bullet hole in siding

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yes. Or their front door. And on their autos.

This is SUCH an appropriate quote;

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."

---------- Jeff Snyder

Most "progressives" overlook/ignore the second part.

Ditto.

Jim

Paraphrase of former post. The gun owner posts his own sign.

My Neighbor Doesn't Have Guns And I Promise Not To Protect Him.

OT: Steve look in that book for "Cracker". Tell me if it describes a Black Cowboy, a Florida Negro that popped whips. Cracking of the whip lent the name Cracker.

Yeah or Nay will do -- or -- if you find it....

If you get really stressed out about this episode you can always bury your guns in the back yard. Use as necessary.

In my state, the State Constitution has a 2nd Amendment.

"Gel" is also a verb:

Nope. It's already been pre-verbed. ;-)

Right. To use a firearm to protect the neighbor would offend him. It might even be a hate crime.

I've never had more than a five minute wait on the NICS system. ...and that is too long.

NY, too, at least when I lived there.

Hmm, that's interesting. I think I'll still have to have an NICS check (the last gun I bought I didn't have a CCW permit). I'm thinking about a Walther PPK/S. ;-)

Liberals are reading Jeff Snyder? Who IS Jeff Snyder anyway

but not every nation on eath has miranda rights

hehe

Then the UK must not be connected to the internet. I can find NO use of "gell" in all the pipes.

And I HAVE been to the UK. I spent two weeks one afternoon in Manchester.

I said "may get hit." This happens when the NICS check is equivocal. The feds get five days to research you. If the gun store doesn't hear back within five days, the store is allowed to presume you passed.

It's a federal law allowing states to bypass the NICS *IF* their CHL law meets certain minimum requirements. After all, a CHL check is more intensive than a NICS check - for example a CHL check usually includes fingerprinting.

One of the things that will disqualify a CHL holder from skipping the NICS check is the period for which the CHL is good. To skip the NICS check, the CHL must be dated and good for no more than five years.

As an aside, I saw a federal officer get pissed because he had to undergo an NICS check at a gun show. It seems as if his badge and identification was not dated.

CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

Subpart F_Conduct of Business

Sec. 478.102 Sales or deliveries of firearms on and after November 30, 1998.

(d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if-- (1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that-- (i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm; (ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and (iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information available to such official includes the NICS;

Here's a list of which states qualify:

"Ala" wrote in news:CYidnRwBj- bD1kbRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Why,does that make it any less true?

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

in certain situations,government can SHUT DOWN gun sales.

I see no problem with checking a potential buyers legal status before transferring a gun to them,particularly since it can be done quickly and without identifying records being kept. Prohibited people(felons,mentally ill) should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a firearm.

these days,you can get compact pistols that hold 10 rounds in 9x19 Luger/Parabellum instead of the PPK/S 7 rounds of weaker .380ACP.(9x17);a "minimalist" cartridge.

BTW,in Florida,even with a permit,you still have the NICS check. You could have committed crimes since the permit was issued,like misdemeanor domestic violence. But the waiting period (for handguns) is waived.

FWIW, The prohibition against the mentally ill is largely unenforceable in real life since those are generally medical records and thus not available under privacy laws. You might be able to pick up a small percentage by review police runs, but in most jurisdictions, even court records about involuntary commitments (Baker Act, 72 Hour hold, whatever it is called) are sealed.

I want to know why liberals are reading Jeff Snyder. If they're not reading him or paying attention to him, then they can't be ignoring just the second part. They're ignoring all of it because they haven't seen it at all

yea they jump out of bed because the smell of oil reminds them that you probably wanted them to cook for you instead of lovin on them

No fingerprints here.

Only one year, unfortunately. ...and $20. :-(

ID not dated? That's dumb.

These two are interesting, since a CCW isn't required. Vermont doesn't have one, so it couldn't qualify.