Obama on Gun Control Initiative This Morning

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Obama just made some brief comments about initiating gun control, specifically assault weapons.

There's no video to link to yet but for some reason I thought of this scene in "48 Hours" with Eddie Murphy when I thought of the rampant paranoia amongst gun owners after Obama's announcement this morning:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzIRuIg288]48 Hrs. (6/9) Movie CLIP - I Hate Rednecks (1982) HD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SniperFire]

The most effective gun control would be instituting bans on who can own a gun based on demographics.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Remember when CT had an assault weapons ban and Sandy Hook happened?
Remember when the country had an assault weapons ban and Columbine happened?

 

[Katzndogz]

Disarm the police.

 

[LibertyLemming]

i agree

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Remember when CT had an assault weapons ban and Sandy Hook happened?
Remember when the country had an assault weapons ban and Columbine happened?

I suggest you review the actual laws and take note of all the exceptions listed within each ruling. Oh, in case you didn't know what an exception is, it's also called a loophole.


Here's an example:
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of assault weapons by members or employees of the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties; nor shall anything in sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by any person prior to July 1, 1994, if all of the following are applicable:

(1) The person is eligible under sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a to apply for a certificate of possession for the assault weapon by July 1, 1994;

(2) The person lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993; and

(3) The person is otherwise in compliance with sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a.

(d) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to a person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d, if the assault weapon is possessed at a place set forth in subdivision (1) of subsection (d) of section 53-202d or as authorized by the Probate Court.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The above is Connecticut state law. And it is b.s. because the NRA is a powerful lobby, period, the end.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats are convinced that if they have enough laws, criminals will find one among them that they choose to obey.

The only gun control law that criminals will choose to obey is the one that disarms their victims.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Yeah go read those exemptions. I'll grant you the ones before 1994 but if you are honestly calling for cops to go around and confiscate guns from people, at gun point, you're a hypocrite.

For example: Except as provided in section 53-202e

This provides that you can turn your gun into law enforcement if you want.

herp a derpa

 

[Ernie S.]

The above is Connecticut state law. And it is b.s. because the NRA is a powerful lobby, period, the end.

And we should respect the opinion of someone with an avatar of a nun smoking crack? I predict a short stay for you here.

 

[martybegan]

Remember when CT had an assault weapons ban and Sandy Hook happened?
Remember when the country had an assault weapons ban and Columbine happened?

I suggest you review the actual laws and take note of all the exceptions listed within each ruling. Oh, in case you didn't know what an exception is, it's also called a loophole.


Here's an example:
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of assault weapons by members or employees of the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties; nor shall anything in sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by any person prior to July 1, 1994, if all of the following are applicable:

(1) The person is eligible under sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a to apply for a certificate of possession for the assault weapon by July 1, 1994;

(2) The person lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993; and

(3) The person is otherwise in compliance with sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a.

(d) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to a person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d, if the assault weapon is possessed at a place set forth in subdivision (1) of subsection (d) of section 53-202d or as authorized by the Probate Court.

All that tries to do is seperate those who own the weapons already from those who don't. The concept is that banners think if they can convince the current owners thier guns are safe, they will sell out those who come later, and want to own the weapons.

Grandfather provisions like that are unconstiutional via equal protection under the law. Two identical people with two identical background checks now have two levels of rights.

Don't get me started on the police being allowed to own them and not the rest of us. If you want to ban this, the weapons need to be kept locked in armories and only distributed when they are needed. If the government wants to put the poeple at a disadvantage, the same should apply to the police.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Remember when CT had an assault weapons ban and Sandy Hook happened?
Remember when the country had an assault weapons ban and Columbine happened?

I suggest you review the actual laws and take note of all the exceptions listed within each ruling. Oh, in case you didn't know what an exception is, it's also called a loophole.


Here's an example:
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of assault weapons by members or employees of the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties; nor shall anything in sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by any person prior to July 1, 1994, if all of the following are applicable:

(1) The person is eligible under sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a to apply for a certificate of possession for the assault weapon by July 1, 1994;

(2) The person lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993; and

(3) The person is otherwise in compliance with sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a.

(d) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to a person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d, if the assault weapon is possessed at a place set forth in subdivision (1) of subsection (d) of section 53-202d or as authorized by the Probate Court.

All that tries to do is seperate those who own the weapons already from those who don't. The concept is that banners think if they can convince the current owners thier guns are safe, they will sell out those who come later, and want to own the weapons.

Grandfather provisions like that are unconstiutional via equal protection under the law. Two identical people with two identical background checks now have two levels of rights.

Don't get me started on the police being allowed to own them and not the rest of us. If you want to ban this, the weapons need to be kept locked in armories and only distributed when they are needed. If the government wants to put the poeple at a disadvantage, the same should apply to the police.

IMO they need to be destroyed, not a single one can exist. The government doesn't deserve a monopoly on weaponry.

I also don't care for them determining "when they are needed" as they're judgement on needs has been pretty fucking terrible throughout history.