James Yeager of TacticalResponse threatens to "start killing people"

[cOoTeR]

Citation needed on the ATF home inspections, the only thing I'm coming up with is if you are a FFL.

Again, you're twisting my argument, so I'll state it again. Magazine capacity is a stopgap, a "lesser of all evils" from clawback of existing guns (which won't happen for Constitutional reasons, and rightly so). It's not the "great savior", it's a small preventative measure. Nice "No True Scotsman" as well, there are plenty of people that don't have the training to reload in 2 seconds, I can think of the Arizona shooter right off the top of my head. As a result of his "incompetence", the situation was defused by a bystander.

Yes, exactly. This would be a "perfect" measure, much better than a magazine restriction. However, we tried something similar to this with the ACA, and look where that ended up. Besides, you just want to give them one shallow psych exam, label them crazy or not, and send them on their way? That doesn't seem like it would do much good to fix the problem, just affixing another label. As you point out, they would still get a gun anyway, so why don't we give them the help they need?

That's great, except the Constitution doesn't apply to private property. Never has. I can open up a restaurant and put up a big NO GUNS sign, and if I see you printing/OC I am well within my rights to ask you to leave. As a private business, my rights as the business holder to be free from guns trumps your Constitutional right to carry, as you've made the conscious choice to enter my shop and abide by my rules for the time that you're in there.

You mean a weapons ban will INCONVENIENCE you and your family.

Your quick to point out my reasons as being hypothetical but the thought of a weapons ban doing any good is hypothetical. It may reduce gun violence but that will only be replaced with violence using another tool.

Ah, the good ol' Slippery Slope. I don't want to ban magazines, I don't want to ban guns. I do want to have a outlet where people that need mental health help can get it, and have that outlet be available for everyone. That's my "great savior", and that's the absolute core of my argument. Apparently, from the level of vitriol that was leveled at the ACA, we can't have those nice things as a country.

While they can only enter if you have an ffl they can still come to your house and request to review the documents for you NFA firearm. While waiting at the door if they see a criminal violation under their scope of duties then they can enter. Or if they have another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction they can enter. Now none of the ATF agents I know have ever gone to someone's house just to check the paperwork for a NFA but they could.

It doesn't take much time to reload magazine type firearms it also doesn't take training to be proficient at it. Maybe 2 seconds is a bit quick but it doesn't take much time. Allowing people to carry in restricted areas would be better than hoping a person is quick enough to close the distance between them and the shooter and over power them. It would be safer and easier for the person to use the 1-5 seconds while the bad guy is reloading and shoot them from across the room behind cover.

With the psych it was a one time exam to determine if they are competent to own a firearm. If not there will be appeal processes. Like I said the whole mental health system needs rebuilt. Right now its just families take care of who they can unless they can afford assistance such as assisted living or a nursing home. The current state mental hospitals are over crowded and under funded. Leaving some with no help at all. Their only hope for treatment is to get locked up in the prison system which is a horrible environment for the mental people. What the prison system calls treatment is a few talks with a psych Dr. And a shit ton of meds. Meds only work when they are taken and even then sometimes they still fail. This nation needs to get away from throwing pills at its problems.

I respect businesses decisions to not allow firearms. I was referring to public places more so.

What is the ACA you are referring to?

[Scruit]

While they can only enter if you have an ffl they can still come to your house and request to review the documents for you NFA firearm. While waiting at the door if they see a criminal violation under their scope of duties then they can enter. Or if they have another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction they can enter. Now none of the ATF agents I know have ever gone to someone's house just to check the paperwork for a NFA but they could.

Are you saying the BATFE can enter your house without a warrant just to "check your papers" on an NFA firearm?

If there is "another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction" then that suggests there is a violation they are investigating and likely have a search warrant. That's different from BATFE just showing up unannounced at a law abiding NFA owner's house and entering without a warrant to search for evidence of wrongdoing.

[cOoTeR]

Are you saying the BATFE can enter your house without a warrant just to "check your papers" on an NFA firearm?

If there is "another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction" then that suggests there is a violation they are investigating and likely have a search warrant. That's different from BATFE just showing up unannounced at a law abiding NFA owner's house and entering without a warrant to search for evidence of wrongdoing.

They could not that they will come to your house and knock on the door to review the papers. If they see a violation from the door it will fall under plain view. If the evidence of a violation could be destroyed or they are witnessing a criminal act then they can enter to seize the evidence or perform enforcement duties as needed. It is also common to have back up from another agency when going to someone's house so it is likely that the ATF agent may be accompanied by a local deputy. Once again I have never heard of the ATF actually doing a "knock and talk" to check paperwork of Joe schmoe NFA holder. All the ATF agents I know use it with the FFL holders to check them.

Similar to the title 21 authorities of customs officers. They can board any vessel in water that connects to the ocean to check their documents. Part of checking the documents is checking the keel numbers which are located normally in the hull of the ship towards the front. While they are checking the keel number if they pass anything that gives them probable cause to believe there is a criminal violation they can handle it accordingly.

Edited January 14, 2013 by cOoTeR

[Scruit]

They could not that they will come to your house and knock on the door to review the papers. If they see a violation from the door it will fall under plain view.

Don't break the law in view of the front door. Or at all.

[cOoTeR]

Don't break the law in view of the front door. Or at all.

You'd be surprised what people do.

[Cheech]

I respect businesses decisions to not allow firearms. I was referring to public places more so.

What is the ACA you are referring to?

And Obama opened up gun restrictions on federally owned land.

ACA = Affordable Care Act, or as you know it, Obamacare.

[Cheech]

They could not that they will come to your house and knock on the door to review the papers. If they see a violation from the door it will fall under plain view. If the evidence of a violation could be destroyed or they are witnessing a criminal act then they can enter to seize the evidence or perform enforcement duties as needed. It is also common to have back up from another agency when going to someone's house so it is likely that the ATF agent may be accompanied by a local deputy. Once again I have never heard of the ATF actually doing a "knock and talk" to check paperwork of Joe schmoe NFA holder. All the ATF agents I know use it with the FFL holders to check them.

Similar to the title 21 authorities of customs officers. They can board any vessel in water that connects to the ocean to check their documents. Part of checking the documents is checking the keel numbers which are located normally in the hull of the ship towards the front. While they are checking the keel number if they pass anything that gives them probable cause to believe there is a criminal violation they can handle it accordingly.

Now this is where I flake out a little with regard to the regulations of Class 3 gun ownership, so I'm sure someone will be along to correct me shortly. Is it a prerequisite to have a FFL in order to own a NFA firearm, or is that just preferred by the buyer in order to make the process easier?

As far as the customs regulations goes, Customs authority derives all the way back to the Founding Fathers themselves. Customs can fuck with you if they got a rash this morning, and they (for better or worse) are within their Constitutional authority to do so. What shouldn't be within their authority (and where they've massively over-reached) is the 100 mile "constitution-free zone" they've been using on inland searches. I've been personally hassled easily 40 miles inland from the US/Mexico border crossing, and it's bullshit. Ports of entry and inbound/outbound foreign ships in port? Fair game.

[crb]

And Obama opened up gun restrictions on federally owned land.

ACA = Affordable Care Act, or as you know it, Obamacare.

ONLY because he wanted the other part of the bill passed! ONLY!!!

BIG ACCOMPLISHMENT!!!

[cOoTeR]

Now this is where I flake out a little with regard to the regulations of Class 3 gun ownership, so I'm sure someone will be along to correct me shortly. Is it a prerequisite to have a FFL in order to own a NFA firearm, or is that just preferred by the buyer in order to make the process easier?

As far as the customs regulations goes, Customs authority derives all the way back to the Founding Fathers themselves. Customs can fuck with you if they got a rash this morning, and they (for better or worse) are within their Constitutional authority to do so. What shouldn't be within their authority (and where they've massively over-reached) is the 100 mile "constitution-free zone" they've been using on inland searches. I've been personally hassled easily 40 miles inland from the US/Mexico border crossing, and it's bullshit. Ports of entry and inbound/outbound foreign ships in port? Fair game.

You don't need the FFL but I believe people get it because it is easier then finding and paying an FFL that will deal with class 3. But there is paperwork that you need to have to own the class 3 weapon.

That's because you look like the worlds biggest Mexican. (im joking). But its not a constitution free zone by any means.

Edited January 14, 2013 by cOoTeR

[Cheech]

You're right, it isn't, and that's what's fucked up. Land/Sea/Air ports of entry? Them's a constitutional free zone, with precedent dating all the way back to the 1790's.

[cOoTeR]

You're right, it isn't, and that's what's fucked up. Land/Sea/Air ports of entry? Them's a constitutional free zone, with precedent dating all the way back to the 1790's.

Yes but that's a necessary evil for the greater good.

[Cheech]

Yes but that's a necessary evil for the greater good.

Agreed. The 100-mile zone is just CBP fucking with people, and they are shitstains as a result of it.

[cOoTeR]

Agreed. The 100-mile zone is just CBP fucking with people, and they are shitstains as a result of it.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. I live within that 100 mile area of the border and have never been fucked with.

[Cheech]

You have no idea what you are talking about here. I live within that 100 mile area of the border and have never been fucked with.

Ordinarily, Customs authority starts and ends at the ports of entry. CBP has started (like 5-10 years ago) setting up checkpoints WAY inland, easily 40 miles from the established border, and well within United States territory, for the sole reason to do spot checks and generally harass "possible" human smugglers. Feel free to do some searches on it, it's a well-established fact and I've personally been through several in Arizona. The arbitrary "100 mile zone" is to give CBP the authority to conduct these checkpoints past the point of entry.

[cOoTeR]

Ordinarily, Customs authority starts and ends at the ports of entry. CBP has started (like 5-10 years ago) setting up checkpoints WAY inland, easily 40 miles from the established border, and well within United States territory, for the sole reason to do spot checks and generally harass "possible" human smugglers. Feel free to do some searches on it, it's a well-established fact and I've personally been through several in Arizona. The arbitrary "100 mile zone" is to give CBP the authority to conduct these checkpoints past the point of entry.

So your opinion is that once they cross the border they should be scott free to continue north?

[Cheech]

So your opinion is that once they cross the border they should be scott free to continue north?

No. My opinion is that CBP should enforce the BORDER, and land surrounding said border, to a reasonable distance. 100 miles inland is not a reasonable distance, even worse is stopping American citizens while traveling inside of the US border without even so much as reasonable suspicion. They just transplant their border powers that I would have been governed by if I was crossing the port of entry to the checkpoint well inside the border.

I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you went through one of these checkpoints and saw how absolutely futile they are, you'd be just as pissed off about them as I am.

[cOoTeR]

No. My opinion is that CBP should enforce the BORDER, and land surrounding said border, to a reasonable distance. 100 miles inland is not a reasonable distance, even worse is stopping American citizens while traveling inside of the US border without even so much as reasonable suspicion. They just transplant their border powers that I would have been governed by if I was crossing the port of entry to the checkpoint well inside the border.

I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you went through one of these checkpoints and saw how absolutely futile they are, you'd be just as pissed off about them as I am.

Actually I go through those checkpoints a lot. Did you know that congress has to approve of the location of those checkpoints? Congress also decided that they had to be that distance from the border.

Futile huh? In the past 3 months I've been involved in the seizure of over 500lbs of pot at one of those checkpoints. But hey they are pretty futile I guess. You only have a hard time at those checkpoints if you choose to be difficult.

[Cheech]

Actually I go through those checkpoints a lot. Did you know that congress has to approve of the location of those checkpoints? Congress also decided that they had to be that distance from the border.

Futile huh? In the past 3 months I've been involved in the seizure of over 500lbs of pot at one of those checkpoints. But hey they are pretty futile I guess. You only have a hard time at those checkpoints if you choose to be difficult.

For someone who's such a staunch enforcer of your Second Amendment rights, it surprises me how quickly you're willing to cede your Fourth Amendment rights.

[cOoTeR]

For someone who's such a staunch enforcer of your Second Amendment rights, it surprises me how quickly you're willing to cede your Fourth Amendment rights.

What rights are being given up? The supreme court has upheld the legality of the checkpoints. Probable Cause is still needed to perform a search. You don't have to answer any of the questions asked but the agents cannot allow you to continue on your way until they have determined that you are in the country legally. Unless they have a reason to detain you further the time spent at the checkpoint is similar to that at a traffic light. The busier roads take a little longer due to traffic.