Turning in a Sig SG550 will get you $6200 Canadian. SG550s aren’t legally available at any price in the US.
An AR 15 will fetch $1337 Canadian ($1025 USD)
They claim that this is ‘fair compensation’ for weapons, even though this is likely anything but fair. It isn’t like you can refuse. An amnesty is in place until Oct. 30, 2023, after which you go to jail if you don’t take the deal.
The ATF needs two weeks to complete a gun trace. That, according to NBC, is just insanity. The ATF likes to blame this on the fact that they are not permitted to keep a registry of where all of the guns are. Any of us in the gun culture know that this is bullshit. How do we know?
The NFTR is a database of all NFA weapons: short barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and AOWs. In short, a database that is supposed to be kept by the ATF of where every registered weapon in those categories is located. Dealers in those weapons are regularly inspected. ATF’s own inspectors reported to the Office of the Inspector General that 86 percent of the time, they find errors in the ATF database.
Of course, the point of the NBC article is that we must establish a nationwide firearm registry so we can make everyone safe. Did you know that last year, nearly 20,000 ghost guns were confiscated in criminal investigations around the country, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? This sounds serious, right?
Except it’s misleading at best, outright bullshit at worst. ATF is including ALL weapons without serial numbers in its definition of “ghost gun” in order to make the problem sound worse than it is. Even so, the ATF traces half a million firearms every year. So the number of “ghost guns” being traced by ATF represents less than 4 percent of the total number of firearms being traced.
Ghost gun or not, this firearm is already illegal. It is a picture of what is either an SBR or an AOW. If you don’t know why I say that the ATF rules are arbitrary and stupid? Read this post.
Even when you DO comply with the law, the ATF will go to extraordinary lengths to put you away. There was a case where the ATF took a legal semiauto rifle, cut the welded FCG out of the rifle, and then replaced the entire FCG with a full auto FCG, which permitted the technician to fire it in full auto. They then prosecuted him for possession of an unregistered machine gun. The jury was not having it, and he was found not guilty. Imagine how much THAT cost in legal fees.
Dyer said there will be access checkpoints on Friday and Saturday evenings downtown to limit how people can enter the downtown area. The city said patrons will have to go through metal detectors and a weapons check at these checkpoints before walking into the access areas.
I believe that this zone is a clear violation of Florida’s preemption law. What’s more is that violating this law places Orlando and any of its officials at risk of a lawsuit. Even more, since the quote in this news article shows that the mayor knew it was illegal to do so, he becomes liable to any taxpayer whose rights are violated.
If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel. If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
So my question here is this: Are there any pro gun organizations who are willing to take this on?
The left loves to rely on the Gun Violence Archive as a source for information on so-called gun violence. In the past 72 hours, they have listed the incident in Orlando and a homicide in Winter Haven as being gun violence incidents.
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that—
(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action, except for a shotgun described in section 921(a)(40)(G);
(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable;
(C) is an antique firearm, as defined in section 921 of this title; or
(D) is only capable of firing rimfire ammunition.
The same applies to magazines.
(w)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Granted, there is a so-called “grandfather clause” but it says that a weapon (or magazine) is only grandfathered to possess. If you wish to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of it, it is no longer grandfathered. Not only that, but it is a crime to have that weapon and not securely store it.
What is an assault weapon? Well, the bill defines it as:
A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine; and has any 1 of the following:
Any grip, including thumbhole stocks, Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon
a grenade launcher.
a barrel shroud.
a threaded barrel.
A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 15 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun. (Binary trigger, slide fire, and anything else they feel like adding)
Semiautomatic pistols that accept detachable magazines and have any 1 of the following:
A threaded barrel
A second pistol grip.
A barrel shroud.
The capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip.
is semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. (So all Glocks, Skorpions, and any other PDW)
manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded. (Desert Eagles)
A buffer tube, stabilizing brace or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip. (All AR pistols)
A semiautomatic shotgun that has the capacity of more than than 5 rounds and has any 1 of the following:
a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
a Any grip, including thumbhole stocks, Thordsen-type grip or stock, bird’s head grip, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
a forward grip.
a grenade launcher.
All belt fed firearms.
Then it goes on to name a bunch of firearms by name. It looks like they went through a gun catalog and just listed all of the scary looking guns. All of the parts of those firearms, including their frames.
They called a CZ Scorpion an AK type firearm, for crying out loud. It also outlaws taping, clipping, or attaching magazines to each other.
With that being said, my read on this is that it has no chance of passing the Senate, and the Dems know it. They are merely trying to pass this bill so they can go back to their base and tell them that they tried.
The problem: The black box turns out to be a gun safe! (A friend of my husband told us.) We’re not worried that she has a gun; she helped organize a school rally to tighten our state’s gun laws. But she refuses to give up the safe, and we don’t want it in our house. Help!
I believe in both our right to self defense and our property rights. I personally have a rule that on our property if we are having a gathering of people that are not all gun people that concealed carry is allowed but open is not. We have some friends that are to scared of firearms to even look at them in person. That’s fine.
If a business wants to limit firearm possession in their place of business to criminals only, that is their choice.
Let me explain why I disagree.
When I was in high school (many, many years ago) my football coach used to explain to us the difference between involvement and commitment:
When you eat breakfast, the chicken that provided the eggs is involved, but the pig that provided the bacon is committed.
Coaches, especially in the south, have a way with words. Although it is a bit outlandish, my coach’s words reveal an important truth: it is easy to be involved with something, but it takes a lot more to be committed to it. So it is with liberty and rights.
When a company opens a location, the owners of that company risk very little. They have only risked a relatively small amount of money in the endeavor, and are insulated from any personal risk by the very nature of corporate law. If anything should go horribly wrong, the only thing that the nominal owner stands to lose is his investment cash. In other words, stockholders are chickens that are only involved with the business.
It is for that reason that companies make decisions that affect only the bottom line. After all, they are there to protect the owners’ interests, and the only interest the owner has is to get his investment money back with a little extra for his risk. It is this truth which allows government to use the law of unintended consequences to control a business without seeming to.
Let’s apply this to gun laws: As a government entity, I pass a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I place a clause in the law allowing a business owner to opt out of the law. Many property rights people will applaud this law, and think that property rights are protected.
The problem is in the law of unintended consequences. Other laws hold a property owner liable for any act that they allow to take place on their property, but hold them harmless from those acts as long as the property owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent that act. You see the position that you have just placed a corporation in, don’t you? The business is now liable for the actions of any concealed carrier that they allow onto their property, and held harmless for the actions of armed killers, as long as they post a sign that says “no guns.”
The right of property owners has already been shredded. No property owner who wants to avoid a potential multi million dollar lawsuit would allow concealed carry.
Decision making process:
Will I be held liable if CCW shoots someone? Yes
If I prohibit carry, will I be held liable if a criminal kills my customers? No
Post signs prohibiting carry
Back to our breakfast analogy: The corporate business owners, wanting to protect the only skin they have in the game are our chickens. The business posts the signs banning CCW. The public who frequents that business is now at the mercy of the armed criminals who know that they are now safe to practice their trade, and the business is safely insulated from all liability when it happens.
Congratulations, guns are now banned in public, and you have just cheered them on as they used your rights to make bacon.
There are those who say that the person could always choose to shop elsewhere, but since the law is the law everywhere, there is no real choice. Very, very few business owners will choose to take the chance of facing a multimillion dollar award.
After SCOTUS declared Maryland’s AWB and magazine ban unconstitutional, the Marlyand AG has refused to comply.
Democrat Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh was defiant: “Military-style firearms pose grave risks to public safety, as recent mass shootings in other states have made clear. Despite the Bruen ruling, the state’s law remains in effect. Marylanders have a right to be protected from these dangerous weapons.”’
Three of the four boxes have failed. The government is refusing to comply with its own laws. What else is left?