Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Au revoir les amis !

Gryphon,

This ruling is by no means trivial. This guy did not build machine guns from scratch but modified otherwise legal (if incomplete) firearms. And from the Ninth Circuit? Earth shaking.

I guess that means it's ok for me to keep that tennis ball shooting cannon I made out of coke cans when I was a kid......

Not only that but you can sell the pieces that can be made into one.

Yeah..... they always told me Indian manure was the best thing in the world for growing hyacinths.......

Making a machinegun is not hard to do.

Let's just say I know folks who have done so.

All you need is a de-milled parts kit, and you can reconstruct a receiver from either sheet metal, or ordinance grade steel pipe - whichever is appropriate to the firearm.

Or at the simplest, you can just drop an auto-sear, and a selector switch into an AR-15, or an AK.

This latest ruling is shocking. Really shocking.

Next thing you know, they'll let us have silencers. Glad I stocked up on washers...

Please continue with the legal precedents for your case. All are being taken with due consideration and attention. In the meantime, I am content with Shantinik's arguments, as he clearly established in my mind what privileges to property I have through Royal perogative and the traditions of Common Law. It is unfortunate that some of his fellow countrymen cannot accept the facts of their own history or traditions.

Also, JB there is not any need for you to demonstrate that you can be devoid of manners and have to resort to crude expressions in order to disagree with me or with anyone else for that matter. After all, you are neither Jerry Springer or a trashy radio phone-in host catering to popular and mass insipidness. Not only is it unbecoming of you, but it reinforces the herd mentality that has become all to common here and caused Benedict to start this thread in the first place.

Like I said, I'm no liberal.

Renauda,

Apparently, you took me far more seriously than was intended as I failed to with you. I really didn't think you were serious about all that king and country nonsense. After all, the rights affirmed by our Constitution were not conferred upon us by a king either. However, if you feel it is essential to the discussion I would have to wonder why you find silly arguments about can openers and fishing lures more compelling than those made by a federal judge. Might it just be what you like to hear? I have heard no reasoned rebuttal of this judge's arguments from either you or Shantinik other than to say he does not understand British Common Law. Hence my confusion about your actual seriousness. What is it that he does not understand? What specific point has he got wrong?

I apologize if I have said anything to offend you. It really was not my intention. Perhaps you can direct me to the nuance of British Common Law that allows my government to deprive me of property that enjoys explicit protection under our Constitution or that allows it to prevent me from protecting myself with whatever means I have at my disposal. It is possible that Shantinik has, in some subtle manner, done this already and I was distracted by his references to fishing tackle and common household items (we right-wingers are so easily distracted) so please try and limit such references. They really smack of condescension.

Detritus:

This is French word, originally from Latin.
Simply means, trash or litter. Its description though refers less to the main trash heap, or garbage and more to those loose peices of jetsam or floaties (in the case of water) that are apart from the greater heap of trash. Though I've never heard it used to describe parts of a family tree.

Interesting how the US dislikes France, yet, loves to use French words... ?

Manitou

romance languages - that's what we have.

The french words sound the most beautiful, like music.

A friend of mine, a union pipefitter and staunch Democrat, is an avid hunter. Not only in Michigan, but he spends his vacations hunting in the Dakotas, Arizona, and New Mexico. He is not an NRA member, nor does he particularly advocate the ownership of any type of firearm for any reason (as I do). Several years ago I showed him the anti-sniper rifle legislation that was proposed in the Senate. His eyes became as big as saucers because, as he noticed, it outlawed his hunting rifles. They were just regular bolt action high powered rifles capable of killing an antelope at a distance (or political leader on the Washington Mall).

People are so silly.

Same idea behind the so-called "cop killer" bullet.

JBryan:

Apology accepted and I too will govern my own actions so as not to be condescending.

I have read and reread the Emerson link Jolly provided. From it I have a much better appreciation for the complexities of this debate.
It is not as clear cut as either side may argue.

Clearly there was a precedent for individuals to arm themselves under both the tradition of Common Law and affirmation in the English Bill of Rights in the 17th Century. The framers of the American Constitution later reaffirmed what was already in existence under English Law and expanded upon it to include the right of States to maintain a well regulated militia. Not sure if I am entirley correct here but I think I am at least on the right track.

Where there seems to be some difficulty with interpretations is the extent to which the Federal government can regulate the Peoples' Right to bear arms and a State's right to maintain the Peoples right to bear arms in a regulated State militia. In otherwords at a subnational level the right seems to be clear and individual states may regulate the registration and ownership of individual firearms. At a Federal level however it does not seem so clear and I get the impression that the Constitution actually encumbers Federal legislation or jurisdiction.

You may or may not be aware that in this country there is battle going on between some provinces and territories with the Federal Government regarding the registration of personal firearms. Given our Common Law traditions and the powers granted to the Fedearl Governemnt in the BNA Act of 1867, it is clear that Ottawa has the legal right to set requirements for the acquisition of not only firearms but also the acquisition of ammunition. What however is being debated and challenged at the subnational level is the jursidiction of Ottawa to require a province to enforce the registration of personal firearms. The Alberta Government has steadfastly refused to enforce the Federal legislation on requiring the registration of personal firearms other than handguns. It is not so much the right of ownership that is in question here but rather the right of the Federal Government to demand the registration of private chattel property.

How are handguns different from long guns as far as chattel property? If you can require the registration of one you can require the registration of the other. They are both chattel property. So if a province follows the national law on one why do they balk at the other?

And yes, we are very aware of your legal matters regarding firearms. The US follows it pretty closely.

This is essentially correct. While the Supreme Court has taken the position that the other enumerated rights in the Constitution shall be protected by the States as well as the Federal government as an equal protection issue under the Fourteenth Amendment, it has not seen fit to take that position with regard to the Second Amendment. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. While it prevents nationwide implementation of gun registration or confiscation it also permits individual communities like New York City or Kennesaw, Georgia to enact the firearms regulations that make sense for them. I am not in any position to tell the people of New York or California what their gun laws should be but I can choose to live elsewhere if I do not care for the restrictions. This is all in the spirit of federalism wherein each individual state is like a laboratory for different types of governance and people can vote with their feet as well as see what really works and what does not. At present, for example, 39 states now have CCW laws. I cannot say that it would work everywhere but it has worked well enough that it has grown to 39 states from the original 1 (Florida) over a decade ago.

Practically there is no difference so you are right to be confounded by the obvious non sequitor . What is different is the national (peoples') attitude towards rifles and shotguns versus handguns. Overall there is a national consensus that handguns are in the first place not necessary for private possession since they cannot be used legally (in any province or territory) for any form of hunting. Secondly, since handguns may be concealed there are restrictions on their placed on their possession and transport. In order to own a handgun legally I must not only be a member of a registered shooting range or gun club, but I must also carry a valid "Conveyance Certificate" permitting me to transport the weapon on public roadways from my home to the shooting range, from my home to the gunsmith's and return.

Quote

So if a province follows the national law on one why do they balk at the other?

Public opinion in this province does not support the Federal registration of rifles and shotguns. Aboriginals also see it as a violation of their Treaty Rights. Everyone agrees that it will serve no purpose other than to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens.

Albertans and Westerners in general, hate it because it was a arbitrary decision made without consultation with the provinces by an idiotic Cabinet Minister from Toronto. We will not comply.

What do you mean "We will not comply." It's your national law, damnit! When the RCMP comes marching in there to arrest your ministers and gun owners, what are you going to do about it?

When I say we will not comply I mean that the Provincial prosecutors will not bring it before the Provincial Court of Queen's Bench. The RCMP will have to file those charges in a Federal court in order to prosecute. In otherwords, the provincial authorities will not cooperate. Therefore if John Doe is charged with several criminal offences the Provincial courts will only hear those charges that do not fall under the Federal Gun Law. It forces the RCMP to prepare additional paperwork and restricts the evidence the Crown can use in convicting a felon. Comply is perhaps too strong a word- cooperate is better.

Actually there is now talk that Alberta may cancel the arrangement it has with the RCMP and set up its own Provincial Police Force which will not enforce the Federal Gun Registry. What are we going to do? Well, just watch us- the next ten years will determine the future of the Confederation.

Oh God! Well, it can't be another Shiloh. Bloody Pond would have to be Bloody Hockey Rink.

Americans, when considering handguns, are like no other people on the face of the planet.

In fact, our Army considers the handgun an offensive weapon, unlike any other country. Most nation's armed forces consider the weapon to be a badge of rank, a tool to "encourage" enlisted compliance, or perhaps a defensive weapon.

Not us.

No I doubt whether our passions run that deep that we allow ourselves the crucible of what Shiloh entailed. Nor will be as hard hitting and entertaining to be billed as a repeat of a certain Bruins and Rangers Stanley Cup Quarter Final series that took place in 70's.

Rather it will be the travesty watching how a pack of short sighted greedy and jealous siblings fight over the bankrupt estate of a not yet rigored parent. The carnage of the public purse will be unmatched and the stench of unclaimed and unplundered wealth will attract opportunists and carpetbaggers from all directions. In the end we will return to what we were originally- a resource rich playground for adventuring monopolists living abroad.