NYC bans mentioning the 2nd amendment

[stalebiscuit]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Since his agents were acting outside their jurisdiction, if they were doing straw sales they're guilty of a criminal violation themselves. Reminds me of a case in Oklahoma when I was there in the seventies, where a sheriff sent an underaged teenager across the county line to buy booze from a liquor store owned by the mother of the sheriff in the neighboring county, then had his deputies swoop across the line to arrest her. That one came very close to turning into a shooting war...

hahahah....wow talk about your rivalries

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by stalebiscuit

hahahah....wow talk about your rivalries

To add insult to injury, the kid the sheriff used as a buyer had a five o'clock shadow, and looked like he was about thirty.

I'm guessing it was just an escalation of an ongoing feud between the two sheriffs; I hadn't lived there long enough to know the background of what was going on.

[Seabeescotty]

Mayor Bloomberg oughta be arrested, and jailed, his own self, for having his minions break the law in other states. Their purchases can be seen as straw purchases, also.

[patrick70]

Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Mayor Bloomberg oughta be arrested, and jailed, his own self, for having his minions break the law in other states. Their purchases can be seen as straw purchases, also.

Of coarse he should be,he plays real dirty,and yes he is a liberal.

[CrazyIvan]

I've bought guns as gifts before, and the vendor knew about it, because I told them. They said: "After you buy it, it is your business what you do with it." I had to ask them because I was buying a rifle for a new shooter and a handgun for my mom and I wanted to know their opinion. I didn't buy them, of course, for felons or convicted offenders of domestic violence. But so what if they know you are not going to be the owner of the weapon? Straw Purchase is if you buy it for someone not allowed to own a gun. You are able to buy a gun for someone who CAN legally own one, though.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

I've bought guns as gifts before, and the vendor knew about it, because I told them. They said: "After you buy it, it is your business what you do with it." I had to ask them because I was buying a rifle for a new shooter and a handgun for my mom and I wanted to know their opinion. I didn't buy them, of course, for felons or convicted offenders of domestic violence. But so what if they know you are not going to be the owner of the weapon? Straw Purchase is if you buy it for someone not allowed to own a gun. You are able to buy a gun for someone who CAN legally own one, though.

I think it depends on your state, because they can hold the gun dealer responsible if state law allows for it.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Mayor Bloomberg oughta be arrested, and jailed, his own self, for having his minions break the law in other states. Their purchases can be seen as straw purchases, also.

Yeah, no man should be above the law but I guess he thinks he is. This is typical of those with an elitist mentality -- look at Mr. Spitzer--he busted folks for doing exactly what he did. Look at algore as well--he tells me to cut back on driving when one of his trips to an acceptance speech burns enough fuel to literally power our family car for the next 8 years (and, yes, I can run the fuel figures to demonstrate this, by the way).

Committing a federal crime and conspiracy to commit a federal crime in this case (he should be able to be prosecuted for this, because it looks like he deliberately conspired to break federal law). Guess he thinks he can get away with it, because he's championing an anit's cause.

Maybe someone will prosecute him ?

[LarryO1970]

... any politician against guns should not be afforded the protection with what they believe the citizens should not have.

[TXplt]

Larry, that's a good point. I think, save the president and veep, our elected officials deserve no state sponsored extra "security" whatsoever ! They should be feeding from the same troughs we all are. I think this "sending down" and pumping their own gas, paying their own checks, etc., would keep them from losing touch from the rest of us.

They should be common folks, just like us paying their salary. Keep 'em from getting too uppity.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Larry, that's a good point. I think, save the president and veep, our elected officials deserve no state sponsored extra "security" whatsoever ! They should be feeding from the same troughs we all are. I think this "sending down" and pumping their own gas, paying their own checks, etc., would keep them from losing touch from the rest of us.

They should be common folks, just like us paying their salary. Keep 'em from getting too uppity.

... and dirty.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

... any politician against guns should not be afforded the protection with what they believe the citizens should not have.

Well, technically politicians are civilians and are compliant to all state and federal laws. I am sure someone could file a law suit against them to point that out.

However, that is kind of what you get with the government, they can't be held accountable for anything.

[troy2000]

My understanding of the law is that it is the seller's business what you intend to do with a gun. In California (okay, okay, I know!), the only transfers that can legally be made without involving an FFL are those between family members.

Of course, if someone has a fifty year-old shotgun in his safe, who's to say when and where he got it?

Originally Posted by TXplt

Larry, that's a good point. I think, save the president and veep, our elected officials deserve no state sponsored extra "security" whatsoever ! They should be feeding from the same troughs we all are. I think this "sending down" and pumping their own gas, paying their own checks, etc., would keep them from losing touch from the rest of us.

They should be common folks, just like us paying their salary. Keep 'em from getting too uppity.

Mostly, that would just get them dead. Look at how many presidents have been tagged or narrowly missed, even with the security in place.

[TXplt]

Like I said, Troy, due to the real time CinC stuff I think prez and veep OK for security and secret service protection. All and I mean all others at their own risk. If they do a good job they shouldn't have much to worry about. I really doubt personally that would get them killed. Most of us have risked our necks for our country at some time--why not our elected officials too ? It would weed out the cowards.

They'd also get to live like the rest of us. We're all important.

Even an absolute worst case scenario (i.e. legislators getting targeted--like I said, I very much doubt this would happen in our society even with no security whatsoever except their personal CCW) would serve as a term limits of sorts. We'd always elect another, and there'd be someone to fill the shoes without disruption of our political process. These would be patriots, especially if there was real risk to them and they were out of their ivory towers. Maybe this is what our country needs. We're all supposed to be equals, right ? Why not equal protection under the law ?

I believe (in TX at least) private firearms sales require no documentation whatsoever. I was going to sell a pistol to a dealer (his price was not right so I kept it) and he suggested I sell it at a Gun Show to get full value. When I asked him if there were any restrictions, he said no--you may want to ask for ID but that was it. I'm sure it's illegal to sell one to someone who's not allowed; how you're supposed to know that as a private joe other than asking them I don't know. In any case, didn't pursue it much because I'm keeping my firearms

[LarryO1970]

"Mostly, that would just get them dead. Look at how many presidents have been tagged or narrowly missed, even with the security in place."

Troy2k, I agree... how many of the "tagged" or attempted targets were anti-gun, out of curiosity? Hell, it may not even matter. Those that fight against personal protection with guns, concealed carry, etc. are the same ones who use them for their own personal protection details. A bit hypocritical eh? Kinda like Bloomberg. Bloomberg is an avid supporter of gun control stating, "I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people." Would he say that about his own personal protection detail?

I stand by my opinion ... any politician against guns should not be afforded the protection with what they believe the citizens should not have.

... maybe that will help them see the light...?

[Deersniper]

Communism, plain and simple. He is in contempt of the 2 nd and needs to turn himself over to the authorities.

[AdvOut]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/ny...l?ref=nyregion