TexasCHLforum.com

grumble wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

Retired police officers are at a greater risk of violence. All those BG's that get sent upriver have a long time to stew over those that they believe put them there (in reality, they put themselves their by their own accord).

But the elitist politicians continue to make the argument that these firearms are not needed for personal defense. Therefore, this argument would not apply.

MasterOfNone wrote:

grumble wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

Retired police officers are at a greater risk of violence. All those BG's that get sent upriver have a long time to stew over those that they believe put them there (in reality, they put themselves their by their own accord).

But the elitist politicians continue to make the argument that these firearms are not needed for personal defense. Therefore, this argument would not apply.

We have a winner!

mr surveyor wrote:

grumble wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

Retired police officers are at a greater risk of violence. All those BG's that get sent upriver have a long time to stew over those that they believe put them there (in reality, they put themselves their by their own accord).

so????

I didn't say I agreed with it. A question was asked and I provided an answer. The proper assumption (if this wasn't liberal legislation) would be that we'd all be subject to the same rules. I also believe that the "exceptions" should mean denial to those unfit (felons, etc.) and the masses "shall not be infringed."

So "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are tools of war that have no purpose other than to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible unless you're a police officer or used to be a police officer?

I thought if we passed laws like this, the criminals would no longer be able to get guns?

The part of the bill I love the best: banning semi-auto, belt fed weapons. The mention the M2 by name.

Probably the only firearm to never be used in a crime. I tell you one thing, I wouldn't mess with the robber strong enough to tote one of those into the local shop-n-rob. That puppy is like 6' long and weighs over 100 pounds if I remember correctly. We weren't even allowed to lift one without two people.

Beiruty wrote:To enforce private sale vial FFL, you need to have reregistration. Otherwise, how do you know who own what at the time when the ban goes into force?

I agree. Registration is not a requirement in this bill, but that does not mean it wouldn't be introduced in the future.

This "loophole" is intentionally left in the law, as to leave room for "need" for registration in the future. It is also one of the reasons I am very leery about all of the gun trafficking legislation. Since this bill requires transfers of grandfathered firearms to go thru a FFL, failing to do so would make you a gun trafficker, even if you know the person you are transferring to and 100% know they would pass a background check.

warhorse10_9 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:To enforce private sale vial FFL, you need to have reregistration. Otherwise, how do you know who own what at the time when the ban goes into force?

I agree. Registration is not a requirement in this bill, but that does not mean it wouldn't be introduced in the future.

This "loophole" is intentionally left in the law, as to leave room for "need" for registration in the future. It is also one of the reasons I am very leery about all of the gun trafficking legislation. Since this bill requires transfers of grandfathered firearms to go thru a FFL, failing to do so would make you a gun trafficker, even if you know the person you are transferring to and 100% know they would pass a background check.

^^^^ every bit of this. ^^^^^

I think she included all politicians and police as being exempt so it would be more likely to pass. She needs the police to willingly enforce it and the politicians all want to keep their guns. It's the little people who must be made defenseless.

grumble wrote: Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
:

You know, mechanically speaking, a trigger is a lever.

Good luck with that argument in federal gun court. It sounds safer to shoot the wolves, shovel, and shut up.

Bart wrote:Good luck with that argument in federal gun court. It sounds safer to shoot the wolves, shovel, and shut up.

Suit yourself.

TexasGal wrote:I think she included all politicians and police as being exempt so it would be more likely to pass. She needs the police to willingly enforce it and the politicians all want to keep their guns. It's the little people who must be made defenseless.

While Ms. Feinstein's inclusion of current and retired police would work if they were all "me first" democrats, they're not. Most take their oaths of office very seriously.

Few police will be lulled by this maneuver into thinking that they won't be next if they consent to do the dirty work of making the country safe for tyranny.

It's tough to flim flam folks who get lied to for a living.

So according to all this legislation these geniuses are proposing I have to be a police officer to have any rights? Is SAPD hiring?

smtimelevi wrote:So according to all this legislation these geniuses are proposing I have to be a police officer to have any rights? Is SAPD hiring?

I was thinking along the same lines...we all just need to get govt jobs!

Oh and on the cops being "all in for me" types...remember the FoP is as liberal a union as the teamsters.

punkndisorderly wrote:And what makes retired police special?

Enemies. Police can often be the targets of bad guys who've done a stretch and are looking for revenge. A copy can put away a bad guy his first day on the force and end up having to deal with him again after he's retired.