arma virumque cano (et alia)
You are claiming that the bullet button nerds are breaking the law by complying with the law? Is that fair? Or are you just butthurt that there are still neutered AR's in CA?I love how in the recent CBS article the author asked why the police aren't enforcing this "loophole?" Um, because it's legal? Ha ha ha.
In the video the guy even said if you leave that magnet on the gun it's illegal.
Mike, anonymous was referring to this video:http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/01/bullet-button-used-to-get-around-california-gun-laws/The topic was Bullet Buttons, and that comment about “why aren’t the police enforcing it” to me appears to be directed at Bullet Buttons in general. However, they did show the magnet, and that was right before the line in question. Do you feel that line was only directed at the magnet (which they made no mention of its use being illegal)?
Oh a guy on YouTube said something. Good enough for me.
Mikeb, think through the implications here. Any restriction can be circumvented. People don't like to be controlled. Every regulation that you propose, someone will get around. Your choice then is to go for a total ban (which will also be circumvented) or to back off and let gun owners be. Most states have chosen the latter.
No, total ban is not the only choice. In CA I imagine they enforce their laws about the 10-round magazines and this special button on the AR. If they catch someone with that magnet thing I imagine there could be charges.
But how would that be enforced? Typically, only after a shooting. In other words, only after a reasonable law has been violated. But otherwise, to enforce these laws, goons from the state government will have to go around knocking on doors--or kicking them in.
So California passed a law saying that you need to use a tool to release a magazine and then when someone makes and markets such a tool as proscribed by law they are a hidden criminal?Since you love car analogies so much: California law specifies that all cars manufactured after 1964 must be equipped with seat belts. So if a car manufacturer makes a car with a seat belt they are hidden criminals?
In fairness, I believe Mike is referring to the magnet- which the use of is illegal. It is not illegal to have the magnet, it is just illegal to stick it to release button. But I am pretty sure Mike doesn’t look kindly on the Bullet Button itself either, right Mike?
Thanks TS. That's exactly what I was saying. But when FWM argues he uses every trick in the book, even pretending to not understand me and asking me questions to turn the debate into a tedious pain in the ass.
Tedious pain in the ass? That would be California's gun laws, Mikeb.
I thought it was illegal to leave the magnet mounted on the release, not to use the magnet tool to trigger the release.
I believe you are right, but I don't think the DOJ has commented on the mag magnet. They have made a definitive statement on bullet buttons.
The gun banners are desperate. Awesome.
At issue here is whether a "law" has the force of law if it violates the U.S. Constitution. Consider the somewhat extreme example if our federal government passed a "law" tomorrow that forbade people from speaking in a critical fashion about the Republican party. That clearly violates the 1st Amendment and such a law would be void as if it never existed. But what if the U.S. Supreme Court -- for whatever odd reason -- upheld the law? As a citizen, I recognize the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, not the U.S. Supreme Court. If I were a law enforcement officer and ordered to arrest someone for speaking out against Republicans, I would refuse the order.So the question here is whether California's "law" on AR-15 rifles violates the U.S. Constitution. If it does, it is null and void and any person in California who possesses such an AR-15 rifle is not a "hidden criminal".The history, meaning, and intended application of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear for anyone who is willing to invest a few hours of research. While some people may not like the 2nd Amendment and wish to modify or repeal it, the meaning plainly expresses the right of citizens to have firearms such as AR-15 rifles. Thus California's "law" violates the U.S. Constitution and is null and void. And that means citizens who possess such AR-15 rifles are not hidden criminals.
Capn crunch is soooooo missing the point.
So what is your take?
"So the question here is whether California's "law" on AR-15 rifles violates the U.S. Constitution."That's not the point at all. The point is that many of you so-called lawful gun owners are nothing of the sort. Many of you have the philosophy called "bad laws be damned."That makes you hidden criminals.
It absolutely is the point. How can someone be a criminal for violating a "law" that is null and void?Better yet respond to my example. If the federal government enacted a law -- and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it -- that criminalized any and all forms of speech, both private and public, that was critical of the Republican (or Democrat if you like) party, would you be a criminal for violating that law?
Unjust laws are not laws at all. They're just bullying by those in power. Fortunately, most of us don't have to worry about idiotic regulations such as what California gun owners endure.
Yes, bad laws be damned, right guys. That makes you hidden criminals.
The way that organizers were hidden criminals when they went south to register blacks to vote. But I live in Arkansas, one of the many states where such wacko laws don't exist, so I'm not criminal, hidden or otherwise.
MikeB you still haven't responded to my speech example. If a federal law criminalized critical speech about the Republican or Democrat party, is that law valid and would you be a criminal for violating it? Tell us your answer and explain your reasoning.
Capn Crunch, the difference is that Mikeb believes in the right of free speech. He doesn't believe that gun ownership and carry are rights. Let's hope that none of us see a day in which any of those rights are violated by the law.
Yes, Capn, Greg described my position pretty well. But, that doesn't mean I want all you guys to lose your guns.
MikeB you say that you don't want all firearms owners to lose their guns. How gracious of you. Thus everyone will be happy. Except:It doesn't do me any good to have guns that our government mandates be locked up in a safe 24/7.It doesn't do me any good to wait several years for the government to finally get around to evaluating me psychologically to "approve" me to take my firearms out of the gun safe.It doesn't do me any good to take a firearm out of my home if several/most locations are "gun free" zones and it is a criminal offense to store a firearm in my vehicle.It doesn't do me any good to take a firearm out of my home for self-defense if there is always some "reason" (bystanders within 1000 yard radius, no Earthen backstop, attack isn't absolutely guaranteed to kill, etc.) that I cannot use it for self-defense.Those are just some of the problems with gun control. And such "measures" have no effect on hardened criminals -- the people who are actually responsible for about 90% of all violent crimes where the criminal uses a firearm. As for the remaining 10% or so of violent crimes where a person with no previous criminal record decides to "get their feet wet", gun safes, psychological screenings, "gun free" zones, and public safety requirements are meaningless and ineffective.And yet you would instill such "measures" -- which are totally ineffective to stop a criminal from using a firearm to harm a citizen -- to prevent citizens from ever being able to realistically use their firearms. Citizens with no violent or criminal history. Citizens who do not possess nor carry firearms with any criminal intent. Citizens whose accident rate with firearms is lower than any other recorded category of accidents. Citizens who, in spite of the huge burden of restrictions, have still managed to use firearms to defend themselves countless times.Such laws that restrict liberty -- harming citizens in the process -- without any benefit to society violate the intent and written purpose of the U.S. Constitution. Such laws are thus null and void.The magazine requirement in California does not effect criminals. It does not improve public safety. Its only purpose is to deter citizens from owning rifles with magazines. It violates the U.S. Constitution and is null and void. Citizens who seek to have a functional rifle without any criminal intent are not "hidden criminals".
CC, You're exaggerating what sensible gun control laws would be to the point of absurdity. Of course you would oppose things like that. But how about if you need to keep your guns locked up unless you are in possession or control of them. In other words, you are responsible for them and if they get lost or stolen or misused, you have to answer for that? Would that be so bad?How about if you don't have to wait several years for anything? Sensible and reasonable measures would not take that long.The gun laws I envision would not change your life much at all. But they would eliminate some hidden criminals from getting guns legally and they would help many people be more responsible.
What I described above, with the exception of psychological testing, are all measures of gun control that have been and to a great extent still are in place in our country. Washington D.C. mandated that firearms be locked or disassembled in the home at all times until Heller in 2008. Of course Chicago didn't allow handguns at all until McDonald in 2010. Even with a concealed carry license, it is illegal to carry concealed in over 13 different types of locations in some states -- not to mention all the businesses open to the public that seek to stop citizens from even storing their firearms in their vehicles. And while you personally may not have argued for it, others on this blog have argued that citizens should never be allowed to be armed in public and/or have argued that there is basically never a situation where it is safe enough to use a firearm for self defense in public -- thus totally negating one's ability to ever use a firearm in public.I can almost entertain mandated storage of firearms in safe's when not in use -- if there were no (and I mean zero) laws criminalizing citizens for possessing them outside of the home. But we know that will never happen.As for psychological testing, how long and how much would it cost to initially test and then continue to test all 80 million or so firearms owners? How accurate would the test results be? What would happen to a person who has never been tested and suddenly discovers that someone is stalking them? How long to gain "approval" before they could legally purchase a firearm to defend themselves?And we have to frame all of the expense (especially for psychological testing) in terms of cost and benefit. As it stands, criminals commit the vast majority of violent crimes and psychological testing will not eliminate that. Of the remaining 10% to 20% or so of violent crimes where the criminal had no previous record, how many of those would psychological testing predict? And how many such predicted individuals would never acquire firearms illegally (just like criminals) and commit their intended crime anyway? What good is such a "screening" process when the citizen -- soon to be a violent criminal -- can simply use a readily available alternate weapon (such as a knife or club) and commit their violent crime anyway? And how about false screening results? How many people would be restricted for no good reason? How many "bad" people would the screening fail to identify?When you look at the entire picture, I cannot see psychological screening actually preventing more than a few (as in 10) violent crimes per year. But we would be on the hook to spend billions on psychological testing. A fraction of those billions would prevent a lot more violent crime (especially domestic violence) if we poured it into counseling and mentoring efforts.
Interesting f-ed up thing about California “assault weapon” laws brought up in the video: Bullet Buttons can make an illegal gun legal, but they can also work the other way. Right now it is perfectly legal to posses a Glock with the standard 15rd magazine. If you were to install a Bullet Button type of device on that Glock (making magazine changes more difficult) you become a felon. Any semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine capacity over 10 rd is an “assault weapon”.
The term assault weapon is ridiculous. Doesn't the terms assault, and weapon go hand in hand.
I admire your righteous indignation, but the simple and sufficient response to Mikey's idiocy is that bullet buttons comply with existing CA law. They are simply legal, end of discussion.
I didn't say the bullet button was illegal. I said the magnet thing used to beat the bullet button was.
These assault magnets must be banned. Seriously, Mikey, you sound ridiculous.
mike - the magnet tool is not illegal. Leaving it attached to your weapon is illegal. The whole point of the law is to require a tool to change out the magazine. This is what the magnet is - a tool. I would think the easiest thing to do would be to wear a ring or gloves with a little stud that fits into the button hole. That would also be a tool to use to activate the button as required.
I can see the next imaginative headline from MikeyB:Junior Seau Commits Suicide with Gun - No Charges FiledGod this blog is a sewer.
Sewer equals disagrees with
Sewe equals vile and filthy
A sewer is a regular, predictable steam of shit, like this blog. Oh look, Italian Mikey is already dancing in Seau's blood.
"Unjust laws are not laws at all. They're just bullying by those in power. Fortunately, most of us don't have to worry about idiotic regulations such as what California gun owners endure."Unjust laws are not laws? Are you stupid enough to actually believe that sort of nonsense. If the law is on the books and not declared unconstitutional whether it is just or not, it will be enforce by those who wish to enforce and ignored by those who don't wish to enforce it. You have the choice of ignoring it as well--and then whining when you're charged with a violation."The way that organizers were hidden criminals when they went south to register blacks to vote."Citations required, unless you'd prefer to admit that you don't know wtf you're talking about."Better yet respond to my example. If the federal government enacted a law -- and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it -- that criminalized any and all forms of speech, both private and public, that was critical of the Republican (or Democrat if you like) party, would you be a criminal for violating that law?"If it's upheld by the Supreme Court, then yes, you'd be a criminal for violating that law. Now, you could be a principled person and violate the law (think "sit ins", Occupy Wall Street, that sortathing) get arrested, tried and convicted, serve your time and make the sheeple aware of the problem. Or, you could be like a lot of people and disobey the law, but lack the courage to endure pain and suffering for your convictions and so whine about being "persecuted".
Democommie, do I really have to provide you citations of cases in which people violated the law to secure rights for blacks in the South during the Civil Rights era? In my view, those were noble actions, and the laws in question were evil and not in fact laws. You forget that just because the government has the force to compel obedience, that fact doesn't make what it does right.