yamaha
SuperDork
1/15/13 11:47 a.m.
N Sperlo wrote:
tuna55 wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
In reply to yamaha:
He was confused. 
Nick's spot on, as usual. I have a gun I may be interested in and I wanted to buy it (it's very hard to find for rent) to see how it is. Guns are good investments, and some investments can be short term. I may own it for a few months before sending it off to a good home.
In all realty, this is perfectly legal, and knowing tuna's tenancy to want to play with new toys, likely.
You're correct, this is indeed completely legal.
yamaha
SuperDork
1/15/13 11:51 a.m.
Edit: Fixed link
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/rule-ny-safe-act-be-unconstitutional/W2KLT6t8
Well, that hasn't taken long......little good it'll do, NY is probably berkeleyed for the time being as their senate passed their bill last night.
In reply to yamaha:
Some states are unlucky or lucky depending in what side of the issue you stand on. I like living in Missouri.
yamaha
SuperDork
1/15/13 12:08 p.m.
Strizzo wrote:
link doesn't work
Try it now......and Nick, I'm glad I'm in Indiana.
No clue what Indiana law is. 
N Sperlo wrote:
No clue what Indiana law is.
"AWESOME"..... that's what Indiana law is.
N Sperlo wrote:
Possession of a weapon in front of me, will get me to draw mine, but unless you become an immediate threat, I won't point it. Understand me a little better now?
Dude, you're a blowhard.
Do you draw when a gun shop owner picks up a weapon to show you? Do you draw against people at a range? Against hunters? If you spot a CCP holder printing?
Come on!
JoeyM
UltimaDork
1/15/13 12:50 p.m.
yamaha wrote:
In reply to JoeyM:
REDX........
IMDB image for "Escape From New York"
Osterkraut wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
Possession of a weapon in front of me, will get me to draw mine, but unless you become an immediate threat, I won't point it. Understand me a little better now?
Dude, you're a blowhard.
Do you draw when a gun shop owner picks up a weapon to show you? Do you draw against people at a range? Against hunters? If you spot a CCP holder printing?
Come on!
That was bad wording on my part. I was focused more on the fist issue, but an armed unholstered civilian while I'm doing my job, I would. There are definitely exemptions. I was quoted so I'm not going back to edit, thats all.
All that being said, I had a friend draw on a gun shop employee who placed his hand on his gun in a manner suggesting threat. This is the type of situation I'm talking about. Anything from there to pulling the weapon out, I'll draw.
Any civilian in front off me should have their weapon concealed anyway. I sell holsters, so there are many situations where guns are out and there is no threat.
I once had a loaded gun pointed at me, yet I didn't see it as a threat. It was stupid, but not a threat.
So. To clarify. A deadly weapon displayed as a threat, I will respond to with possibly lethal force. A punch or swing as an act of force, I will react to with non-lethal force. I didn't think I'd have too clarify, but there ya go. My primary job is law enforcement, so while working, I respond as a cop would.
In reply to N Sperlo:
How dare you not spell out every detail of your stance and plan of action for any hypothetical situation in a discussion on an internet message board?!?
Accusation that you are of an extreme political position. Gay slur.
N Sperlo wrote:
Any civilian in front off me should have their weapon concealed anyway. I sell holsters, so there are many situations where guns are out and there is no threat.
Are you certain? Only carry allowed in your state is Concealed Carry? In Indiana, carry type is not restricted, which leads to a lot of confrontations with LEO that do not know, or choose to enforce their version of the law.
On topic:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html
An excerpt:
Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, congressional officials said. But the scope of such measures is limited.
The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
So... weighing steps that he could take. The things listed that he could have the power to do, don't smack of overreaching authority. Nothing about new restrictions or banning anything. Sounds like taking existing laws and putting greater emphasis behind executing those.
Of course... we will see what he actually does/says later.
Beer Baron wrote:
How dare you not spell out every detail of your stance and plan of action for any hypothetical situation in a discussion on an internet message board?!?
This statement:
N Sperlo wrote:
Possession of a weapon in front of me, will get me to draw mine, but unless you become an immediate threat, I won't point it. Understand me a little better now?
Is massively different from this one:
N Sperlo wrote:
So. To clarify. A deadly weapon displayed as a threat, I will respond to with possibly lethal force. A punch or swing as an act of force, I will react to with non-lethal force.
And imply two totally different approaches to private ownership of weapons, and it's perfectly logical to ask him to reaffirm/clarify/modify his opinion.
P.S, N Sperlo you are a civilian, the word isn't appropriate for use in differentiating LEOs/Private Security from private citizens.
Well, it looks as if someone is confused about the actual law and what they THINK the law is. Missouri allows OC without a permit. Local ordinances can restrict that (unlike Indiana, where State law preempts the local laws).
So.... NSperlo confronts someone OC is actually in the wrong unless his particular municipality restricts it.
tuna55
UberDork
1/15/13 2:28 p.m.
Beer Baron wrote:
On topic:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html
An excerpt:
Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, congressional officials said. But the scope of such measures is limited.
The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
So... *weighing* steps that he *could* take. The things listed that he could have the power to do, don't smack of overreaching authority. Nothing about new restrictions or banning anything. Sounds like taking existing laws and putting greater emphasis behind executing those.
Of course... we will see what he actually does/says later.
I would argue that the executive branch has the authority do do exactly none of those things unilaterally.
tuna55 wrote:
Beer Baron wrote:
On topic:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html
An excerpt:
Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, congressional officials said. But the scope of such measures is limited.
The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
So... *weighing* steps that he *could* take. The things listed that he could have the power to do, don't smack of overreaching authority. Nothing about new restrictions or banning anything. Sounds like taking existing laws and putting greater emphasis behind executing those.
Of course... we will see what he actually does/says later.
I would argue that the executive branch has the authority do do exactly none of those things unilaterally.
Most of those are involving enforcing existing laws which is very point of the executive branch...
yamaha
SuperDork
1/15/13 2:35 p.m.
Beer Baron wrote:
On topic:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html
An excerpt:
Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, congressional officials said. But the scope of such measures is limited.
The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
So... *weighing* steps that he *could* take. The things listed that he could have the power to do, don't smack of overreaching authority. Nothing about new restrictions or banning anything. Sounds like taking existing laws and putting greater emphasis behind executing those.
Of course... we will see what he actually does/says later.
If this is all that happens, I'd be amazed. Granted, if only this happens, I will bet Armalite supported Obama getting elected.
tuna55 wrote:
The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
I would argue that the executive branch has the authority do do exactly none of those things unilaterally.
Okay. I am not a lawyer, so my knowledge is limited.
The point of the executive branch is to execute laws, not make them. The executive branch includes things like FBI, CIA, and other TLA's.
"ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks" - this is a bit vague. Presuming it means devote more LEO resources to find people who do this and prosecute them seeking the upper limit of possible penalties. I don't think he has the power to raise the possible penalties, and doesn't sound like what he's considering.
"seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database" - we're talking FBI and other law enforcement databases. This is absolutely the purview of the Executive Branch.
"striking limits on federal research into gun use" - sounds like a DOD or law enforcement thing. Again, something falling under the executive branch.
"ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking" - this goes with number one, but pushes the line a bit more.
"giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety" - depends a lot about the source of those grants. Either way, I'm all for the government giving schools and districts more control and fewer mandates on how they spend their resources.
yamaha wrote:
If this is all that happens, I'd be amazed. Granted, if only this happens, I will bet Armalite supported Obama getting elected.
Says he is still seeking passage of other bills. Those will require the approval of the legislature. This is just what he potentially has executive power to do independently.
93EXCivic wrote:
tuna55 wrote:
I would argue that the executive branch has the authority do do exactly none of those things unilaterally.
Most of those are involving enforcing existing laws which is very point of the executive branch...
Isn't that what we often argue on here really needs to be done? "We don't need more laws, we need to actually, seriously enforce the ones we already have"?
In reply to Osterkraut:
I appreciate the fact that this forum asks for clarification, so I am happy to correct myself.
In the area I work security, in my specific area, I am the LAW ENFORCEMENT. I don't blow up on comments like Paul Blart, and Rent-a-cop because I don't really care, but I know my job. When I am at work, my job is to enforce law and the city/county give me the title officer.
Hmmm... Law Enforcement + Officer = Law Enforcement Officer. LEO. Funny how that works, huh?
P.S. While working, I carry all rights to arrest that a police officer does. Yes, there is still a big difference.
Beer Baron wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
tuna55 wrote:
I would argue that the executive branch has the authority do do exactly none of those things unilaterally.
Most of those are involving enforcing existing laws which is very point of the executive branch...
Isn't that what we often argue on here really needs to be done? "We don't need more laws, we need to actually, seriously enforce the ones we already have"?
Yes. I wasn't arguing with you. I was just pointing out that to me there seems nothing wrong with some of those points since they seem to be doing exactly what the executive branch is supposed to do.
