Since Parkland, MANY gun owners embrace reforms

[DrLove]

Many of them are marching and lobbying politicians also.

Tom Galinat, 35, a farmer and hunter who owns nine guns, traveled last month from his home in Peacham, Vt., to Montpelier, the state capital, with a firm goal in mind: Convince lawmakers to enact a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Jonathan Leach, 56, a policy analyst in Augusta, Me., and the owner of about 10 guns, testified before Maine legislators in favor of a bill to let judges order people deemed dangerous to surrender their firearms. Mr. Leach said he wanted to serve as a counterweight to gun rights enthusiasts he knew would speak against the idea.

And as thousands of demonstrators gathered in Nashville in March for student-led marches against gun violence, R. Sterling Haring, 33, a doctor and the owner of several guns including an assault-style rifle, addressed the crowd. When wounded children were flown to his hospital after a shooting at a Kentucky school in January, he said, he decided it was his duty to push for stronger gun control.

“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” Dr. Haring said in an interview on Monday, after learning of another shooting, which killed four people at a Waffle House a few miles from his house. “It just makes sense to me that if I own weapons, I should be the first one to be advocating for safety with those weapons.”​

Mucho Mas (with apologies to 2aguy and the many fetishists who actually believe people want to "grab 'em" ;-)

Do Gun Owners Want Gun Control? Yes, Some Say, Post-Parkland

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Ooooh

Before Parkland, her organization in Georgia had five local groups. Now there are 12. Around 1,800 people showed up to the organization’s annual advocacy day in Atlanta in late February, up from 150 last year. And local chapter meetings used to draw around 30 people on any given night. Now it’s often more than 100 showing up.

Out of 60-70 million gun owners....in about a century you might hit 5% LOL

 

[DrLove]

Ooooh

Before Parkland, her organization in Georgia had five local groups. Now there are 12. Around 1,800 people showed up to the organization’s annual advocacy day in Atlanta in late February, up from 150 last year. And local chapter meetings used to draw around 30 people on any given night. Now it’s often more than 100 showing up.

Out of 60-70 million gun owners....in about a century you might hit 5% LOL

Sucks to be oblivious to facts I'll bet

Most Gun Owners Support Stricter Laws—Even NRA Members

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most gun owners are responsible for their own actions. Most don't want children gunned down in schools. But, they can't compete with enormous bribes from the NRA to our R congress.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Many of them are marching and lobbying politicians also.

Tom Galinat, 35, a farmer and hunter who owns nine guns, traveled last month from his home in Peacham, Vt., to Montpelier, the state capital, with a firm goal in mind: Convince lawmakers to enact a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Jonathan Leach, 56, a policy analyst in Augusta, Me., and the owner of about 10 guns, testified before Maine legislators in favor of a bill to let judges order people deemed dangerous to surrender their firearms. Mr. Leach said he wanted to serve as a counterweight to gun rights enthusiasts he knew would speak against the idea.

And as thousands of demonstrators gathered in Nashville in March for student-led marches against gun violence, R. Sterling Haring, 33, a doctor and the owner of several guns including an assault-style rifle, addressed the crowd. When wounded children were flown to his hospital after a shooting at a Kentucky school in January, he said, he decided it was his duty to push for stronger gun control.

“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” Dr. Haring said in an interview on Monday, after learning of another shooting, which killed four people at a Waffle House a few miles from his house. “It just makes sense to me that if I own weapons, I should be the first one to be advocating for safety with those weapons.”​

Mucho Mas (with apologies to 2aguy and the many fetishists who actually believe people want to "grab 'em" ;-)

Do Gun Owners Want Gun Control? Yes, Some Say, Post-Parkland

Sucks to be oblivious to facts I'll bet

Most Gun Owners Support Stricter Laws—Even NRA Members

Same old lies, that have been refuted enough times before.

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single gun control law, and every single proposed gun control law, is flatly illegal. legislators act criminally by passing them, Presidents and Governors act criminally in signing them into law, and judges and police act criminally in enforcing and upholding them.

The only way for any such laws to be legitimate is first for the Constitution to be Amended, in order to overturn the Second Amendment.

If there really was the degree of public support that this article claims for various violations of the people's right to keep and bear arms, then there absolutely would be a credible effort underway—if not already completed—to thus amend the Constitution. Where is the effort to ratify an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment? There is no such effort,because nobody in a position to initiate it believe that there is nearly enough public support to give any such effort any plausible chance of success. And the level of public support that it would take to guarantee the success of such an effort is less than the levels of support that this article claims for the various policies that would require such an Amendment before they could legitimately be enacted.

Those claimed levels of public support for violating the Second Amendment are flat-out lies, and those who spread them—including you—know damn well that they are lies.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Pointless emotional bullshit. The second amendment is law. Period. End of discussion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A majority of gun owners have favored appropriate, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures long before Parkland.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most gun owners are responsible for their own actions. Most don't want children gunned down in schools. But, they can't compete with enormous bribes from the NRA to our R congress.

And most – if not all – Congressional Republicans would still oppose appropriate, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures even without the backing and money from the NRA; firearm regulatory measures that have nothing to do with the availability of particular types of firearms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A majority of gun owners have favored appropriate, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures long before Parkland.

And most – if not all – Congressional Republicans would still oppose appropriate, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures even without the backing and money from the NRA; firearm regulatory measures that have nothing to do with the availability of particular types of firearms.

There can be no such thing. The Second Amendment explicitly forbids government from infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms. Any measures from government, which interfere in any way with the people's exercise of this right, are blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[skookerasbil]

Meh

Congress could not possibly be any less interested.

And I'm laughing.... a month ago progressives were all giddy about David Hogg. The guy has disappeared and is irrelevant. He will reemerge at the marches and the idiot progresses will get all giddy again.... and Congress will go back to bed.

Taking bows for marches, banners and symbols = ghey.

 

[DrLove]

Same old lies, that have been refuted enough times before.

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single gun control law, and every single proposed gun control law, is flatly illegal. legislators act criminally by passing them, Presidents and Governors act criminally in signing them into law, and judges and police act criminally in enforcing and upholding them.

The only way for any such laws to be legitimate is first for the Constitution to be Amended, in order to overturn the Second Amendment.

If there really was the degree of public support that this article claims for various violations of the people's right to keep and bear arms, then there absolutely would be a credible effort underway—if not already completed—to thus amend the Constitution. Where is the effort to ratify an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment? There is no such effort,because nobody in a position to initiate it believe that there is nearly enough public support to give any such effort any plausible chance of success. And the level of public support that it would take to guarantee the success of such an effort is less than the levels of support that this article claims for the various policies that would require such an Amendment before they could legitimately be enacted.

Those claimed levels of public support for violating the Second Amendment are flat-out lies, and those who spread them—including you—know damn well that they are lies.

Dude, that's just silly. SCOTUS has already ruled that states are free to create their own rules and they also upheld the nationwide ban on assault-style weapons. Scalia even agreed that the 2nd amendment is not without limits. Ditto on most amendments.

So your contention that legislators, presidents, governors etc are acting criminally is flat out hogwash.

 

[2aguy]

Many of them are marching and lobbying politicians also.

Tom Galinat, 35, a farmer and hunter who owns nine guns, traveled last month from his home in Peacham, Vt., to Montpelier, the state capital, with a firm goal in mind: Convince lawmakers to enact a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Jonathan Leach, 56, a policy analyst in Augusta, Me., and the owner of about 10 guns, testified before Maine legislators in favor of a bill to let judges order people deemed dangerous to surrender their firearms. Mr. Leach said he wanted to serve as a counterweight to gun rights enthusiasts he knew would speak against the idea.

And as thousands of demonstrators gathered in Nashville in March for student-led marches against gun violence, R. Sterling Haring, 33, a doctor and the owner of several guns including an assault-style rifle, addressed the crowd. When wounded children were flown to his hospital after a shooting at a Kentucky school in January, he said, he decided it was his duty to push for stronger gun control.

“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” Dr. Haring said in an interview on Monday, after learning of another shooting, which killed four people at a Waffle House a few miles from his house. “It just makes sense to me that if I own weapons, I should be the first one to be advocating for safety with those weapons.”​

Mucho Mas (with apologies to 2aguy and the many fetishists who actually believe people want to "grab 'em" ;-)

Do Gun Owners Want Gun Control? Yes, Some Say, Post-Parkland

And he is an uninformed guy.....he knows nothing about the issue and neither do you.

What does he think is a large capacity magazine?

How will any ban keep criminals from using them?

Considering the Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines as did the Santa barbara shooter and the columbine shooters, why ban these magazines for law abiding people....people who may need every bullet they have to save their families from attackers?

And now the truth.....which you never use...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

Ooooh

Before Parkland, her organization in Georgia had five local groups. Now there are 12. Around 1,800 people showed up to the organization’s annual advocacy day in Atlanta in late February, up from 150 last year. And local chapter meetings used to draw around 30 people on any given night. Now it’s often more than 100 showing up.

Out of 60-70 million gun owners....in about a century you might hit 5% LOL

Sucks to be oblivious to facts I'll bet

Most Gun Owners Support Stricter Laws—Even NRA Members

Until you tell them exactly what the end result of the anti gun stricter gun laws will be....you forgot to add that...since you guys use bait and switch to fool the uninformed gun owners into supporting your fake laws...

 

[2aguy]

Most gun owners are responsible for their own actions. Most don't want children gunned down in schools. But, they can't compete with enormous bribes from the NRA to our R congress.

The NRA fights to keep gun felons in jail, the democras fight to let them out.

The NRA trains police officers and other law enforcement agents, the democrats side with anti police groups to demonize the police.

The NRA trains civilians to use guns safely, the democrats fight to keep law abiding people un armed in the face of rapists, murderers and robbers.

The NRA teaches children how to stay away from and safe from unattended guns...the democrats release violent gun offenders into inner city communities where children are killed in drive by shootings.


Democrats continue to let violent gun offenders out of prison over and over again, giving low bail, light prison sentences and easy parole to these killers....they are the problem, not the NRA.

 

[2aguy]

Same old lies, that have been refuted enough times before.

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single gun control law, and every single proposed gun control law, is flatly illegal. legislators act criminally by passing them, Presidents and Governors act criminally in signing them into law, and judges and police act criminally in enforcing and upholding them.

The only way for any such laws to be legitimate is first for the Constitution to be Amended, in order to overturn the Second Amendment.

If there really was the degree of public support that this article claims for various violations of the people's right to keep and bear arms, then there absolutely would be a credible effort underway—if not already completed—to thus amend the Constitution. Where is the effort to ratify an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment? There is no such effort,because nobody in a position to initiate it believe that there is nearly enough public support to give any such effort any plausible chance of success. And the level of public support that it would take to guarantee the success of such an effort is less than the levels of support that this article claims for the various policies that would require such an Amendment before they could legitimately be enacted.

Those claimed levels of public support for violating the Second Amendment are flat-out lies, and those who spread them—including you—know damn well that they are lies.

Dude, that's just silly. SCOTUS has already ruled that states are free to create their own rules and they also upheld the nationwide ban on assault-style weapons. Scalia even agreed that the 2nd amendment is not without limits. Ditto on most amendments.

So your contention that legislators, presidents, governors etc are acting criminally is flat out hogwash.

No...that is a lie, the Supreme Court has said no such thing....

Scalia did not say that......you are lying again.....in fact, in his dissent in Friedman v. Highland Park, he specifically protected Assault rifles you doofus...

Here...read what he actually said..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

II The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769. We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).



The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.


But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411. That analysis misreads Heller.


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

 

[martybegan]

Many of them are marching and lobbying politicians also.

Tom Galinat, 35, a farmer and hunter who owns nine guns, traveled last month from his home in Peacham, Vt., to Montpelier, the state capital, with a firm goal in mind: Convince lawmakers to enact a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Jonathan Leach, 56, a policy analyst in Augusta, Me., and the owner of about 10 guns, testified before Maine legislators in favor of a bill to let judges order people deemed dangerous to surrender their firearms. Mr. Leach said he wanted to serve as a counterweight to gun rights enthusiasts he knew would speak against the idea.

And as thousands of demonstrators gathered in Nashville in March for student-led marches against gun violence, R. Sterling Haring, 33, a doctor and the owner of several guns including an assault-style rifle, addressed the crowd. When wounded children were flown to his hospital after a shooting at a Kentucky school in January, he said, he decided it was his duty to push for stronger gun control.

“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” Dr. Haring said in an interview on Monday, after learning of another shooting, which killed four people at a Waffle House a few miles from his house. “It just makes sense to me that if I own weapons, I should be the first one to be advocating for safety with those weapons.”​

Mucho Mas (with apologies to 2aguy and the many fetishists who actually believe people want to "grab 'em" ;-)

Do Gun Owners Want Gun Control? Yes, Some Say, Post-Parkland

So you found a couple of Quislings.

doesn't mean anything.

 

[bodecea]

Pointless emotional bullshit. The second amendment is law. Period. End of discussion.

In order to have a well-regulated militia. Define that, please

 

[martybegan]

A majority of gun owners have favored appropriate, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures long before Parkland.

You cucks favor unconstitutional ones.

FOAD.

 

[martybegan]

Same old lies, that have been refuted enough times before.

As long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, every single gun control law, and every single proposed gun control law, is flatly illegal. legislators act criminally by passing them, Presidents and Governors act criminally in signing them into law, and judges and police act criminally in enforcing and upholding them.

The only way for any such laws to be legitimate is first for the Constitution to be Amended, in order to overturn the Second Amendment.

If there really was the degree of public support that this article claims for various violations of the people's right to keep and bear arms, then there absolutely would be a credible effort underway—if not already completed—to thus amend the Constitution. Where is the effort to ratify an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment? There is no such effort,because nobody in a position to initiate it believe that there is nearly enough public support to give any such effort any plausible chance of success. And the level of public support that it would take to guarantee the success of such an effort is less than the levels of support that this article claims for the various policies that would require such an Amendment before they could legitimately be enacted.

Those claimed levels of public support for violating the Second Amendment are flat-out lies, and those who spread them—including you—know damn well that they are lies.

Dude, that's just silly. SCOTUS has already ruled that states are free to create their own rules and they also upheld the nationwide ban on assault-style weapons. Scalia even agreed that the 2nd amendment is not without limits. Ditto on most amendments.

So your contention that legislators, presidents, governors etc are acting criminally is flat out hogwash.

Is a 6 month waiting period and $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your apartment infringement or not?

 

[DrLove]

Is a 6 month waiting period and $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your apartment infringement or not?

This additional silliness ^ has been brought to you by Marty!