Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by babj615, Apr 10, 2007.
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Bro - don't sweat it. You can always move back here to Texas :wink:. I could use a like-minded neighbor, especially one with the most ultra-sexy FS2000 I've ever seen. :twisted:
Seriously though, that sucks - it seems like it is getting harder and harder by the day to remain a free man and still be on the "right" side of the law. :x
That's absurd! Hope this thing gets squashed really soon and never surface again.
What's next? We will all be required to register our internet userids annually so we can exercise our First Amendment rights? And if the state doesn't like what you post then bam! you are banned from internet forever!
...they may already be watching......
:shock: :shock: :shock:
as a former and future pennsylvanian, i'd like to believe that this bill doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell
it is scary that this thing could even be seriously contemplated, looks like its been referred to the judiciary - hopefully they'll get around to reading the PA constitution's non interference with the right to bear arms clause and it wont go any further.
Section 3. Registration.
(a) General rule.--All firearms in this Commonwealth shall be registered in accordance with this section. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing any firearm to cause the firearm to be registered. No person within this Commonwealth may possess, harbor, have under the person's control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver or accept any firearm unless the person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for the firearm. No person within this Commonwealth may possess, harbor, have under the person's control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, deliver or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this act.
Section 6. Application fee.
A nonrefundable fee of $10 per firearm shall accompany each application for registration of a firearm and renewal of registration of a firearm.
Section 7. Penalty.
A person who violates this act commits a summary offense.
Section 10. Effective date.
This act shall take effect in 180 days.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Leg ... 60&pn=0881
Wow, that is some seriously sucky legislation. I can't imagine it passing (I am originally from PA).
i've always been told that "registration" is the equivolent of "infringement".
as pointed out, no registration process would ever be required to exercise 1st, or 5th amendment rights. so why would they for the second.
we tried a similar thing with the right to vote with jim crow laws during the reconstruction. voters had to prove they could read. that got nixed real quick. funny how it took 45 more years to let people who happen to be female vote. if you can read, fine. but OH NO!!! you're a girl? no voting for you!!! seems so silly now.
it'll never pass.
philadelphia liberal democrats have tried for years to keep crime under control in philadelphia. they tried to ban guns and ccw in numerous ways at the city and county level. the state always overturned these bills. now, it seems some of those city and county people have ascended to the house, or they've gotten the ear of state house members and are now trying to invoke backwards solutions to cure their city's ails at the state level.
these philly scumbags forget that the rest of pennsylvania is full of responsible and actively voting gun owners who are sympathetic to philly's crime problem (a lot of which realy gets going over in new jersey anyway) but see no way in which any measure even similar to this crap will help the situation.
maybe they should focus on an economic initiative instead. one in which poor people who have no work, and no hope of finding work would finally have a job. something to do. something worth staying out of trouble. i'm not going to starve. i certainly wouldn't let family or friends starve. i would do something... anything to put food on the table. you almost can't blame criminals for what they do in these circumstances. they view themselves as small time robinhoods. really, we can only expect more of this as the gap between rich and poor widens, and the middle class starts to disappear into one class or the other.
"oh well they can go collect welfare."
which brings me to another great point. how is it that it costs the govt. $40,000 per year to house one convicted felon prisoner, yet welfare for a single parent and two kids is a scant fraction of that? how is it that when a convicted felon prisoner breaks his arm, or develops diabetes, or whatever, he/she has access to some sort (definitely not great) of health care? yet the single mom, who's single because her man is in jail, doesn't have access like this? let's see. work all day to not have enough money to get by, or try pulling off a heist.... if he gets the money, score!! if he gets thrown in jail atleast he gets three hots and a cot. better than what he got on the outside.
the solution isn't registering guns. that'll end up being a big ol' long list of a bunch of people who never have and never will do anything unlawful's guns. are the criminals in north philly going to line up at the sherriff's office for serial number rub downs? yeah, right. might as well ask them to bring their synthetic heroine in to be sure it isn't tainted with lethal chemicals before they return to the streets and start selling it.
we should ban crime. that's what we're trying to eliminate right? let's ban drugs!!! a lot of crime revolves around drugs. hey... if we ban drunk driving, no one will ever do that again... right? while we're at it, we'll just ban cigarettes. they serve no purpose other than giving cancer. for that matter... let's ban sugar. it serves no purpose other than to give people diabetes!!!
boy... by the time we get done banning things, you're going to have to work hard just to get killed. everybody will be so happy then. right?
in our super safe new world!!!
think what will happen when we ban lions from eating lambs!!!! i'm sure as soon as that bill went through, the lions would all turn vegetarian and see the light when they swap stories back and forth with their new lamb friends.
ridiculous. this stuff makes me sick.
right on, Big Taco.
Agree with most of your post but think nearly all theft is committed to feed a habit not to feed a family.
The folks I know in PA who are living on very little income would go hungry rather than take something from someone else. Still, the lack of opportunities does encourage a dissolute lifestyle where folks are more likely to turn to drugs or gambling or prostitution or just buying things they can not afford in search of some instant gratification and this lack of personal responsibility and unreasonable desire for material goods is certainly rampant throughout our society.
I agree this bill is not likely to get anywhere in PA, but the current governor and his underlings really do seem to be out of touch with the rural conservative values of much of the state. The whole "lets get the tax payers to pony up the capital costs for slot machines in exchange for some future share of the profits (after we get our cut) to help potentially reduce their property tax burden if enough of them are willing to spend their money on our gambling enterprises instead" scheme is indicative of the kind of crap that has been foisted on the people of pennsylvania lately.
Despite all that, I doubt any of the friends and family I have in PA would be compliant with a gun registration program and under the table gun sales would increase dramatically - making us all outlaws.
In terms of the federal Constitution though in the Second Amendment it states "...well regulated...."
I have always viewed this as allowing some registration and other various restrictions like the NFA, but I have always felt STRONGLY that this does not allow for bans or restrictions that are tantamount to a ban. For instance, the 1986 FOPA machine gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and the Import restrictions are most likely unconstitutational as well. The 1994 AWB was clearly a ban and therefore unconstitutional as it sought to eliminate a type of firearm. Say that the NFA tax was increased to more than $200.00 then that would start to make the NFA more of a ban than a registration unless that increase was reasonably related to the costs of registration.
The proposed legislation at issue seems to create a financial burden and paperwork burden that would in my opinion place to heavy an obstical to ownership of firearms and therefore be tantamount to a ban therefore unconstitutional.
Here the court should look at the purpose of this Act if it becomes law and the effect. If the purpose to limit firearms ownership is either implied or expressed than it is clearly unconstitutional. If the effect is that is limits the people who would otherwise have firearms from owning them than it is unconstitutional.
I also believe firmly that the court should view such Acts under strict scrutiny and require that the legislation enacted is the least restrictive and most narrowly tailored way to achieve a state interest granted by the Tenth Amendment. Most Acts when reviewed under strict scrutiny are held unconstitutional.
The flaw in that thinking is that you're not taking into account the definition of the word "Regulated".
At the time the 2A was written, the word Regulated meant; to keep in good working order.
When you take into account the original meaning of "regulated", the phrase "A well regulated militia..." could just as easily be interpreted to mean that the fed.gov should issue the same infantry rifle currently used by the Army to every citizen.
Dayam strait! :twisted:
I want somma o' those! What are our choices? :shock: How botta M40A1 Sniper Rifle? Or an M-4 Carbine fitted with an M-203 40mm grenade launcher? 8) An M-249 or an M-240? What aboutta shotgun, say an M-1014 with ghost sights? An MP-5? Grenades? How bout an R*fu*kin'PG??? At the very least an M16A2 and an M9! :shock: ... keep the knife. <shrug> (This is suddenly makin' me wonder if I'm payin' enuf taxes to pay for my personal arsenal! ) How are American citizens 'sposed ta protect themselves without modern infantry firepower? :twisted: Hmmm... for now, I'll just do my best to personally finance my own infantry firearm obligations to my fellow 'mericans with a Tikka T3 Lite, a Mossy 9200 and an M357-A1 and a sh*tload o' reloaded ammo til our Gov't gets caught up here at home and starts issueing regulated "citizen protection infantry" firearms to its citizens. <shrug> Hey, I think we can write these off! 8) Yeah, that's the ticket! Whose big fu*kin' idea was it to tax 'em instead??? :shock: Fu*kin' communists! :twisted:
Wulf <-- goin' thru his 'merican rights for more potholes....
Well said, BigTaco.
how 'bout if i made patterns for casting a larger scale m series based carbine looking thing... chambered in 50 MILLIMETER!!!!!
i'll do my part if somebody procures the ammo
Hmmm 50mm, that would be about 2 inches or 1.9 cal., whatever the frack that would be.
I think you have gone off the deep end on this one, BigTaco.
Perhaps a more "realistic" course would be to convert Steyr's .50 cal sniper rifle into a bullpup config carbine. You could call it the OMF AUG!
That shiznitz would be Sierra Hotel.
what'd be neat would be to plumb in some duct work and make a .50 "recoiless" rifle. blow the entire powder charge right out the back.
then, cut the barrel down to 16". you could load up blanks and have the world's only single shot, double ended flame thrower. burning eyebrows fore and aft.
Elect Democrats, get gun control.
Elect Republicans get political coruption, violations of privacy, runaway spending and needless war, to name but a few. Two can play at this game...
Hate to break it to you Poster, neither side has a monopoly on political corruption. And i've got a creeping suspicion the real war is just a bit further to the east (at least we were kinda close), but that'd be an even worse situation.
And Wulf...i'm with ya man. Sign me up for a M40A3, and the M107
I'll conceed your point on this one.
War with Iran will be a disaster on top of a disaster. I hope to hell it doesn't happen.
The truth! Just look for Yourself if You don't believe Me.
A comment based on not wanting to hear the truth spoken above? True or not, I would take this second comment w/ a grain of salt when considering it's "I'll get You for that" nature. You may(or may not) have good point, but if it's to be taken seriously, try not making the point as retaliation for something You didn't want to hear.
Bottom line, war is bad! Even when needed!