carry and usage

[Dftodd]

Great little story!
What was the outcome?
Do you have newspaper articles that you can link to this?
She ran over a person.
That means that, AT LEAST, involuntary manslaughter charges (if he was killed) were in effect.
Did she win in court? She should have.
But these days.....

Couldn't find the story in the local paper. First I heard of it was the same day it happened when getting lunch next door to where it happened. The gal waiting on me told me about the dude steeling the truck, and the old lady smoming him with her car. Then of course the next day in my cc class.

The old lady wasn't charged with anything. Guy was a sexual predator being held over for extradition back to missouri when he escaped. As far as the police were concerned, she was justified in her actions. She knocked him on his butt and he got pinned under the bumper of the car. Once the cops got there guns on him, she backed up and they took him into custody and transferred him to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries.

She was pretty upset about putting him into the hospital. But it could have been really ugly if he got into her car and got her as a hostage.

 

[big bubba]

interesting discussion. since it has wandered a bit, a quick question. your thoughts on ease of availability of assault weapons. not in the conventional background check means, but ease of availability in trade shows, etc. to just about anyone w/o a check.

are existing regs on that subject still too stringent, about right, or is more regulation needed in that particular subject while upholding the 2nd amendment. no opinion expressed on this side, just a question. best regards.

 

[aczlan]

interesting discussion. since it has wandered a bit, a quick question. your thoughts on ease of availability of assault weapons. not in the conventional background check means, but ease of availability in trade shows, etc. to just about anyone w/o a check.

Do you mean an actual full automatic assault weapon (such as the M16)?
Or do you mean a AR-15 or a similar semi-automatic weapon which looks like an assault weapon but is functionally like any other semi-automatic weapon?
If you're talking about a fully automatic assault rifle, those are not available to the general public except a few which were in private hands previous to 1970 something (if I remember the date correctly).
If you're talking about something like an AR-15 other than the looks (and the ease of adding a scope, a laser sight or something like that), there is no real difference between that and a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Aaron Z

 

[big bubba]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & the like.

& should individuals on a "watch list" in this country, foreign or us citizens, be allowed to purchase such weapons even with the conventional back ground check. please no heated political discussion, just your thoughts on the existing regs in that regard thx

 

[k0ua]

Do you mean an actual full automatic assault weapon (such as the M16)?
Or do you mean a AR-15 or a similar semi-automatic weapon which looks like an assault weapon but is functionally like any other semi-automatic weapon?
If you're talking about a fully automatic assault rifle, those are not available to the general public except a few which were in private hands previous to 1970 something (if I remember the date correctly).
If you're talking about something like an AR-15 other than the looks (and the ease of adding a scope, a laser sight or something like that), there is no real difference between that and a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Aaron Z

May 19th 1986 is the date you referenced. With passage of the FOPA.

 

[topbuilder]

interesting discussion. since it has wandered a bit, a quick question. your thoughts on ease of availability of assault weapons. not in the conventional background check means, but ease of availability in trade shows, etc. to just about anyone w/o a check.

are existing regs on that subject still too stringent, about right, or is more regulation needed in that particular subject while upholding the 2nd amendment. no opinion expressed on this side, just a question. best regards.

Complete fiction. No opinion expressed, just the facts.

 

[k0ua]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & tha like. thx

Firearms of any kind can be sold from an individuals collection without performing a NICS check in many states including yours.. Ironically an individual does not have access to the NICS. Only licensed firearms dealers have access to NICS. The venue of the sale makes no difference. All licensed dealers must perform the NICS check no matter where they are. Whether they are in their normal place of business or at a gun show, or in a back alley. Only an individual NOT IN THE BUSINESS of dealing in firearms may sell a firearm from their personal collection without a NICS check. They are also prohibited from making the transfer if they know that the person they would make the transfer to is a prohibited person.

I hope this helped clear this up some. As for "assault weapons". There are very few of them in circulation as Aaron pointed out. An actual Assault Rifle is a class of rifle that is select fire, and fires an intermediate power cartridge. An actual AR15 does not qualify as it is not select fire. It is a simple semi automatic rifle like many others. The fact that most of them are black in color has no bearing on the lethality of the rifle. The media and anti-gun forces have bastardized the term Assault Rifle to include any black "scary" firearm, rifle pistol or carbine. The term "scary" is whatever frightens them at the moment, which is most firearms. Since you asked about what we think about firearm laws, I will pontificate.

I think it is fine that individuals can sell firearms from their private collections without going thru a dealer. I think that Short barreled rifles and shotguns should be removed from the 1934 NFA. and should be sold openly as any other firearm without the $200 transfer tax and the 9 month waiting period and the paperwork. There is just no logical reason to prohibits these firearms. I also think that suppressors should be openly sold in the same manner as firearms without the $200 transfer tax and the paperwork and the 9 month waiting period. That is what I think.

 

[k0ua]

By the way, if you want to know who a "prohibited person" is, here you go:


Clarification of prohibited persons

The older Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits firearms ownership in the U.S. by certain categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list differed between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to confusion. The list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.[15][16]
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.
Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[17]
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.
These provisions are stated in the form of questions on Federal Form 4473.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (consisting of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), relating to a firearm ban with respect to persons under a court order in connection with domestic violence, did not violate the Second Amendment and did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the defendant, in United States v. Emerson.[18]

 

[Welshman]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & the like.

& should individuals on a "watch list" in this country, foreign or us citizens, be allowed to purchase such weapons even with the conventional back ground check. please no heated political discussion, just your thoughts on the existing regs in that regard thx

As usual, James has summed this up rather well, and I completely agree with him.

The problem with a "watch list" exclusion is that an individuals name can be placed on it without knowing it, and it can be in error. If I remember correctly, years back Sen. Ted Kennedy's name was placed on one, and he was outraged when he found out. He had it removed, of course, but I'm not so sure that the rest of us would be able to do so as easily.

 

[CincyFlyer]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & the like.

& should individuals on a "watch list" in this country, foreign or us citizens, be allowed to purchase such weapons even with the conventional back ground check. please no heated political discussion, just your thoughts on the existing regs in that regard thx

In most states, and therefore most gun shows, you still need a background check. You always do if buying from a dealer, show or not. Individual sales depends on state. Personally, no background checks is fine with me. It's the behavior of the person with the gun, not mere possession, that is the crime.