Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Greater Cesnica]

Our Dear Leader is making things worse for us here. If you're in Manitoba you're in luck- so far, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick have all indicated that they will not enforce or assist with enforcing the Federal Government's recent gun confiscation program. Neat part about Canada is that the provinces and territories have significant leeway in regards to many issues, including law enforcement.

Well the point of laws against keeping loaded firearms stored or having ammo and firearms separate is to negate their use as self-defense tools.

Ah, so the state law system is closer to, say, America? Here the states are pretty much under the thumb of federal lawmakers.

Not quite (although Alberta and Saskatchewan are trying- Alberta intends to ram through the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which would permit Alberta to ignore Federal law, and Saskatchewan is considering Alberta's step). Moreso that the Federal government gave certain areas to the province to administer- law enforcement happens to be one of those areas.

[Mattopilos III]

Ah, so the state law system is closer to, say, America? Here the states are pretty much under the thumb of federal lawmakers.

Not quite (although Alberta and Saskatchewan are trying- Alberta intends to ram through the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which would permit Alberta to ignore Federal law, and Saskatchewan is considering Alberta's step). Moreso that the Federal government gave certain areas to the province to administer- law enforcement happens to be one of those areas.

Hmm, I see.
What is local governance like? Very little power, or at least some power? Here local governance is basically non-existent outside of like, roads and traffic lights.

[Greater Cesnica]

Not quite (although Alberta and Saskatchewan are trying- Alberta intends to ram through the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which would permit Alberta to ignore Federal law, and Saskatchewan is considering Alberta's step). Moreso that the Federal government gave certain areas to the province to administer- law enforcement happens to be one of those areas.

Hmm, I see.
What is local governance like? Very little power, or at least some power? Here local governance is basically non-existent outside of like, roads and traffic lights.

Local governments can set by-laws on firearms usage, transportation, etc, have jurisdiction over allocation of funds for schools and day-to-day administration of said schools- quite a set of powers. But provincial governments are an order of magnitude above those powers.

[Mattopilos III]

Hmm, I see.
What is local governance like? Very little power, or at least some power? Here local governance is basically non-existent outside of like, roads and traffic lights.

Local governments can set by-laws on firearms usage, transportation, etc, have jurisdiction over allocation of funds for schools and day-to-day administration of said schools- quite a set of powers. But provincial governments are an order of magnitude above those powers.

Huh, at least there is a level of localism there at least.

[Big Jim P]

I just wish the gun laws here weren't absolute shit.
Heard in Canada it is a little better, even if a little restrictive. Pretty much the only thing I agree with for Australian gun laws are the implementation of lock boxes and disarming guns in storage in transportation. Would prevent lots of deaths you see in America in relation to children gaining access to concealed arms that are LOADED.
We aren't allowed to store loaded guns. That would be a really stupid idea anyway.

An unloaded firearm doesn't do a whole lot of good when its crunch time and there isn't time to load and wrack, let alone storing a firearm in one location and ammo in another, yeah, fuck that.
Then there is the age ol idea / practice of educating the youngins about firearm usage and safety. Absolutely no reason to keep ones child / children in the dark about firearms.
My kids were constantly around loaded firearms when they were little and now they are proficient in their use as well as being well versed in their safe handling.

Makes me glad I live in a sane place. All my guns are locked and loaded at all times.

[Big brained monkeys]

If I had to make brand new gun control laws I'd make it that you have your own property because then you have something to protect as weapons are usually used in self defense and my second law would be you have to be mentally sane

[Big Jim P]

If I had to make brand new gun control laws I'd make it that you have your own property because then you have something to protect as weapons are usually used in self defense and my second law would be you have to be mentally sane

The most important thing one has to protect is themselves. Property is fourth down on the list.

[Mattopilos III]

If I had to make brand new gun control laws I'd make it that you have your own property because then you have something to protect as weapons are usually used in self defense and my second law would be you have to be mentally sane

The most important thing one has to protect is themselves. Property is fourth down on the list.

Tell that to cops lol

[Greater Cesnica]

If I had to make brand new gun control laws I'd make it that you have your own property because then you have something to protect as weapons are usually used in self defense and my second law would be you have to be mentally sane

Is your own life not important enough to defend?

The most important thing one has to protect is themselves. Property is fourth down on the list.

Tell that to cops lol

I'd rather be judged by twelve as opposed to being buried by six.

[Grinning Dragon]

If I had to make brand new gun control laws I'd make it that you have your own property because then you have something to protect as weapons are usually used in self defense and my second law would be you have to be mentally sane

If I had to make a brand new gun control law, it would be that all gun control laws are hereby repealed, and that any new gun control laws are forever forbidden from being passed and or implemented. Strict adherence to 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law with the default of "or may be sentenced to death"

[Grinning Dragon]

The Gun *clap* Meme *clap* Review *clap* we've been waiting for.

Grabbers gonna be maaaaaad!

Not only mad but physically shaken and upset that nagr and kyle were at some shithole called the forge and had rented one of the party rooms for an event, well, the sand in vagina was at critical levels there.
A couple of examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortCollins/comments/xwtsr9/kyle_rittenhouse_at_the_forge/

People here need to stop lying to themselves/avoiding the reality that the amount of right wing extremism in our community is legitimately present and dangerous.

Kyle is a 19 year old shithead who got away with murder. The people who support him, the right wing militias, and the outright white supremacists in our area are straight up fascists. Nazis came to CSU to cause violence in 2018. The FBI raided a right wing extremist in 2020 for making pipe bombs in his Loveland garage. One of the Oathkeepers who testified at the Jan 6th committee was from Estes Park.

It’s easy to live in a college town and put blinders on, but these are real issues in Fort Collins and Northern Colorado. Internet outrage won’t do anything to stop it. Go out, build a community, and organize if you don’t want this bullshit here.

Fancying a lowkey drink after dinner, my partner (M30) dog and I (F30) walked into The Forge right when he was giving his speech. The staff and other patrons were visibly shaken and very upset, and the overall vibe was way off. It took every fiber of my being not to make a scene, and pretty much everyone on the other side of the bar was right there with me. Both bartenders were women, and we stayed solely because we were worried about their safety. I can CONFIDENTLY say this WAS NOT a Forge-sponsored event.

Visibly shaken? Worried about their safety? Over a speech?

[The Two Jerseys]

The Gun *clap* Meme *clap* Review *clap* we've been waiting for.

Grabbers gonna be maaaaaad!

Not only mad but physically shaken and upset that nagr and kyle were at some shithole called the forge and had rented one of the party rooms for an event, well, the sand in vagina was at critical levels there.
A couple of examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortCollins/comments/xwtsr9/kyle_rittenhouse_at_the_forge/

People here need to stop lying to themselves/avoiding the reality that the amount of right wing extremism in our community is legitimately present and dangerous.

Kyle is a 19 year old shithead who got away with murder. The people who support him, the right wing militias, and the outright white supremacists in our area are straight up fascists. Nazis came to CSU to cause violence in 2018. The FBI raided a right wing extremist in 2020 for making pipe bombs in his Loveland garage. One of the Oathkeepers who testified at the Jan 6th committee was from Estes Park.

It’s easy to live in a college town and put blinders on, but these are real issues in Fort Collins and Northern Colorado. Internet outrage won’t do anything to stop it. Go out, build a community, and organize if you don’t want this bullshit here.

Fancying a lowkey drink after dinner, my partner (M30) dog and I (F30) walked into The Forge right when he was giving his speech. The staff and other patrons were visibly shaken and very upset, and the overall vibe was way off. It took every fiber of my being not to make a scene, and pretty much everyone on the other side of the bar was right there with me. Both bartenders were women, and we stayed solely because we were worried about their safety. I can CONFIDENTLY say this WAS NOT a Forge-sponsored event.

Visibly shaken? Worried about their safety? Over a speech?

You missed the "gun rights supporters are literal Nazis" part.

And this gem:

Bring him back. I just wanna say hi. With my fucking elbows.

Tough guys are out tonight! By the way, somebody already tried that. He lost.

[Grinning Dragon]

Not only mad but physically shaken and upset that nagr and kyle were at some shithole called the forge and had rented one of the party rooms for an event, well, the sand in vagina was at critical levels there.
A couple of examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FortCollins/comments/xwtsr9/kyle_rittenhouse_at_the_forge/




Visibly shaken? Worried about their safety? Over a speech?

You missed the "gun rights supporters are literal Nazis" part.

And this gem:

Tough guys are out tonight! By the way, somebody already tried that. He lost.

There's quite a few gems in that thread that got a good chuckle outta me.
Also the "gun rights peeps are nazis" has always had me scratching my head when that nonsense is uttered. So being for freedom makes someone a nazi? How da fuck does that work?

[Sordhau]

You missed the "gun rights supporters are literal Nazis" part.

And this gem:

There's quite a few gems in that thread that got a good chuckle outta me.
Also the "gun rights peeps are nazis" has always had me scratching my head when that nonsense is uttered. So being for freedom makes someone a nazi? How da fuck does that work?

It seems to me like they're associating Kyle himself with the Far-Right, not necessarily gun rights activists.

It's part of the Dem psyop to discredit him as a would-be terrorist who wanted to shoot up a BLM rally. People who don't know the facts of the case fall for that line fairly easily.

[Grand Meridian]

Even if I accept the premise that guns need to be "controlled" or "regulated" (for the record, I don't), I don't trust the government to do it properly, fairly, or efficiently.

So I'll go with my standard position on this - the only gun control we need is already in the Second Amendment.

As for this or that ban, people who are in support of that ban should first be subject to said ban for 20 years before the ban is brought up for a vote, and anytime they are caught in violation, the clock resets to zero. And if signed into law, it cannot take effect for everyone else for another 20 years. This applies especially to politicians who want to take away your guns. Take away their private security for 20 years as a POC.

[Costnof]

Nah bro you crazy

-From the people of Costnof

Even if I accept the premise that guns need to be "controlled" or "regulated" (for the record, I don't), I don't trust the government to do it properly, fairly, or efficiently.

So I'll go with my standard position on this - the only gun control we need is already in the Second Amendment.

[Tarsonis]

Nah bro you crazy

-From the people of Costnof

Even if I accept the premise that guns need to be "controlled" or "regulated" (for the record, I don't), I don't trust the government to do it properly, fairly, or efficiently.

So I'll go with my standard position on this - the only gun control we need is already in the Second Amendment.

not a role playing thread, and insulting other players is against the rules. Learn them if you intend to stay, otherwise your time here will be short.

[Haganham]

Buy military surplus from Soviets
Sell weapons to cartels under the table
Get murdered by cartels
"fucking Americans"

Pretty much, considering the vast majority of arms comes from mexico's southern border and mexico's own military sells arms to the cartels.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/14/11290016 ... drug-carte
And now there are receipts

[Grinning Dragon]

Wa, mag ban trial has been set for Dec. 4th in fed dist. court.
Which might be moot since judge Benitez will most likely rule again, that cali's mag ban is unconstitutional after the supreme court vacated that case and sent it back down and Wa is in the 9th circus.

[The Two Jerseys]

Wa, mag ban trial has been set for Dec. 4th in fed dist. court.
Which might be moot since judge Benitez will most likely rule again, that cali's mag ban is unconstitutional after the supreme court vacated that case and sent it back down and Wa is in the 9th circus.

Has St. Benitez slapped down Cali's demand for an extension on their homework yet?

[Grinning Dragon]

Wa, mag ban trial has been set for Dec. 4th in fed dist. court.
Which might be moot since judge Benitez will most likely rule again, that cali's mag ban is unconstitutional after the supreme court vacated that case and sent it back down and Wa is in the 9th circus.

Has St. Benitez slapped down Cali's demand for an extension on their homework yet?

Oh, yeah, the judge did that weeks ago. bonta the jackass at first wanted a year, judge said, gtfo, then the jackass wanted a couple of months and the judge said gtfo and reiterated that he gave the state 45days plus 15 additional days for replies to submitted briefs.

Back to the Wa state mag ban, seems the judge there is allowing that cancerous cunt bill gates to buttress that states AG, as they don't think that dipshit AG is going to be able to successfully defend their unconstitutional mag ban. Not to mention the judge there in tacoma is trying all he can to help the state keep their stupid ban by making it an 8day bench trial.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Has St. Benitez slapped down Cali's demand for an extension on their homework yet?

Oh, yeah, the judge did that weeks ago. bonta the jackass at first wanted a year, judge said, gtfo, then the jackass wanted a couple of months and the judge said gtfo and reiterated that he gave the state 45days plus 15 additional days for replies to submitted briefs.

Back to the Wa state mag ban, seems the judge there is allowing that cancerous cunt bill gates to buttress that states AG, as they don't think that dipshit AG is going to be able to successfully defend their unconstitutional mag ban. Not to mention the judge there in tacoma is trying all he can to help the state keep their stupid ban by making it an 8day bench trial.

If the California mag ban is declared unconstitutional (again), since California and Washington state are both in the 9th Circuit, wouldn't that automatically strike down the Washington state ban?

[Grinning Dragon]

Oh, yeah, the judge did that weeks ago. bonta the jackass at first wanted a year, judge said, gtfo, then the jackass wanted a couple of months and the judge said gtfo and reiterated that he gave the state 45days plus 15 additional days for replies to submitted briefs.

Back to the Wa state mag ban, seems the judge there is allowing that cancerous cunt bill gates to buttress that states AG, as they don't think that dipshit AG is going to be able to successfully defend their unconstitutional mag ban. Not to mention the judge there in tacoma is trying all he can to help the state keep their stupid ban by making it an 8day bench trial.

If the California mag ban is declared unconstitutional (again), since California and Washington state are both in the 9th Circuit, wouldn't that automatically strike down the Washington state ban?

I believe Benitez is acting on two of them, the cali awb and a mag ban, two of which he's previously ruled as unconstitutional. The cali one will be wrapped up before the washington one, and it's expected that Benitez will uphold his previous rulings on both. From what I have read from other lawyer types is that yes, when Benitez rules those two as unconstitutional again, it should render the washington one moot. Then again, I suppose there will be whining because that, and say it's not fair, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Grinning Dragon]

Here's win for privacy rights.
California Judge Blocks Release of Gun Owners’ Personal Information

Last fall, California’s oleaginous governor signed a bill into law that allows the distribution of personal information of the state’s gun buyers with academic researchers. Researchers like gun control advocate Garen Wintemute who runs the UC Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center, a producer of anti-gun “research” used to back efforts to limit Second Amendment rights.

So basically fuck over a person's privacy rights to crank out bullshit "gun violence" junk science all under the supposed "academia" mantra.

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Here's win for privacy rights.
California Judge Blocks Release of Gun Owners’ Personal Information

Last fall, California’s oleaginous governor signed a bill into law that allows the distribution of personal information of the state’s gun buyers with academic researchers. Researchers like gun control advocate Garen Wintemute who runs the UC Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center, a producer of anti-gun “research” used to back efforts to limit Second Amendment rights.

So basically fuck over a person's privacy rights to crank out bullshit "gun violence" junk science all under the supposed "academia" mantra.

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction.”

“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

I can't see ANY reason why academic researchers would need personal identifying information to complete their research.