Decorated Combat Veteran Arrested In New York...AR Magazines BEFORE the NY "law"

[hill.brandonj]

"I just don't have a bunch of time and have less for the current crop of conspiracy theorists"

A-freaking-men

[LR1955]

A Class III Federal Firearms License (Special Occupational Tax) is simply an infringement on the average law abiding citizen to own these weapons. It infers that one will be a "dealer" of firearms and not merely an owner/user.

My understanding of US v Miller (1939) was that the court viewed the "tax stamp" as a possible infringement but since SBS were not "in common use" (to their knowledge), it could be regulated. Suppressors and SBRs are "in common use" and I believe should not be regulated (other than thorough background check if you call that regulated). It burns me up that I have to pay the tax, wait for special approval, then expose myself to ridiculous risk by not adhering exactly to NFA requirement on handling, storage, etc.

What would a "reserve militia infantryman" be regularly issued?...

M-4 W/ 3 round burst. - Yes, anyone who can pass a thorough background check.

M-4 with automatic capability. - Yes, ditto.

M-240 with variants. - No, medium automatic machine gun. Only carried by "specialized" infantrymen.

SAW with variants. - No, light automatic machine gun. Only carried by "specialized" infantrymen.

I'm sure you will find criticism in my terminology ("what we have here is a failure to communicate"...LOL). I only spent 1 year at Leavenworth (outside the prison walls), the rest of my interaction with army was over UHF/VHF radio. So by "specialized" I mean typically a single designated infantryman in a small unit will carry, with everyone else carrying what is "standard" issue ("in common use").

Bjorn:

'Specialized' Infantrymen because they are a SAW or 240 gunner? He, he, he. No sweat. I understand what you are saying.

Here is what doesn't make sense to me about your dividing line. Perhaps you can explain it.

Why not a machinegun such as the 240 or M-60 or a Automatic Weapon like the SAW? I mean, you can slap a C Mag into a M-4 and have a fully automatic weapon with a 100 round capability just like a SAW or 240 with a 100 round belt. And the SAW and M-4 take the same ammunition.

So, why do you think that a SAW should be kept from civilian purchase yet a fully automatic M-4 is OK? You obviously have a reason and what ever it is, it is a line you have drawn.

LR1955

[hill.brandonj]

You guys really think we need retards. Or nonretards for that matter running around with automatics ??? That's dumb. There are certain things that a guy can enjoy. And no one should be able to tell you what you can or cannot enjoy. But at the same time. Really??? If someone in my town has awfully auto. I would hope the sob was capable and fully sane. But here's the problem. What's to say he is gonna stay that way?

[cory]

You guys really think we need retards. Or nonretards for that matter running around with automatics ??? That's dumb. There are certain things that a guy can enjoy. And no one should be able to tell you what you can or cannot enjoy. But at the same time. Really??? If someone in my town has awfully auto. I would hope the sob was capable and fully sane. But here's the problem. What's to say he is gonna stay that way?

What's to say your not going to drive off the side of the road through a playground and run over a bunch of children.

It's Personal Responsibility!

Give 100 vehicles and 100 SAWs to 100 people with a drivers license and weapons training and I promise you I'm much more worried about the vehicles harming my family.

This, as is most things, a case where you can look at the surface and the SAWs are what you worry about, but once you take a second to look below the surface, analyze it just a bit, the facts show through both statistics and capabilities the vehicle is the more dangerous weapon. So lets ban all vehicle until which time they can drive themselves, because I don't want any "retards or nonretards" to harm my family.

[Nukes]

....I just don't have a bunch of time and have less for the current crop of conspiracy theorists and or anarchists.

LR1955

You don't have time? ha, ha, ha... What a riot!

Put down your keyboard and get a girlfriend.

[BjornF16]

Bjorn:

'Specialized' Infantrymen because they are a SAW or 240 gunner? He, he, he. No sweat. I understand what you are saying.

Here is what doesn't make sense to me about your dividing line. Perhaps you can explain it.

Why not a machinegun such as the 240 or M-60 or a Automatic Weapon like the SAW? I mean, you can slap a C Mag into a M-4 and have a fully automatic weapon with a 100 round capability just like a SAW or 240 with a 100 round belt. And the SAW and M-4 take the same ammunition.

So, why do you think that a SAW should be kept from civilian purchase yet a fully automatic M-4 is OK? You obviously have a reason and what ever it is, it is a line you have drawn.

LR1955

I believe I've already alluded to what the criteria is: "in common use" = standard issue. Not everyone carries the 240 or M-60. Even my daughter, as a Communications Specialist, was issued an M-4.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the US Army (or for that matter, the USN, USMC, or USAF) issues 100 round magazines (C-Mag) to everyone with their M-4s or M-16s. Therefore they aren't "in common use".

Dave Kopel does a better job than I in explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkKKTtdkqE

So if this soldier committed an offense. A law. (No matter whether you agree with that law or not) he should be free and clear of it??? He may be a soldier and that's an amazing sacrifice that I appreciate dearly. But you screw up. You pay up. Or what did I miss?

I'm not sure where or to whom you directed this...but I'll take a shot at answering. If you believe a law is unconstitutional, then you accept the charges (i.e. no plea bargain) and you fight it in court. Maybe the first judge or jury doesn't agree with you...then you appeal. Maybe it makes its way all the way to the Supreme Court. If it's ruled unconstitutional, then not only is it a win for the defendant (maybe a costly win, maybe not) but also a win for all law abiding folks.

There's another path that an unconstitutional (or unjust) law can be rid of: Nullification. Most judges and lawyers won't talk about this, but if a jury decides a law is particularly unjust, they can just find the defendant not guilty. With double jeopardy, he can't be tried for the same "crime" again. The law stays on the books, but it initiates a conversation about the law, maybe a repeal of the law.

You guys really think we need retards. Or nonretards for that matter running around with automatics ??? That's dumb. There are certain things that a guy can enjoy. And no one should be able to tell you what you can or cannot enjoy. But at the same time. Really??? If someone in my town has awfully auto. I would hope the sob was capable and fully sane. But here's the problem. What's to say he is gonna stay that way?

By this line of reasoning, no one should have a knife, axe, hatchet much less any gun. Maybe we should ban baseball bats as they can be particularly deadly.

There are already laws that prohibit certain "classes" of people from owning/possessing firearms.

You do raise a good point about what happens if someone previously cleared "goes bad". There are normally warning signs. Most of the instances of mass shootings involved people who exhibited plenty of warning signs: Tucson, Aurora, Columbine (if the parents had paid attention). Even this crack pot in AL has exhibited warning signs.

Law enforcement should act in these cases. The Tucson sheriff failed. The Aurora psychiatrist failed to report. LE failed in AL. Leave law abiding citizens alone.

[montana]

This isn't turning into a bunch of gun buddies discussing or debating gun rights. Let's keep this forum as a respectable debate. Civility will get a point across better than hostility. Just suggesting.

[Deer Hunter]

Guys just an observation but attacking each other here amongst allies does nothing for the cause, remember who our foes are. Like I like to tell people I prefer a fight where if youre man enough to kick my butt i'll buy you a beer afterwards, because we should be friends not enemies. Yall go ahead and crack heads, just shake hands when youre finished and remember who the real fight is with. Proceed!

[Michael]

Sorry, even though I have a gun safe full of ARs, I cannot find a justification for belt- fed weapons in the hands of the civilian populous (yeah, they’re fun to fire, but require more technical and tactical training to be effective) other than with the current restrictions. The SAW (M-249) is technically a Light Machine Gun (LMG), even though the U.S. military used it for years as an automatic weapon/individual weapon. The M240G/M60 is NORMALY assigned (at least in the infantry) to MOS designated machine gunners. (others may be cross-trained and man the system, but it is a CREW SERVED WEAPON).

My impression of the intent of the 2d amendment is the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to have infantry weapons. In modern times, this would be the M4/M16/AR15 family. I don’t think they ever intended the citizens to have cannon’s at home (the crew served weapon of the day), as from limited research years ago for a paper in collage, I seem to remember these were held at local communities (modern equivalent would probably be the NG armory).

As to the military capability to fire selective (3 rd burst and full auto) - and I can only speak for myself- I only used that capability on one occasion in combat. Put a hell of a lot of well-aimed rounds down range in semi though.

Having tested some of the extreme hi-cap magazines (to include Beta-Mag and Surfire 60s/100s) they are by and large not worth the weight/cost due to unreliability (IME, only exception is the Surfire 60s, and I was still not ready to trust my life on them). I would rather stick with the tried and true 30rd magazines. Last time I checked (and this info is dated) the Marine Corps had tested the Surfires with the M-27 IAR and decided the reliability issues were not worth it.

As to the young man in the article, I would be willing to bet there are very few soldiers or Marines that don't have magazines either at home or in their car. Part of the individual issue and considered a consumable item in a lot of cases.

[hill.brandonj]

It's dumb b you're right. I can't believe you guys are acting like a bunch of damn liberals as far as can't argue and being close minded. Dumb I agree more things kill people than guns. As I tried to justify for you dopes by saying that who am I or anyone else to say what you can or can't do. But for example. Here in Missouri I can sell any type of gun I own. Not being type three bro any dumb bastard I please. No checks at all. Thats ludacris. Do I need 15 20 30 round mags??? Hell no. So I don't buy them. Do you need them bjorn?? If you want that's fine. All I'm saying is you guys are as far off reservation with your torches and pitchforks as the obamanator fans. I'd hope you all could be a little more tolerant of criticism as offered up by others in this forum but you obviously lack that capability

[davidj]

This isn't turning into a bunch of gun buddies discussing or debating gun rights. Let's keep this forum as a respectable debate. Civility will get a point across better than hostility. Just suggesting.

+1

[BjornF16]

It's dumb b you're right. I can't believe you guys are acting like a bunch of damn liberals as far as can't argue and being close minded. Dumb I agree more things kill people than guns. As I tried to justify for you dopes by saying that who am I or anyone else to say what you can or can't do. But for example. Here in Missouri I can sell any type of gun I own. Not being type three bro any dumb bastard I please. No checks at all. Thats ludacris. Do I need 15 20 30 round mags??? Hell no. So I don't buy them. Do you need them bjorn?? If you want that's fine. All I'm saying is you guys are as far off reservation with your torches and pitchforks as the obamanator fans. I'd hope you all could be a little more tolerant of criticism as offered up by others in this forum but you obviously lack that capability

WOW...don't have any idea where to start with this.

First, I don't think I called anyone or anything dumb. (I might call LR1955 a dumba33 and he might call me a sh1thead during a discussion, but I KNOW we'll shake hands at the end and buy each other a beverage of our choice...LOL)

Second, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't think the majority here are closed minded and, for the most part, articulate their positions fairly well.

Third, it seems that you don't take criticism very well. I was very respectful in my response to you. I wouldn't say that you reciprocated.

As I tried to justify for you dopes by saying that who am I or anyone else to say what you can or can't do.

I honestly have no idea what this means.

Here in Missouri I can sell any type of gun I own. Not being type three bro any dumb bastard I please. No checks at all. Thats ludacris.

It is against federal law to knowingly sell a firearm to any one who meets the "prohibited classes" list. If you sell to another person, it is YOUR responsibility to inquire. Here in Texas, I only sell a firearm to someone who holds a Concealed Handgun License (CHL). A CHL holder has already gone through a background check by the State of Texas. Another example. I "gifted" a pistol to my daughter (took her to gun show to find the gun she wanted). I made her fill out the 4473 and get the background check just to make sure she wasn't hiding something from dad. I then paid for the pistol. It is called "personal responsibility".

Do I need 15 20 30 round mags??? Hell no. So I don't buy them. Do you need them bjorn?? If you want that's fine.

Good for you. My primary home defense gun is an AR-15 with a 30 PMAG. I live out in the country. Sheriff's response will likely be in excess of 20 minutes. I'm taking no chances with the possibility of multiple intruders. What about those folks who participate in competitive shooting. A reliable 30 round magazine is beneficial.

I'd hope you all could be a little more tolerant of criticism as offered up by others in this forum but you obviously lack that capability

Please go back are re-read your post and see if it seems tolerant of criticism.

Peace brother. Let's have a beer.

[hill.brandonj]

I'm cool. I'm mostly tolerant. It just seemed to me like the majority of y'all are .... Nevermind. I am gonna go git a beer and imagine you all doing the same. Cheers

[bwaites]

The Founding Fathers did not exclude cannons and artillery in the 2nd Amendment. At the time of the Revolution, many cannon and artillery pieces were in private citizens hands, are were armed ships of the line, with MANY cannons on each. The Founding Fathers provided for their use in multiple ways, and certainly did not intend that private citizens not be allowed to have them.

Fully automatic weapons fall into that same category. They are protected by the Second Amendment, but no one has seen fit to challenge the illegally passed laws that regulate them, probably because its incredibly expensive, and so few are and have been in private hands. People wealthy enough to feed them can afford the licensure to do so.

That said, Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit said it best, I think:

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

The Founding Fathers recognized that, Thomas Jefferson said a revolution every 20 years or so was needed! THEY knew why the 2nd Amendment was needed, and they didnt limit it to smoothbore muskets!

THEY knew it was the doomsday provision, the only way a people could protect themselves from tyrants, and they had no intent of limiting it to only small caliber weapons. They knew that people would need artillery, they had just fought a war requiring it!

[BjornF16]

BW, I don't disagree with you. My main point was the SCOTUS decision in US v Miller. Like it or not, it is the law of the land (equal footing with Constitution).

I think in past years (please correct me if I'm wrong) most 2A advocate organizations (e.g. NRA) typically took the "protect the sportsman" mentality. I agree that it is expensive, too expensive for an individual, to fight all the way to Supreme Court.. But if NRA, GOA, SAF got behind and financed a lawsuit challenging infringing laws, I think they would have a chance with the current court make-up.

It was 1986 FOPA that outright banned automatics (with grandfather exceptions) much to my chagrin. I was just out of college and certainly didn't have the finances to have a automatic before it went into effect.

[montana]

I may be wrong and anybody here can correct me but the way I understood the law back in the 1980's any way was that anyone could own a grenade or an explosive if one payed $200 dollars per destructive device. A person would really have to like the bang and paper work but I thought it was possible.

[COTNTOP]

Did not the earliest gun control acts stem from violence in places like Chicago. Has it got any better in those places. Seems they are still top of the list.

[Nukes]

Guys just an observation but attacking each other here amongst allies does nothing for the cause, remember who our foes are. Like I like to tell people I prefer a fight where if youre man enough to kick my butt i'll buy you a beer afterwards, because we should be friends not enemies. Yall go ahead and crack heads, just shake hands when youre finished and remember who the real fight is with. Proceed!

I am on board with this line of thinking.

I should also add that Haddad's arrest for high-cpacity AR mags in NY on 1/6/2013 has been verified. Circumstances of the arrest are "undetermined":
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/haddad.asp

[Nukes]

Sorry, even though I have a gun safe full of ARs, I cannot find a justification for belt- fed weapons in the hands of the civilian populous....

I cannot justify belt-fed weapons—or Bloomberg's alleged antiaircraft missile—in the hands of civilian law enforcement. Civilian law enforcement is just that, civilian.

The militarization of civilian law enforcement is the antithesis of "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Plenty of innocents are dying. We have exported so much "democracy," what is left at home?

Did not the earliest gun control acts stem from violence in places like Chicago. Has it got any better in those places. Seems they are still top of the list.

It has been well-documented that the earliest US gun control was intended as "race control."

See:

Tonso WR. “Gun Control: White Man’s Law.” Reason. December 1985. pp. 22-25.

Tahmassebi S. “Gun Control and Racism.” George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. Summer 1991; 2: 67-99.

Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration.” The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.

[montana]

Nukes is right about gun control, it started out as race control in this country. The key word is control. When one group of people wants to control another group of people the best methods are through the control of ones ability to make a living and the ability to defend one self. This is the method through out history for one group of people to control another group of people. This thread started over a person being arrested for having little pieces of plastic with springs in them, He probably will be strung out to dry for it. Some say it is the law so let the chips fall where they may. We have other people who allowed thousands of firearms to fall into the hands of ruthless drug cartels and killed probably hundreds of people yet no one gets so much of as a slap on the wrist. They broke the law and no one was arrested. The only difference is the first person is not in government. A person shot an innocent woman in the face with a scoped, high powered rifle while she was holding an infant and was promoted in his job position , another person loaned an AR-15 to a friend and the rifle slam fired because the disconnect wasn't properly fitted at the factory and he was sent to jail for a long time. The difference is the murderer worked for the government. Justice is not equal in this country and I could write about it all day with examples.
We all have opinions of who should own what weapons but we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that when all of the weapons end up in one groups hands the other group is at the mercy of the other. This is why the second amendment is about military not hunting weapons. Equal force for equal force. It is sad that in this country people are loosing sight of this and keeping a blind eye to the one group of peoples crimes while holding a microscope to the other group of people," much to their own destruction".