Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 85 of 85
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Upper Darby, Pennsylvania
    (Delaware County)
    Age
    57
    Posts
    4,237
    Rep Power
    21474852

    Default Re: BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by fallenleader View Post
    out of rep
    Me, too...

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yutopia, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    13571860

    Default Re: BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    For whatever reason, you've chosen to argue like a woke Progressive Democrat.

    The truth is, none of us liked the bump stock ban, but there was a serious risk that if Trump had not instructed ATF to do that, then we'd have a statute instead, which would be much stronger than an ATF determination, and would likely have been a chance to throw in mandatory background checks (an excuse for universal registration of all guns) and maybe a ban on standard capacity mags as well.
    Trump has done badly with bump stocks, suppressors and Ex Parte protection orders.

    He's been good about ugly guns, handguns and other issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    Maybe Trump supports "red flag laws". So do most Americans, in principle. So do many here, as proven by every instance where cops were criticized because "they knew that kid was nuts yet they did nothing". Some kid shoots up a school after years of everyone being afraid of him, and you guys blame the cops for not stopping the future crime, then you flip around and piously boast that "red flag laws are bad". Well, pick one, either it's the fault of cops for not disarming the wackjob school shooters before they kill, or else red flag laws are bad.
    We could just have the accused hauled off to Court. If found guilty they are punished with gun confiscation. Due Process.

    My concern has been the Ex Parte facet of it. To me Trump's remarks about "Take the guns first, due process later" could have been said by Mike Bloomberg.



    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    I'll tell you this, at least 1 moderator here is getting tired of your "boot licking" comments. That's another woke Progressive tactic, to evade adult debate and rely entirely on snide personal insults. It was also a tactic of the FBI back in the 1960's, where the guy in the college revolutionary cell who was always pushing for immediate violence and ideological purity, the guy who "knew a guy" who could get dynamite, he was the mole wearing a wire. And he didn't really want to see the group's goals advanced, he had his own agenda.

    Maybe you want to watch the world burn, maybe you're one of the guys who admits that he wants everything to go to shit so that his new perfect world can be built on the ashes of the old world. Maybe you just want the Dems to win, maybe Hillary was your dream date and, like half the nation, you can't get over this waking nightmare of a booming economy and resurgent military and other nations respecting us again. Who knows. But you argue like an MSNBC viewer. That's not intended as a personal insult, that's an observation of your factless insults.
    A lot of us are really frustrated.... and it shows sometimes.


    I supported Gary Johnson in 2016. I may have to support Trump.

    I expect Trump to behave a bit like Mike Bloomberg after 2021.

    Depends upon what happens in Virginia, Kentucky and other rural states which have been infested by Bloombergian intrigue.

    If the laws pass, little happens, then they'll get frisky.

    If it's a donnybrook and Democrats get treated like it's 1994, then they'll back off.
    Last edited by GeneCC; January 5th, 2020 at 08:57 PM.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yutopia, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    13571860

    Default Re: BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    There are plenty of examples of govt actions where the "due process" comes later, and the courts are OK with adequate post-deprivation due process.

    Every search warrant was issued without the participation of the suspect. The IRS seizes bank accounts every day without a hearing ahead of time. Every arrest on the street occurs without first having a hearing in court.

    "Act first, with due process later" is nothing new, in circumstances where there's no time to stop some perceived bad act. The IRS seizes your money first, because otherwise you'd drain your accounts and hide it. And if some crazed loner is about to shoot up a school, then scheduling a hearing for 30 days in the future just might not be adequate.
    We also have Police in 2015 taking more private property than burglars due to "Civil Forfeiture".

    We need less of this not more of it.


    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001;4114223If some homeless friend of that ho
    meless church shooter had called the cops and said "my buddy is nuts and he's got a shotgun and he's talking about killing some random folks at this church", would you want the cops to do something, or wait until afterwards and just bring the body bags?
    If they are dangerous to themselves or to others, why take only the guns? They can get toxins, knives, gasoline/matches and or automobiles. Are we saying that there is something magical about firearms? More people murder with knives than long guns, yet "assault weapons" are a threat to western civilization per some of these people.

    I hear gun control supporters playing this "We have to do something" rap. This kind of urgency is an excuse for sloppy law and poor planning.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
    I'm not saying that I support these laws as they are usually written, I'm saying that THE IDEA is perfectly defensible by pro-gun people.

    I am asking why the inconsistencies by the gun control lobby? If we have dangerous people then they require adult supervision. If they are not dangerous then why disarm them?
    Last edited by GeneCC; January 5th, 2020 at 09:40 PM.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Yutopia, Pennsylvania
    (Westmoreland County)
    Posts
    3,789
    Rep Power
    13571860

    Default Re: BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by middlefinger View Post
    The BATF&E publishes bulletins.

    What are the numbers of the bulletins that contain these new regs?

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Upper Darby, Pennsylvania
    (Delaware County)
    Age
    57
    Posts
    4,237
    Rep Power
    21474852

    Default Re: BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by GeneCC View Post
    I am asking why the inconsistencies by the gun control lobby? If we have dangerous people then they require adult supervision. If they are not dangerous then why disarm them?
    This has been my line of thinking.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Similar Threads

  1. Legal residency for firearms and legal purposes.
    By Exbiker in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 21st, 2019, 05:14 PM
  2. PA/Fed law on legal aliens owning firearms
    By Hawk in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 6th, 2018, 11:36 AM
  3. Coatesville PA melts firearms. Legal ?
    By PAMedic=F|A= in forum General
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 1st, 2015, 08:19 AM
  4. Legal Seminar for Firearms Instructors
    By PeteG in forum Training Courses
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 27th, 2015, 01:48 PM
  5. Continuing Legal Education on Firearms?
    By Johannes_Paulsen in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 1st, 2007, 08:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •