Register
Log In
Home
15 Feb ’12
Offline
I can see this being abused pretty bad
A California gun statute going into effect on 1 January gives the police or family members the option to petition the courts to seize the guns and ammunition of someone they think poses a threat, the first law of its kind in the country.
But the “gun violence restraining order” law, passed last year, has raised concerns from lawmakers and pro-gun groups about civil liberties and questions about how effective it will really be.
Modeled after firearms prohibitions in domestic violence restraining orders, the statute allows for law enforcement or “immediate family members” to ask a judge for a restraining order if they feel that someone is a danger to themselves or others. The order would also bar the person from purchasing a firearm by placing them on the state’s do-not-buy list.
21 Feb ’12
Offline
I can see one of these cases making it to the US supreme court
15 Feb ’12
Offline
I can see it being abused during divorce proceedings
21 Feb ’12
Offline
KVR said
I can see it being abused during divorce proceedings
Or any other type of dispute really. Even if you just don't like your neighbor or something. Legislation like this is such a slippery slope and I don't think the dangers of that are recognized enough.
15 Feb ’12
Offline
Yeah, at least it will make for some interesting thanksgivings.
Alright, who called the police on Uncle Joe's guns again!?!
6 Oct ’15
Offline
There was also something in the news after San Bernardino that some politico said there should be a law about how much ammo a person can have in the house...another law that is impossible to truly enforce...
If people are talking about limiting the amount of ammo a person can have then why don't we limit the amount of horse power in our vehicles? or the amount of heating fuel we can use in a season? or the maximum square footage in a home? or how many wives we can have?...they may have that number of wives one already?
15 Feb ’12
Offline
you will like this
Legislators are trying to make the already draconian New York SAFE Act even more absurd.
According to this story from thetruthaboutguns.com, lawmakers from Brooklyn announced two proposed amendments to the package of firearms laws would limit how much ammunition New York residents could buy at a time.
The law would only allow gun owners to purchase twice a gun’s capacity every 90 days. Since the SAFE Act already limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, a gun owner wouldn’t be able to buy more than one 20-round box of ammo every three months. Theoretically, a person who owns a six-shot revolver would be limited to purchasing 12 rounds every 90 days.
6 Oct ’15
Offline
I talked with the owner of good gun shop in NY, he sells ammunition, In his contact with the State he said there is no provision to fund the ammo registry (manpower, computer systems, less alone enforcement) again, another 'law' that is not practical to fund or enforce...just a law that someone can use as a platform to say 'elect me, look what I did'.
Last I knew, South Africa had very strict ammo laws...like K mentioned...12 or 20 in your home at one time...have to go to a range to shoot and have access to ammo for that moment.
Most Users Ever Online: 698
Currently Online:
10 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
easytapper: 2149
DangerDuke: 2030
groinkick: 1667
PorkChopsMmm: 1515
Gravel Road: 1455
Newest Members:
ramirorosado988
edythe47q3786682
margol6703496
loganfajardo0
claytonmelville
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 12
Topics: 11478
Posts: 58674
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 3684
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Administrators: K
