Yes, but only on certain types of assault weapons
I don't know, honestly. As a Canadian I don't have any amendments to the Constitution to think about, and I'm not passionate about it either way. However, one thing I don't like about Canadian gun laws is that it restricts me from collecting certain firearms - mainly a German WWII Luger, which would be really cool to have, among other pistols - and to be quite honest I wouldn't mind having a genuine AK or something like that. I don't imagine I'd need to use it for self-defense, but you never know. Mainly I'd like it as part of a small collection.
I guess I lean towards freedom rather than repression in almost any case, so I wouldn't support an outright ban, even on assault weapons. However, I do think that the criteria to own one could be a little tighter. I really do think you need to PROVE that you're a law-abiding citizen, and not only that but MATURE enough to own one. It shouldn't be automatically assumed, even if you don't have a criminal record. I really do think the comparison to vehicle licenses is valid, even if it's not protected in a country's constitution. Not only do you have to be a certain age, but you have to prove that you can do it safely, and for vehicles that are a bit more dangerous (ie: trucks, for example) you've got to prove it again.
Forgive my ignorance of specific US federal and state laws regarding this, I know I'm speaking in generalities. Just my two cents...
Last edited by omon; 23 Dec 08, at 18:21.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
I say: take no chances. Keep your steak knives and your zombie knives completely separate. I hope Obama makes this a priority. We receive shockingly little information about zombies from the current government.
My friend, all your questions will be answered in this book:
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Actually any removable clip over 10rnds would be illegal, except for pre-ban mags. The tubular mag is common on many 22 rifles(holds 18 usually) and that is what is the exception. Your 30 round 10/22 ruger mags put you on the list of naughty boy! By the wording of this, I would interpret it to mean that all post ban mags would be illegal. We now have a dillemma though because we now have post/post-ban mags now. Gun ban manufactured hi-cap mags where permanently stamped with "for police or military use only". Pre ban had no such stamping. Now, post/post ban manuf mags have no such marks, so how would they determine pre mags from post/posts?(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.
GF(or anyone in the know and sober), correct me if I'm wrong on this(I have been drinking heavily this eve)
However, advocates of a new ban do not want to grandfather all tubular .22 mags over 10 rds, just those up to some defined future cutoff date. After that, it would be illegal to sell tube mags over 10. And let me add that the original number of over anything 7 rounds being illegal is not off the table, and some are even talking about 6. They are also kicking around the idea of a phased introduction of these lower numbers, probably in conjunction with making it illegal to sell any grandfathered items to another regular citizen.
Also, some "post ban" detachable mags are marked with the manufacturing date. It is not done by every manufacturer on every mag, but when it is done, the markings are usually inside the mag tube, and consist of a "manufacturing data code," rather than a plainly readable date.
1. Probable cause for warrant.
FISA is step one in eliminating that.
NOT going to happen.
step 3 would have been trial and 4 would be incarceration. But those steps are rendered moot because I never have been incarcerated and have vowed never to be. See step 2.
Am I alone on this? Or am I just the only one stupid enough to say it?
Could you guys elaborate the FISA point? I don't understand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)