Doug Miller wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in :

Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself.

Of course you can. It appears you need to look up the difference between "can" and "may".

Perhaps you meant "cannot *legally* sell" -- which of course is very different from "cannot
sell".

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided
it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing
firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting
semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts.

Prohibited. Not prevented.

In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and
approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be
approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is
being made for a Federal or State agency.

And of course all persons with criminal intent will comply with those requirements, right?

There you go, getting all technical...

I KNOW that criminals don't obey the laws and that any "extra" laws will
be ignored as well. Others don't seem to grasp that reality though.

I no longer have to worry, went fishing Sunday and my gun safe fell
overboard...

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
other info.
Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

--
Steve W.

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:10 +0000, Danny D wrote:

I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

On 05/20/2013 10:05 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in
:

Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself.

Of course you can. It appears you need to look up the difference
between "can" and "may".

Perhaps you meant "cannot *legally* sell" -- which of course is very
different from "cannot sell".

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee
provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling
a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from
imported parts.

Prohibited. Not prevented.

In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and
approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be
approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm
is being made for a Federal or State agency.

And of course all persons with criminal intent will comply with those
requirements, right?

There you go, getting all technical...

I KNOW that criminals don't obey the laws and that any "extra" laws will
be ignored as well. Others don't seem to grasp that reality though.

I no longer have to worry, went fishing Sunday and my gun safe fell
overboard...

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

indeed.



I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
other info.
Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.


with bells on.

i love how the journo's are getting all bent out of shape over rosen's
first amendment rights, but when it comes to the rest of us and our
second amendment rights, they're happily dog-piling the effluent about
the constitution's irrelevance. truly ironic.


--
fact check required

On 05/20/2013 04:58 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 05/20/2013 10:05 AM, Steve W. wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in
:

Actually you cannot "sell" a firearm you made yourself.

Of course you can. It appears you need to look up the difference
between "can" and "may".

Perhaps you meant "cannot *legally* sell" -- which of course is very
different from "cannot sell".

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee
provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling
a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from
imported parts.

Prohibited. Not prevented.

In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and
approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be
approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm
is being made for a Federal or State agency.

And of course all persons with criminal intent will comply with those
requirements, right?

There you go, getting all technical...

I KNOW that criminals don't obey the laws and that any "extra" laws will
be ignored as well. Others don't seem to grasp that reality though.

I no longer have to worry, went fishing Sunday and my gun safe fell
overboard...

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

indeed.



I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
other info.
Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.


with bells on.

i love how the journo's are getting all bent out of shape over rosen's
first amendment rights, but when it comes to the rest of us and our
second amendment rights, they're happily dog-piling the effluent about
the constitution's irrelevance. truly ironic.



further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

2. what are politicians afraid of in the first place?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9jv6Hw_gs8

the political mandate derives /from/ a free and armed populace, not in
spite of.


--
fact check required

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:34:10 +0000 (UTC), Danny D
wrote in Re The Blitz gasoline
can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed:

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:10 +0000, Danny D wrote:

I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:25:30 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:34:10 +0000 (UTC), Danny D
wrote in Re The Blitz gasoline
can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed:

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:10 +0000, Danny D wrote:

I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

That was just a dice roll.

On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:58 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:25:30 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:34:10 +0000 (UTC), Danny D
wrote in Re The Blitz gasoline
can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed:

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:10 +0000, Danny D wrote:

I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

That was just a dice roll.

Not even a good one.

On May 21, 11:14*am, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:15:58 -0500, Vic Smith





wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:25:30 -0500, CRNG
wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:34:10 +0000 (UTC), Danny D
wrote in Re The Blitz gasoline
can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed:

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:54:10 +0000, Danny D wrote:

I have two sources of caps on the way, so I'll run my test.
If we all pitch in where we can, we'll solve the problem.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

That was just a dice roll.

Not even a good one.

anyone try a briggs and stratton gas tank lid? oce I accidently
swapped a gas can lid with my engine lid, the threads were the same.

I only found the problem when the engine quit, since gas cap lids have
no vent.

but after seeing gas cans very big from pressure a vented one appears
a good idea. my cans live in the shed.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns measures,
recently.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?

On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered legally able
to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there are states in which
there is *no* legal way for me to even drive through with my own legally
purchased handgun unless I just pass straight through and don't stop
(e.g. Maryland or Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap out of me as
I have good friends in both of the states I mention above...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

DC is a hellhole best avoided for many reasons, its handgun laws being
only one reason. Unfortunately I live very close to it...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 05/21/2013 06:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


doubtful you'll be allowed to do it in the condition with which you may
be used to doing. here in kalifornistan, it has to unloaded, in a
locked container, in the trunk, and that container cannot have any
ammunition in it. whether separately magazines can even have rounds in
them is contentious.

--
fact check required

On 05/21/2013 03:14 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't transport it, even
unloaded and cased, except directly between your home and a gun range.
If you see any defensible logic in that, you're a better man than I
because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

so once otherwise law abiding citizens are criminalized and therefore
alienated, they're not invested in upholding other laws either. maybe
the legislators responsible for that absurdity have stock in the
companies that make the equipment used to quell civil unrest? it
wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.


--
fact check required

On 05/21/2013 11:34 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?


the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.


--
fact check required

On 05/21/2013 06:29 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 05/21/2013 06:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


doubtful you'll be allowed to do it in the condition with which you may
be used to doing. here in kalifornistan, it has to unloaded, in a
locked container, in the trunk, and that container cannot have any
ammunition in it. whether separately

duh - make that "separately contained"


magazines can even have rounds in
them is contentious.



--
fact check required

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:14:04 -0400, krw wrote:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg
The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

That was just a dice roll.

Not even a good one.

Well, the *theory* was that Hopkins bought all the molds from the
now-defunct Blitz company *except* the gas-can molds, but, the
(bad) roll of the dice was that the caps *might* fit.

Clearly they're not even close.

I'm still waiting for my replacement caps from the other order.

On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:51:30 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

bottom line, these things need to be re-thought. preferably by someone
with a car.

and a brain.

What they really need are consumer use-model specifications.

They have mandated that the gas stays in the can. That's half the spec.

Now they need to mandate that a consumer can get the gas *out* of the can!

On Wed, 22 May 2013 04:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Danny D
wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:14:04 -0400, krw wrote:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg
The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

That was just a dice roll.

Not even a good one.

Well, the *theory* was that Hopkins bought all the molds from the
now-defunct Blitz company *except* the gas-can molds, but, the
(bad) roll of the dice was that the caps *might* fit.

Clearly they're not even close.

I would *never* have expected a container that was used to hold a
toxic and dangerous chemical to be the same as one used for potable
water. Pipe and fittings for flammable gas and liquids are
intentionally made so they can't be confused.

I'm still waiting for my replacement caps from the other order.

If they're intended for gasoline containers, I'd give them a *much*
better chance of fitting. If they're meant for other liquids, not so
much.

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:32:24 -0700, jim beam wrote:

On 05/21/2013 11:34 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?


the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

DC is a hellhole best avoided for many reasons, its handgun laws being
only one reason. Unfortunately I live very close to it...

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:29:29 -0700, jim beam wrote:

On 05/21/2013 06:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


doubtful you'll be allowed to do it in the condition with which you may
be used to doing. here in kalifornistan, it has to unloaded, in a
locked container, in the trunk, and that container cannot have any
ammunition in it. whether separately magazines can even have rounds in
them is contentious.

Sure, but that wasn't the point.

On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

From the bottom of page 18:

Travelers to D.C. are prohibited from carrying any firearms into the
District in a concealed or open manner. Any ammunition possession is
also banned. D.C. law was recently modified to allow the transport of
firearms and ammunition through the District. The firearms must be
unloaded, cased, and locked in the trunk, or, in a vehicle without a
trunk, secured in a locked container (other than a glove compartment or
console box.) They mst also be separated from any extraneous
ammunition. The traveler may not stop anywhere in the District of his
"passing through" status will cease to exist and his firearms may be
subject to seizure.

(end quote)

Also see here

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf


Places Off
-
Limits Eve
n With A Permit/License
Note:
If you stop in DC for any reason while transporting firearms you are no
longer covered by Federal
Law (
Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44
§ 926A)
but fall under DC law and can be arrested and your firearms
Confiscated

(end quote)

the actual law is given on pages 5 and 6 of the link given above.

So apparently DC grudgingly recognizes McClure-Volkmer but does the
absolute minimum to comply. The way I read the quote above, even
stopping for gas may in the eyes of District authorities put one outside
the protection of McClure-Volkmer.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On May 22, 5:15*am, wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 04:21:50 +0000 (UTC), Danny D
wrote:





On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:14:04 -0400, krw wrote:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13119319.jpg
The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug
caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

Bummer.

That was just a dice roll.

Not even a good one.

Well, the *theory* was that Hopkins bought all the molds from the
now-defunct Blitz company *except* the gas-can molds, but, the
(bad) roll of the dice was that the caps *might* fit.

Clearly they're not even close.

I would *never* have expected a container that was used to hold a
toxic and dangerous chemical to be the same as one used for potable
water. *Pipe and fittings for flammable gas and liquids are
intentionally made so they can't be confused.

I'm still waiting for my replacement caps from the other order.

If they're intended for gasoline containers, I'd give them a *much*
better chance of fitting. *If they're meant for other liquids, not so
much.

Same story. The old style spouts fit the old style cans, they will
not fit the epa type. EPA knew we would be trying that.

Harry K

On May 22, 5:18*am, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:32:24 -0700, jim beam wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:34 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?

the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. *The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

Tell that to the countries not ruled by our Constitution

Harry K

On May 22, 10:33*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, wrote:





On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.

Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate

It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.

True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

*From the bottom of page 18:

Travelers to D.C. are prohibited from carrying any firearms into the
District in a concealed or open manner. *Any ammunition possession is
also banned. *D.C. law was recently modified to allow the transport of
firearms and ammunition through the District. *The firearms must be
unloaded, cased, and locked in the trunk, or, in a vehicle without a
trunk, secured in a locked container (other than a glove compartment or
console box.) *They mst also be separated from any extraneous
ammunition. *The traveler may not stop anywhere in the District of his
"passing through" status will cease to exist and his firearms may be
subject to seizure.

(end quote)

Also see here

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf

Places Off
-
Limits Eve
n With A Permit/License
Note:
If you stop in DC for any reason while transporting firearms you are no
longer covered by Federal
Law (
Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44
§ 926A)
but fall under DC law and can be arrested and your firearms
Confiscated

(end quote)

the actual law is given on pages 5 and 6 of the link given above.

So apparently DC grudgingly recognizes McClure-Volkmer but does the
absolute minimum to comply. *The way I read the quote above, even
stopping for gas may in the eyes of District authorities put one outside
the protection of McClure-Volkmer.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Thanks for that. I knew that in transporthing _through_ a state they
still have to comply with the laws governing _how_ they are to be
secured. I didn't nknow DC had that "gotcha" in there.

Harry K

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:18:44 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On May 22, 5:18*am, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:32:24 -0700, jim beam wrote:
On 05/21/2013 11:34 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?

the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. *The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

Tell that to the countries not ruled by our Constitution

Why is it my job to tell them anything? If they don't care about
their rights, why should I?

On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:08 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

Yes. It's an interpretation of the law made by law enforcment
overreach. It was never the letter or the intent of the law.

...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:18:03 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:32:24 -0700, jim beam wrote:

On 05/21/2013 11:34 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?


the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

"MOLON LABE", or "Come And Get Them." ...

I wasn't born to surrender, in the least.

"My lawyer says you cannot take something you have already given me."

On 05/22/2013 02:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:08 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

Yes. It's an interpretation of the law made by law enforcment
overreach. It was never the letter or the intent of the law.

...


I agree, but I'm not particularly interested in becoming a test case,
when driving around DC is so easy (easier than driving through in many
cases.) Maryland isn't much better, unfortunately, and is harder to
avoid. Obviously, when carrying a handgun through a firearm-unfriendly
state, the easiest way to avoid trouble with the law is to keep it
cased, in the trunk, and don't stop.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Thanks for that. I knew that in transporthing _through_ a state they
still have to comply with the laws governing _how_ they are to be
secured. I didn't nknow DC had that "gotcha" in there.

Harry K

"I promise you a police car on every sidewalk."
- M. Barry,
Mayor of Washington, DC

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low
crime rate."
- M. Barry,
Mayor of Washington, DC

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:48:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:18:03 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:32:24 -0700, jim beam wrote:

On 05/21/2013 11:34 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:01:17 -0700, jim beam wrote:

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a
federal constitutional right.

You are familiar that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was
derived from local laws of states?


the bill of rights could have been derived from the laws of planet
vulcan for all that matters - what matters is that the bill of rights
are universal to a free citizenry, not subjects of individual fiefdoms.

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

"MOLON LABE", or "Come And Get Them." ...

I wasn't born to surrender, in the least.

"My lawyer says you cannot take something you have already given me."

More precisely, you cannot take something that was given to me by a
higher authority. Looking at it another way, the government is by the
people (s' consent), rather than the people are of the government.

On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:53 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/22/2013 02:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:08 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

Yes. It's an interpretation of the law made by law enforcment
overreach. It was never the letter or the intent of the law.

...


I agree, but I'm not particularly interested in becoming a test case,
when driving around DC is so easy (easier than driving through in many
cases.) Maryland isn't much better, unfortunately, and is harder to
avoid. Obviously, when carrying a handgun through a firearm-unfriendly
state, the easiest way to avoid trouble with the law is to keep it
cased, in the trunk, and don't stop.

You'd better hunker down in your basement. There is a cop (or IRS
agent) out there somewhere who's looking to put you away.

On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:05:35 PM UTC-4, Steve W. wrote:
My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

Ok, who gets to determine who the nut-cases are, and what is the definition of a nut-case?

How do you ferret out the normal people who one day just *SNAP*?

Hello, other countries. You have God given rights, which should not be taken away. And, in the US, our Constitution prohibits the government from taking said rights away.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Harry K" wrote in message ....

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the
Constitution, rather by nature. The Government didn't "give" these
rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

Tell that to the countries not ruled by our Constitution

Harry K

Anyone who votes differently than myself must be a nutcase.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
wrote in message ...
On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:05:35 PM UTC-4, Steve W. wrote:
My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

Ok, who gets to determine who the nut-cases are, and what is the definition of a nut-case?

How do you ferret out the normal people who one day just *SNAP*?

On 05/22/2013 03:44 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:53 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/22/2013 02:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:33:08 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/22/2013 08:19 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:22:52 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 05/21/2013 09:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:14:32 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/21/2013 4:37 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 05/21/2013 02:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:05:35 -0400, "Steve W."

wrote:

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a
convicted violent
felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you
shouldn't be
restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.


Who would of thunk Iowa allows child molesters to carry
guns, it was
recently reported I see.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way
it should work
is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it
comes back
clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the
form. The dealer
would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no
names/addresses or
other info.

We don't need no stinkin' forms or checks, or anything else.

Should also be that if you are in a state that issues
handgun permits
that the permit is valid across the country and it
exempts you from
background check unless it is revoked.

The National Reciprocity law proposed died with other guns
measures,
recently.


Now that is the obnoxious thing; apparently I'm considered
legally able to conceal a handgun in my own state, but there
are states in which there is *no* legal way for me to even
drive through with my own legally purchased handgun unless I
just pass straight through and don't stop (e.g. Maryland or
Massachusetts)

sorry for the OT post but this actually does annoy the crap
out of me as I have good friends in both of the states I
mention above...

nate


It gets even worse.
In DC for example you can now own a gun but you can't
transport it, even unloaded and cased, except directly
between your home and a gun range. If you see any defensible
logic in that, you're a better man than I because I don't.
Oh, there are no gun ranges within DC by the way.

You *CAN* pass through DC, or any state, with a gun you're legally
allowed to posses.


True, but if you do more than stop for lunch or gas you can be
technically in violation of the law.

Wrong.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm
quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm
Laws of the Fifty States."

Yes. It's an interpretation of the law made by law enforcment
overreach. It was never the letter or the intent of the law.

...


I agree, but I'm not particularly interested in becoming a test case,
when driving around DC is so easy (easier than driving through in many
cases.) Maryland isn't much better, unfortunately, and is harder to
avoid. Obviously, when carrying a handgun through a firearm-unfriendly
state, the easiest way to avoid trouble with the law is to keep it
cased, in the trunk, and don't stop.

You'd better hunker down in your basement. There is a cop (or IRS
agent) out there somewhere who's looking to put you away.



Not sure where you're going with this.

If you get caught by a LEO with a handgun anywhere in the District
you're probably going to be charged with a felony, UNLESS it is secured
in the trunk of your car as described above (e.g. compliance with
McClure-Volkmer.) This is not paranoia, it's fact. Scuttlebutt says
that even if you stop at a restaurant, say, and leave the handgun
secured in the trunk of a locked car that that might be considered "not
passing through."

I agree that this is crap, but rather than let myself be charged with a
felony to prove my point (although I suppose that I could be a poster
boy for the NRA at that point; I don't know how well that pays though
seeing as subsequently I'd be essentially unemployable if things didn't
go well) I just choose to avoid the District altogether (whether or not
I have a handgun. Usually I don't, I'm not one of those types who
carries everywhere "because I can." Oddly, DC and PG County are two
nearby places where I seriously *would* consider carrying, however, and
yet I am unable to legally do so as neither DC nor MD recognize *ANY*
other states' carry permits. But anyway, this is only one of many
reasons why DC is a miserable place, best avoided unless you have actual
business there.) As a result of this, they don't get any of my dollars
flowing into local businesses etc., which I guess is too bad for them.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2013-05-22, Nate Nagel wrote:

ammunition. The traveler may not stop anywhere in the District of his
"passing through" status will cease to exist and his firearms may be
subject to seizure.

So what is he supposed to do at a red signal?