restricts the transfer and possession of machine guns except for: 1. “transfers to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or 2. any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before [May 19, 1986]” (18 USC § 922(o) & 27 CFR § 478.36). Under ATF regulations, qualified manufacturers may make machine guns for sale to federal agencies or qualified licensees and special occupational taxpayers as “sales samples” for demonstration to prospective government customers (27 CFR § 479.105). They may also make them for export in compliance with the Arms Export Control Act and Department of State regulations (27 CFR § 479.105). Procedure for Acquiring Machine Guns An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval, from its lawful owner residing in the same state as the individual (27 CFR §§ 479.84 & 479.105). The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer and executed under penalties of perjury, and pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF. The application must include detailed information on the firearm and the parties to the transfer (26 USC § 5812 & 27 CFR § 479.84). The transferee must certify on the application that he or she is not disqualified from possessing firearms on grounds specified in law. He or she must submit with the application (1) two photographs taken within the past year; (2) fingerprints; and (3) a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess, or acquire machine guns (27 CFR § 479.85). www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3rKLTn5HLAhXjm4MKHUopAxwQFggkMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cga.ct.gov%2F2009%2Frpt%2F2009-R-0020.htm&usg=AFQjCNFtpxjDXKkw3hMxJTohkxtD4uGmPw
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 18:44:18 GMT -5
You prefer the term ammosexuals? I am sure you and the NRA will be happy to report the first case of an armed student stopping a mass shooter or terrorist The last college that had a shooting had armed students- and they did not get involved for fear of being shot by police in the chaos. I guess we shall see which story comes out first- armed student stops terrorist/shooter, or armed student blows away another student/teacher either on purpose (maybe some goofy self-defense claim) or accidentally while playing with it in class. I'm amused by any term/phrase posted by you that is worded exactly the same way as EVT used to post. Sadly the times are coming that students will need to defend themselves. I'd be happier if criminals and terrorists didn't exist. Certain armed students choose not to defend themselves or didn't need to get involved. There was no report of any armed students being hurt nor accidently shooting anyone so that's a definite win/win. What's your problem with that? No massive defensive crossfire killings as predicted by gun control/kill zone proponents? Haven't seen any reports on accidental injuries from firearms in classrooms either, of course it's a possibility as people aren't perfect. A student might get hit by a bus also. Well, dammit! Obviously we need to ban buses now!
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Feb 29, 2016 22:09:41 GMT -5
You prefer the term ammosexuals? I am sure you and the NRA will be happy to report the first case of an armed student stopping a mass shooter or terrorist The last college that had a shooting had armed students- and they did not get involved for fear of being shot by police in the chaos. I guess we shall see which story comes out first- armed student stops terrorist/shooter, or armed student blows away another student/teacher either on purpose (maybe some goofy self-defense claim) or accidentally while playing with it in class. I'm amused by any term/phrase posted by you that is worded exactly the same way as EVT used to post. Sadly the times are coming that students will need to defend themselves. I'd be happier if criminals and terrorists didn't exist. Certain armed students choose not to defend themselves or didn't need to get involved. There was no report of any armed students being hurt nor accidently shooting anyone so that's a definite win/win. What's your problem with that? No massive defensive crossfire killings as predicted by gun control/kill zone proponents? Haven't seen any reports on accidental injuries from firearms in classrooms either, of course it's a possibility as people aren't perfect. A student might get hit by a bus also. Really? Are students in other countries targeted so much they need guns?
I am just telling you that if you think armed students are the answer to our gun problems you are in fantasy land. Of course after students you will have to force private businesses to allow employees to carry weapons- that should end well
Criminals exist, terrorists exist, and other than in the United States does arming people make it better.
You have a logic problem that starts with the idea of 'gun free zones'. Until you let that go in the face of reality you might as well tell us how the Earth has been cooling for the last decade. Or better- out yourself as a President Trump supporter.
I saw a student get killed by a bus when I was in HS BTW- you never forget that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 22:15:10 GMT -5
I'm amused by any term/phrase posted by you that is worded exactly the same way as EVT used to post. Sadly the times are coming that students will need to defend themselves. I'd be happier if criminals and terrorists didn't exist. Certain armed students choose not to defend themselves or didn't need to get involved. There was no report of any armed students being hurt nor accidently shooting anyone so that's a definite win/win. What's your problem with that? No massive defensive crossfire killings as predicted by gun control/kill zone proponents? Haven't seen any reports on accidental injuries from firearms in classrooms either, of course it's a possibility as people aren't perfect. A student might get hit by a bus also. Really? Are students in other countries targeted so much they need guns?
I am just telling you that if you think armed students are the answer to our gun problems you are in fantasy land. Of course after students you will have to force private businesses to allow employees to carry weapons- that should end well
Criminals exist, terrorists exist, and other than in the United States does arming people make it better.
You have a logic problem that starts with the idea of 'gun free zones'. Until you let that go in the face of reality you might as well tell us how the Earth has been cooling for the last decade. Or better- out yourself as a President Trump supporter.
I saw a student get killed by a bus when I was in HS BTW- you never forget that.
Armed students aren't the answer to "gun problems". Armed students are the answer to "who is going to be able to protect themselves on campus best if there's a wacko with a gun shooting people?" People with attitudes of "lets make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves" are the ones with the "logic problem" (as you call it).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 22:32:57 GMT -5
I'm on the side of "irresponsible use, or use in an illegal activity, should be punished".
ETA: for the record, the Florida guy with the poorly thought out "shooting range" qualifies as "irresponsible use".
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Mar 1, 2016 1:52:17 GMT -5
I'm on the side of "irresponsible use, or use in an illegal activity, should be punished". ETA: for the record, the Florida guy with the poorly thought out "shooting range" qualifies as "irresponsible use". Always knew you were one of the sane ones
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 12:38:00 GMT -5
I'm amused by any term/phrase posted by you that is worded exactly the same way as EVT used to post. Sadly the times are coming that students will need to defend themselves. I'd be happier if criminals and terrorists didn't exist. Certain armed students choose not to defend themselves or didn't need to get involved. There was no report of any armed students being hurt nor accidently shooting anyone so that's a definite win/win. What's your problem with that? No massive defensive crossfire killings as predicted by gun control/kill zone proponents? Haven't seen any reports on accidental injuries from firearms in classrooms either, of course it's a possibility as people aren't perfect. A student might get hit by a bus also. Really? Are students in other countries targeted so much they need guns?
I am just telling you that if you think armed students are the answer to our gun problems you are in fantasy land. Of course after students you will have to force private businesses to allow employees to carry weapons- that should end well
Criminals exist, terrorists exist, and other than in the United States does arming people make it better.
You have a logic problem that starts with the idea of 'gun free zones'. Until you let that go in the face of reality you might as well tell us how the Earth has been cooling for the last decade. Or better- out yourself as a President Trump supporter.
I saw a student get killed by a bus when I was in HS BTW- you never forget that.
Kind of funny how I knew of you seeing that student killed by a bus, and yet fishy999 never posted that before Your kind of killing me here. Whoopsie! You do understand why I don't take your stance on gun control too seriously don't you? Even with all your colorful adjectives applied !
|
|