Will GFWs ever learn- gun control DOESN'T WORK.
Start by reading here and here.
Or, I'll give you the short version...
LAPD officer with 18 years on, and his rookie partner, pull over goblin in stolen car. Before they can get out, goblin hops out of his car and 'rakes their patrol car' with shots from an AK-47. Rookie partner takes a bullet to the hand- it was mangled, but he is expected to recover fully.
(If you're curious, the newsie tapes from the scene show some of the goblin's shell casings on the ground. They are clearly visible as steel 7.62x39 casings... Police displayed the weapon and ammo- yeah, polymer-coated Wolf...)
The goblin has a criminal record, including robbery and narcotics violations, but no gang ties known.
So, we have a convicted felon, in possession of a so-called 'assault weapon', firing it at cops. He is being charged with "Attempted murder of police officers" (So was the goblin driving the car.)
For those that don't know, CA has a ban on the sale of 'assault weapons' and 'high-capacity' magazines. Most manufacturers of AKs are included. Even if you already own an 'assault weapon', you can't sell it or the 'high-capacity' magazines you have with it in the state to another private citizen- you have to sell it out of state.
So there's no way said goblin legally acquired the AK. AWs in possesion of private citizens have to be registered in CA, and they can take them away if you commit antything on a list of crimes...
This goblin had a thirty-round mag also.
If a cop sees me, a law-abiding citizen, in possession of anything that looks like an 'assault weapon' he can ask to see my registration paperwork- which essentially must be dated 2000. If I can't produce said paperwork, I, the law-abiding citizen, can be hauled off to jail. If they can prove I bought the 'high-capacity' magazines after then...
I get charged with "Possession of an assault weapon" and "possession of high capacity magazines".
Remember, they are both illegal to acquire. (If his AK was full-auto- well, class 3s are illegal in CA, so there's another charge. And since the BATFE thugs have records on every class 3, that means its illegally converted to full auto. Another charge.)
Yet, the goblin had both.
Ten (heh, started as two) very frustrating points to all this:
Criminal felons who want firearms are perfectly willing to violate federal law prohibiting them from owning firearms.
Criminals who want firearms are perfectly willing to violate state law prohibiting transfer of non-C&R firearms between private individuals without a background check.
Criminals who want firearms are perfectly willing to violate state law prohibiting transfer of firearms non-C&R firearms without a ten-day waiting period.
Criminals willing to buy firearms illegally are perfectly willing to violate a silly 'assault weapons' ban when picking their weapons.
Criminals willing to shoot at police officers are perfectly willing to violate a silly 'assault weapons' ban when picking their weapons.
And where the HECK are the weapons charges this goblin should be getting hit with? To wit:
Felon in possession of a firearm
Possession of an unregistered 'assault weapon'
Illegal possession of a 'high-capacity' magazine
Improper transportation of an 'assault weapon' (assault weapons must be transported in a locked case in the cargo area of a vehicle)
Use of an 'assault weapon' in the commission of a felony
These are ALL felonies in CA, under the conditions which they would be charged. Heck, these are worth roughly thirty years all by themselves, according to CA Penal code.
The California 'Assault Weapons Ban' states in its preamble that it is being enstated to prevent crime. What exactly did the California 'Assault Weapons Ban' do to prevent this crime?
If these laws aren't applied to criminals SHOOTING AT POLICE OFFICERS WITH AK-47S- then why have them at all?
So, I can't have an AR, because I am obeying the law- which I would like to have, and the Army spent weeks training me on proper use of- but a criminal thugs can have an AK, because THEY DON'T OBEY THE LAW.
That's what makes them criminals, ain't it?
Or, I'll give you the short version...
LAPD officer with 18 years on, and his rookie partner, pull over goblin in stolen car. Before they can get out, goblin hops out of his car and 'rakes their patrol car' with shots from an AK-47. Rookie partner takes a bullet to the hand- it was mangled, but he is expected to recover fully.
(If you're curious, the newsie tapes from the scene show some of the goblin's shell casings on the ground. They are clearly visible as steel 7.62x39 casings... Police displayed the weapon and ammo- yeah, polymer-coated Wolf...)
The goblin has a criminal record, including robbery and narcotics violations, but no gang ties known.
So, we have a convicted felon, in possession of a so-called 'assault weapon', firing it at cops. He is being charged with "Attempted murder of police officers" (So was the goblin driving the car.)
For those that don't know, CA has a ban on the sale of 'assault weapons' and 'high-capacity' magazines. Most manufacturers of AKs are included. Even if you already own an 'assault weapon', you can't sell it or the 'high-capacity' magazines you have with it in the state to another private citizen- you have to sell it out of state.
So there's no way said goblin legally acquired the AK. AWs in possesion of private citizens have to be registered in CA, and they can take them away if you commit antything on a list of crimes...
This goblin had a thirty-round mag also.
If a cop sees me, a law-abiding citizen, in possession of anything that looks like an 'assault weapon' he can ask to see my registration paperwork- which essentially must be dated 2000. If I can't produce said paperwork, I, the law-abiding citizen, can be hauled off to jail. If they can prove I bought the 'high-capacity' magazines after then...
I get charged with "Possession of an assault weapon" and "possession of high capacity magazines".
Remember, they are both illegal to acquire. (If his AK was full-auto- well, class 3s are illegal in CA, so there's another charge. And since the BATFE thugs have records on every class 3, that means its illegally converted to full auto. Another charge.)
Yet, the goblin had both.
Ten (heh, started as two) very frustrating points to all this:
Criminal felons who want firearms are perfectly willing to violate federal law prohibiting them from owning firearms.
Criminals who want firearms are perfectly willing to violate state law prohibiting transfer of non-C&R firearms between private individuals without a background check.
Criminals who want firearms are perfectly willing to violate state law prohibiting transfer of firearms non-C&R firearms without a ten-day waiting period.
Criminals willing to buy firearms illegally are perfectly willing to violate a silly 'assault weapons' ban when picking their weapons.
Criminals willing to shoot at police officers are perfectly willing to violate a silly 'assault weapons' ban when picking their weapons.
And where the HECK are the weapons charges this goblin should be getting hit with? To wit:
Felon in possession of a firearm
Possession of an unregistered 'assault weapon'
Illegal possession of a 'high-capacity' magazine
Improper transportation of an 'assault weapon' (assault weapons must be transported in a locked case in the cargo area of a vehicle)
Use of an 'assault weapon' in the commission of a felony
These are ALL felonies in CA, under the conditions which they would be charged. Heck, these are worth roughly thirty years all by themselves, according to CA Penal code.
The California 'Assault Weapons Ban' states in its preamble that it is being enstated to prevent crime. What exactly did the California 'Assault Weapons Ban' do to prevent this crime?
If these laws aren't applied to criminals SHOOTING AT POLICE OFFICERS WITH AK-47S- then why have them at all?
So, I can't have an AR, because I am obeying the law- which I would like to have, and the Army spent weeks training me on proper use of- but a criminal thugs can have an AK, because THEY DON'T OBEY THE LAW.
That's what makes them criminals, ain't it?
posted by Draven at 04:41
8 Comments:
Wow; am I the first to post a comment? Sorry it took me this long to get here.
Congratulations on the blog. Good stuff, so far.
Where are the other Riflemen?
Only law abiding citizens obey the law and criminals, by definition, won't and don't.
To a law abiding citizen, illegal weapons and drugs do not enter the equation because they are motivated to possess/sell/use neither. Patronizing a prostitute statutes do not apply to me because I would never do it. Only when I trangress do these laws affect me.
Laws are for the lawless. And as our country becomes more lawless, we will have more and more laws. That, and blood sucking lawyers, is why we find ourselves in the state we are in today. The legal system has become nothing more than a retirement system for attorneys at the tax payers expense.
Also, one of those goblins has priors for drugs and violent felonies. Why is he even out?
This is CA. of course he's out. [liberal] We have to try to rehabilitate these poor oppressed criminals, its not their fault they're criminals[/liberal]
eugggh... (shakes it off)
I don't have much to add to the discussion, except "RIGHT ON!"
Your analysis makes eminent sense to me, but then what do I know, I'm not one of the anointed, enlightened politicians.
That's exactly the feeling I get from most of the state-level politicians in CA.
Gun control laws aren't about keeping anybody safe; they never have been. There are two purposes for them, so far as the politician is concerned. First, politicians that don't like guns use them to flex their power muscles and take things away from law abiding citizens. They figure that the non-law abiding types will take care of themselves as they get caught, I guess. Secondly, they're politically expedient (or at least were) in an election year. Its far easier to enact legislation that restricts the rights of those that actually obey the laws. Then the pols can say "Look! Look at all I'm doing to make you safer! I've never worked harder on anything in my life!" (name who used that last catch phrase there for double points, triple points if you can remember the context!). The sheeple who don't do any research or pay any attention see that and say "Wow. That pol really cares about me. Look, he voted to spend eleventy billion dollars on free health care, too! Let's reelect that one. That one gives us free stuff!" Its sick and its wrong, but that's how it used to work...until gun owners nationwide finally got out to vote and dumped parasites on the people's money like Chucky Shumer. I hope that keeps working.
Exellent post, Draven.
I have to say one thing, though, but that's because I'm so brutally honest:
Regarding the assertion sometimes made that no law-abiding citizen would possess a firearm, I have to differ.
Even IF the 2nd was repealed (fat chance of that happening) and draconian "no possession of guns whatsoever" laws were passed, I'd still have a gun in the house. Sure, I'd be in violation of the law and likely to fact jail time if I were ever found out, but that's a distant second to my primary responsibility, which is to myself and, more importantly, my family.
Law or no law, I'll be damned if I'll leave my family at the mercy of the first goblin to kick in my door. They can throw me in jail later, but at least I and my loved ones will still be alive, and the goblin won't be.
But that really only reinforces the overall point, because if even a law-abiding citizen like myself is already determined to break the law if necessary to maintain the ability to defend myself and my family, then what on EARTH makes anybody believe that a hardened CRIMINAL would have any qualms whatsoever?
Misha, your brutal honesty is why I read your site.
Three blocks from my house, they have created a 'special enforcement area' and assigned 'special deputies' because of the recent rise in gang activity there.
Makes me want to take the family that lives next door anf teach them how to shoot.
Post a Comment
<< Home