Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Yeemix, Aug 24, 2006.
Just wondering, are Barrett rifles legal in California? A friend and I were just curious.
i do not believe so. IIRC, and i could be completely wrong, .50cal rifles are illegal, and it has a detachmag
my guesses, i pay no attn to Cali rules
Any .50 BMG that has not been registered is illegal, other calibers are ok (.416.)
laws like that are so fucking retarded....i live in a very gun friendly state but seeing shit like that just pisses me off cuz its giving anti-gun ignoramuses freedom to pull crap like that....like that .09 difference in barrel diameter makes the gun just THAT MUCH more powerful and scary.
.338 lapua and .408 cheytac are still legal....go fucking figure
I hear motorcycle gangs are driving around with with 3'9" 22 pound rifles shooting school children and bunnies so they had to be banned, at least thats what the illinois legislator thinks.
Be on the lookout for these stealthy killers:
I have personally shot some.
"TANNERITE is STILL 100% legal in all states! Current ruling 7/24/06"
Funny, I aways see you bashing CA, but have you ever done anything supportive for the cause?
I stand corrected, so then why all the CA bashing anyway?
Ask him about Denver
Denver has an AWB not as restrictive as some. Denver has a ban on open carry. Open Carry is for cops, a citizen needs concealed. All because of a deadlocked Supreme Court case which sent the decision back to what a lower court ruled, aka one judge. Said that Denver is special in that it has a high density and high crime rate.
So ya. One shitty judge is the cause of that.
And guess what, I have a meeting set up with a State Representative if she gets re elected. ya, what are you guys doing to help the cause?
Anyways, I'd say CO is the best state in the Union overall.
CA people, I just like to get you riled up. Your constitution doesn't even contain the right to bear arms.
Why should it have to? It's already in the US constitution. BTW are you doing to the NRA mix and mingle on Saturday?
I think that depends on if you want to the country to be a union of seperate states or states run by a central government. I'm rather fond of the idea of several states governing themselves with laws best representing their residents united together for their own benefits. For that thinking the US constitution provides protection from the federal government infringing on your rights, while states are still autonomous and can make their own laws based on the decisions of their residents.
Thats of course just the idealistic view point. With reality being incorporation, the 2nd amendment should have been incorporated with the other relevant portions of the bill of rights.
what the hell is the mix and mingle?
That's the thing. The Bill of Rights is there to protect every American Citizens basic human rights. I also like the idea of the states being able to govern themselves but when they infringe on our basic rights granted us by the contitution then I have a problem with it.
NRA mix and mingle info - http://www.nraila.org/workshops/Register.aspx?ID=aurora06
There's also a gun show out there at the Holiday Inn off of I-25 and Chambers the same day so it works out great.
nah probably not. got to go to the junkyard and find a fan switch for my car.
I'd help out the nra if they truly were an all comphrehensive 2nd amendment protector. They don't give a fuck about the NFA, or machine guns or similar. I'd join if they would put up a lawyer to help me with a court case against the NFA if they thought they could truly win it, which they can.
are you going to that gun show?
Yeah I'll be going. Crossroads only comes twice a year and it's usually at least double the size of Tanner. Last time the only thing that I regretted about going was not taking more money with me .
Honestly the NRA does a good job doing what they can. The problem is that it's such a huge entity that they HAVE to compromise and play the politics game. They have a lot of political power but they'll lose it if they just try to throw their weight around without acting as diplomats. Another thing that I mentioned before was that a lot of the bigtime progun guys have a lot of money invested in this NFA stuff so it's not in their best interest to get the bans lifted in the first place. Another thing that you have to realize is that the NRA has all types of members on differant levels of firearms support. As soon as they start pushing stuff like getting NFA weapons legalized they'll lose the support of some of their members.
RMGO is a local CO progun organization. Check them out sometime. http://www.rmgo.org/ They're a grassroots "no compromise" type of group. Get in touch with them and see what they think.
wow RMGO is the shit!
I have personally met Scott Renfroe too. My dad used to babysit him I'll have to chat with him too. Wow. Dale Hall was an asshole. Glad Scott won instead of him
sent them an email about the nfa, lets see what they say
I agree that its there to protect your rights from the federal government. Shouldn't your problem be taken up with the state since they are the ones inflicting the harm? Trying to fix it by giving the federal government more power over the states seems dangerous.
They're not getting more power. They're utilizing power that they already have. It says in the constitution that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Technically if a state makes a restrictive firearm law then the feds should come in and tell them that it's unconstitutional. Unfortunately even the federal govt has restrictions on firearms so it would be kind of hypocritical of them not to allow a state to make their own.
To clarify what I'm saying, I think thats power they should not have. The 2nd amendment should protect you from the fed, your states constitution protects from you from your state. This maintains a clear seperation of power and control in both parts of government. The fed has taken that power with incorporation and I don't like it
The Bill of Rights was meant to bring the federalists and anti-federalists together to get the constitution ratified. The anti-federalists didn't demand it as protection from their own states, but from the fed.
That's the first time that I've heard it explained that way and it actually makes sense. I still think that there should be certain things that the feds can put their foot down about. It doesn't make much sense to even have a federal government if nothing they say makes a bit of differance. What good is it to have a second amendment if the states can just say "No we don't like that. We're going to make all guns illegal here." All of a sudden the constitution becomes a guideline that no one has to take seriously.