Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

This is a news story because men had AR-15s at Presidential event. The secret service doesn't give a rat's a** about right to carry laws. I believe these guys are planted to paint an image of those in opposition to the bill as militants. Would anyone argue that assault rifles are a good idea when the president is around?

Actual machine guns are federally prohibited to the general populace, FFL's (Federal Firearms Licensee's) and Law Enforcement are the only ones allowed to own them and Law enforcement being the only ones to carry them (As well military personnel)

Though i must say I'm glad people are getting out an exercising responsible second amendment rights. We need to combat the image that anyone who owns or carries a firearm is a dangerous person. Furthermore i think it sets a great example to other firearm owners about responsibility


edit to add of course its not a good idea to carry a firearm to a presidential visit BUT it is perfectly legal

[edit on 17-8-2009 by conspiracyrus]

reply to post by Miraj


I know its an AR15. Question is, is it converted as you mentioned? Does Arizona ban assault rifles?

reply to post by deltaboy
[more

Assault Weapons is a spin term ... Can anyone tell just by looking at an ar 15 if its automatic or not? yea but youd have to look closely ... and as far as i know California and NY and NJ are the only ones to make the distinction of "assualt" based on model of gun i.e AR-15, FN's and the like


edit to add... Just a thought i was watching the news on this and the lady reporter said "People just dont carry semi automatic weapons around, i mean im from Louisiana we have guns just not semi automatic" Just goes to show you that gun ignorance is 2nd amendments worst enemy

[edit on 17-8-2009 by conspiracyrus]

reply to post by noconsequence


Conspiracy wise, I agree with your assessment including your take on 911. I myself is not anti gun and I do have suspicion about this kind of incident, are they planted, or are they just nuts? Whatever it is, it's definitely not okay.

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
Actual machine guns are federally prohibited to the general populace, FFL's (Federal Firearms Licensee's) and Law Enforcement are the only ones allowed to own them and Law enforcement being the only ones to carry them (As well military personnel)

Untrue. I have an 01 FFL (Dealer in firearms other than destructive devices) and I cannot own a fully automatic weapon nor a suppressor. In order to own FA weapons, suppressors, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns you have to have a tax stamp, specific to that item and numbered to its serial number.

First you have to have a signature from the CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) stating that you are of good character. No felonies, and no misdemeanors of domestic violence due to the Lautenberg Act. Other violations may cause significant delays. The CLEO's signature can be difficult to get in some places, not so much in others. Then you send in an application to the BATF(E) with your picture, several copies of your fingerprints, and a $200 tax. First time, typically takes about six months...after that you are sent a permit form with a stamped seal on it and you are allowed at that point to own the item listed on the form. You have to keep this form as long as you own the item and it cannot be transferred without *another* $200 tax. You also have to submit to lifetime unannounced (although they typically do contact you ahead of time as a courtesy) inspections to ensure that you still have all your tax stamps in order for all the restricted items that you own.

reply to post by netwarrior


But you do need to have an ffl to do so am i correct?
sorry that sounded rude what i mean was in my post im just saying that without an ffl theres 0 chance of owning automatic weapons and if i am wrong please correct me

[edit on 17-8-2009 by conspiracyrus]

reply to post by conspiracyrus


Nope. FFL is generally regarded to be some type of dealer, manufacturer, or a Curio & Relics collector. Having a tax stamp does not make you any of the above, by law.

reply to post by conspiracyrus


No you don't.

reply to post by netwarrior


no im asking you if you can get that stamp without holding an ffl

and erm no i dont what?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by conspiracyrus]

AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.

Open carry laws are great. So are concealed carry!

I'm sure someone got the message.

Which very subtlety was the purpose.

Just a little friendly reminder never hurts anyone.

reply to post by dooper


Hehe thanks i was trying to say that i should have been more forward like yourself =p

reply to post by conspiracyrus


...need an FFL.

reply to post by conspiracyrus


Of course. I have a friend that has half a dozen tax stamps and he holds no FFL.

You can buy grenades, explosives, fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, sawn-off shotguns shorter (both of the latter shorter than 16" barrels, usually) etc. People do all the time with the proper stamps. As far as explosives go it can be prohibitively expensive.

Say you want to own 40mm grenades to be fired out of an M203 grenade launcher. You can have as many as you want...but it's a $200 fee apiece in addition to the "normal" price.

BUT..thanks to the Hughes Amendment of the FOPA 1986 (widely known as the Machine Gun Ban of 1986) fully automatic receivers (the thing that the ATF defines as "the gun" while everything else is just parts) manufactured after May 19, 1986 can no longer be transferred to civilians. After that date any FA weapon manufactured after that date can only be sold to Law Enforcement, Military, or other Dealers with the corresponding FFL...it's classified as an 07 FFL (I could be wrong on this).

That is why fully automatic weapons are so expensive nowadays. More money is chasing less product. A transferrable Thompson submachine gun can easily sell in excess of $20-30k depending on condition. Even a Sten Gun smg that probably cost $1 to make back in the WWII era can command prices of several thousand dollars..just because it was registered with the BATF(E) before May 1986.



[edit on 17-8-2009 by netwarrior]

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

Well, that debunks the CNN report that claims these guys had Assault Rifles. I'm not at all surprised.

Great video:
TPM

I do believe the guy interviewing the dude with the AR-15 is packing a pistol himself.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


To me the fact that MSM didn't make a big deal out of it is a dead give away. If people have noticed, MSM has only been playing their tune to help the big boys. I would suggest that people at these events keep a good eye on those people.

Though a would be assassin even if hired would probly be concealing, I expect something to happen. I'm sure it will be creative to give the PTB all they need to, "guard" against the population.

Thank you.

No consequencE..

Not to derail the thread,but in AZ you can open carry anything?...obviously the AR is allowed,what about shotties and rifles(like a barrett M107...although that would be a pain in the arse to tote around:lol?

Originally posted by noconsequence
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

To me the fact that MSM didn't make a big deal out of it is a dead give away. If people have noticed, MSM has only been playing their tune to help the big boys. I would suggest that people at these events keep a good eye on those people.

Though a would be assassin even if hired would probly be concealing, I expect something to happen. I'm sure it will be creative to give the PTB all they need to, "guard" against the population.

Thank you.

No consequencE..

Amen to that! Something fishy here for sure. I was thinking we start seeing guns at all these functions, then boom someone takes a shot at Barry and then lock-down USA!

reply to post by Wimbly


How would the writers know huh huh? Its not like they quoted the police.