It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California’s 10-day gun registration waiting period found unconstitutional

page: 3
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

bats and knives are a bit more personal though.
big difference.

i know the end result is the person is dead but shooting someone from x feet away is much different that being up close and beating them to death.




posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

You know you could probably even do away with the permit if at the time of purchase you could prove you know what you're doing before they'd sell to you. It would shift some liability over to the gun shop owner and make it his duty to verify, even just personally between him and the buyer, that they were capable and understood what is needed. Which is really what any responsible seller should be doing anyway.

My buddy has a gun shop and he throws people out of there all the time if he feels unsure for any reason about selling a gun to someone. He has to deal with the FBI and stuff already anyway so the Gov. could easily verify the sellers are on the level and doing what they need to do.

Registering however is still important because if a gun is used in a crime it helps to be able to track it's ownership and so forth. But that is data, like you say, that needs to be safe and secure and not used for shady stuff. Unfortunately the Gov. is neither safe or secure and are almost always up to something shady.


Yes, gun shops are definitely doing the actual policing, so to speak, in terms of discretion, as are individuals. I don't know anyone that would knowingly sell a firearm to a miscreant.

I might be misunderstanding you but, registration doesn't actually have any way of identifying a specific weapon based on its spent cartridge or slug. That sort of confirmation is merely a ballistics test once a weapon has been recovered for comparison to a bullet recovered from the scene of a crime for the purposes of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that that particular weapon was actually used to fire the recovered round.
edit on 1-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: DAVID64

bats and knives are a bit more personal though.
big difference.

i know the end result is the person is dead but shooting someone from x feet away is much different that being up close and beating them to death.


You are beginning this intellectual experiment with a false premise though, that those who wish to exercise their 2nd amendment rights are subject to suspicion of being a criminal or a psychotic.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No, I just mean so you know the owner by it's registration number. Like if you find an empty gun in the room with a dead guy full of holes you can see if it was registered to the dead guy who emptied into himself or if it belongs to someone else who did. That kind of thing.

Like registering your car so they know who officially owns it and should be responsible for it being used without them knowing.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yes, the serial number does connect a firearm to a manufacturer who keeps a record of what dealer received it as stock.

The registration issue is still an unconstitutional infringement of the second though, malice and ineptitude of the registering authority aside.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

You are beginning this intellectual experiment with a false premise though, that those who wish to exercise their 2nd amendment rights are subject to suspicion of being a criminal or a psychotic.


I don't think that is where they were going with that. It's not that everyone needs to be a criminal or killer to still be dangerous when armed with a gun. Sometimes people react to things incorrectly or without better judgement and you can do more damage faster and more permanent than with something else more close range.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

How is it unconstitutional when nobody is stopping you from keeping it and using it???

You can't guns everywhere like we do and not at least track them to some degree. Let's be real. We're not talking about toasters. We track our pets and our deliveries better. Just having to register the owner isn't asking much.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

If I recall correctly, back when this was passed, it was supposed to be to deter crimes of passion where someone was pissed off and ran to a gun store, bought a gun, and then went and shot someone.

Of course, we all know that you don't need a gun to kill someone out of anger and that this law did nothing to deter said crazies who would do such a thing, so I'm glad to see it being overturned.

It took my dad more than three weeks to get his shotgun that he purchased (he lives in Cali), and it had nothing to do with anything that would come up on a background check. The state is just too liberal when it comes to its views on gun ownership--and he lives in Kern County, which is actually a red county in a sea of blue.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

How is it unconstitutional when nobody is stopping you from keeping it and using it???

You can't guns everywhere like we do and not at least track them to some degree. Let's be real. We're not talking about toasters. We track our pets and our deliveries better. Just having to register the owner isn't asking much.


No, by that logic, why should you have the benefit of any amendment?

Why let you be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Its just my opinion, but it seems to me that if a person can pass the background check, then there's no justification for a waiting period. Are they guilty of anything? No, so why treat them as if they are or will be. Last I checked, our legal system wasn't based on a presumption of guilt.

Well, except on one issue, apparently.
edit on 1-9-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
No, by that logic, why should you have the benefit of any amendment?

Why let you be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures?


Well, it says that you can keep and bear arms. They aren't infringing on anyone doing that by having them register them.

It's the same reasoning we have for tracking the whereabouts of lots of stuff like explosives, medical supplies, or even the new issue of guns and ammo you have coming in the mail. Some things are important so you need to know where they are.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: greencmp
No, by that logic, why should you have the benefit of any amendment?

Why let you be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures?


Well, it says that you can keep and bear arms. They aren't infringing on anyone doing that by having them register them.

It's the same reasoning we have for tracking the whereabouts of lots of stuff like explosives, medical supplies, or even the new issue of guns and ammo you have coming in the mail. Some things are important so you need to know where they are.


There are no qualifications to the second amendment.

In fact, there is nothing in it that limits the right to bear arms to guns at all.

I entirely dismiss the idea that the state (I presume that's what you meant when you said "you") must be aware of the whereabouts of all tools that could be used for nefarious purposes.
edit on 1-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

There are no qualifications to the second amendment.

In fact, there is nothing in it that limits the right to bear arms to guns at all.

I entirely dismiss the idea that the state (I presume that's what you meant when you said "you") must be aware of the whereabouts of all tools that could be used for nefarious purposes.


There's nothing in the second amendment that says the Gov. isn't allowed to track guns or gun ownership though. The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd applied not only to militias but to individuals as well. However they also ruled that it is not unlimited and doesn't prohibit regulation. You can not like it all you want but that's how it is and is perfectly legal and binding and constitutional based on how our system works.

You can try and play with words all you want but a gun isn't a tool as that is not it's intended purpose, it's a weapon. A hammer is a tool, which can be used as a weapon just like a gun is a weapon but could be used as a hammer, but they are not the same. One was made with the purpose of being a lethal weapon and is far more efficient at it than any tool.

The fact is that even people who have been long time gun owners and that know how to handle them still make mistakes. Gun owners shoot themselves or others on accident on occasion, have their guns stolen, have them fall into the wrong hands within their own homes, etc. That costs the lives of innocent people as well. So monitoring lethal weapons, especially when they are so common place doesn't seem to be unreasonable at all.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: infolurker




What is the purpose of the waiting period?


It's what they call a "cooling down period". It keeps people from flying off the handle, buying a gun and doing something stupid.


CA native here . I would also like to add that CA now requires a "Handgun safty cert " to purchase not only Hand guns but now effective of this year rifles . the cert allows you to buy ONE gun per month....

Sucks! But to be honest when i bought my guns the wait made it more exciting and appreciate my guns that much more.

Alslo for any type of high powerd rifle like an AR-15 etc . they now have what's called a "bullet button" meaning you can no longer drop a magazine buy simply pushing the button .you need a slim instrument or an actual bullet to relese the mag.

I really think all these things are set in place for the purpose of generating $$$$ it's all a racket.


🎩
👀

edit on 06/17/2015 by Kapusta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: truthseeker84




Apparently, there are certain hand guns are are made recent years that didn't have one of a safety feature or whatever stupid # they came up with at the time, so basically any hand gun failing to meet that criteria, is not allowed to be sold in California. So there are a lot of hand guns that I wanted to buy but wasn't allowed to.

Funny thing is, in California, you could still go apply for a permit to own a FULL AUTOMATIC assault rifle.

Anyway, it's pretty messed up.


With handguns its not the safety feature its if the manufacture pays $5000 per gun make and modal.

A manufacture selling new guns has to have every handgun make and modal tested.
If the manufacture sells two modal 1911s one in chrome and one blued its going to cost $10,000 TO GET THEM APPROVED.
and if the gun is modified to a Competition Match gun before sale its $5000 per change.

As for full auto weapons unless you own a movie prop gun company for the movies or TV shows you WILL NOT get a permit for full auto weapons. There are no other exclusions



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
Its just my opinion, but it seems to me that if a person can pass the background check, then there's no justification for a waiting period. Are they guilty of anything? No, so why treat them as if they are or will be. Last I checked, our legal system wasn't based on a presumption of guilt.

Well, except on one issue, apparently.


The background check is another constitutional violation.

The 4th amendment.

All gun 'control' is precrime on what someone might do that A person does and the rest of us who don't do anything, and never do anything have to bear that other constitional violation about excessives fines, and cruel and UNUSAL punishment.

All gun control violates almost the entire bill of rights.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

Also for any type of high powered rifle like an AR-15 etc . they now have what's called a "bullet button" meaning you can no longer drop a magazine buy simply pushing the button .you need a slim instrument or an actual bullet to relese the mag.

I really think all these things are set in place for the purpose of generating $$$$ it's all a racket.
🎩
👀


The joke on Calif is going to Nevada gun shows and seeing tables with non Calif AR magazine release buttons so the people from Calif can buy them no questions asked.
It takes about 5 mins to change a Calif AR bullet button to a non compliant non Calif AR.
I know many people that have bought the conversion an have them stored away just in case.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED

originally posted by: Kapusta

Also for any type of high powered rifle like an AR-15 etc . they now have what's called a "bullet button" meaning you can no longer drop a magazine buy simply pushing the button .you need a slim instrument or an actual bullet to relese the mag.

I really think all these things are set in place for the purpose of generating $$$$ it's all a racket.
🎩
👀


The joke on Calif is going to Nevada gun shows and seeing tables with non Calif AR magazine release buttons so the people from Calif can buy them no questions asked.
It takes about 5 mins to change a Calif AR bullet button to a non compliant non Calif AR.
I know many people that have bought the conversion an have them stored away just in case.


Yea, you can also buy a magnet for it. But if you get caught with it ...heafty fine perhaps,,?



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's not the people that don't have a grasp on the constitution. At least not the people that you are accusing of it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is actually pretty straight forward and clear...

I mean what's confusing? The definition of infringed is pretty well known. The right of the people is pretty easy to understand...

keep and BEAR Arms is PRETTY straight forward...

I think the biggest misunderstanding that happens is the mistaking Arms for guns... It's ALL armaments, NOT just firearms.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED

originally posted by: truthseeker84




Apparently, there are certain hand guns are are made recent years that didn't have one of a safety feature or whatever stupid # they came up with at the time, so basically any hand gun failing to meet that criteria, is not allowed to be sold in California. So there are a lot of hand guns that I wanted to buy but wasn't allowed to.

Funny thing is, in California, you could still go apply for a permit to own a FULL AUTOMATIC assault rifle.

Anyway, it's pretty messed up.


With handguns its not the safety feature its if the manufacture pays $5000 per gun make and modal.

A manufacture selling new guns has to have every handgun make and modal tested.
If the manufacture sells two modal 1911s one in chrome and one blued its going to cost $10,000 TO GET THEM APPROVED.
and if the gun is modified to a Competition Match gun before sale its $5000 per change.

As for full auto weapons unless you own a movie prop gun company for the movies or TV shows you WILL NOT get a permit for full auto weapons. There are no other exclusions


That's not what I heard but I am too lazy to argue with you, as this isn't exactly a topic that interests me that much to start a debate.

But what I've heard is this:

Full auto was legal in California at one point in time. Technically speaking it still is, but CA requires a state issued license to own full auto weapons.

The license application requires you to show "good cause" to own a full auto with the state DOJ deciding if your cause is good enough. No one has come up with a reason that they find good enough in several decades.

To me, that is a loop hole, not a absolute 100% no no.

It is possible, but just need to show a good enough "Cause". So again, technically speaking, it is certainly not "There are no exclusion". There should be a possible loop hole, but people haven't discovered it yet.

For instance, if you are a jewelry store owner, you could apply for a conceal carry license in Cali. That's a get around to me, so if I ever wanted to be a vigilante and just carry on the street, all I need to do is start a small jewelry shop?

Anyway, I'm not 100% certain that I am right, so no debates here.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join