THIS is what's wrong with a "One Pistol a Month" Law!

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MattTheHat

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,050
Location
Plano, TX
I had a look through the posts here that mentioned a proposed law somewhere (maybe PR of California?) hoping to limit hand gun purchases to one a month. To illustrate the problem, all three of these fine pistols came my way last week.

good_week.jpg


It was a good week. The Ace came from a very good friend, and the price hasn't been totally disclosed yet. It's one of the last 80's Aces, but is in near perfect condition.

The 1903 Colt is a very early Type I, produced in 1904. It's in excellent shape, with only some blueing loss on the frame and a few very light scratches. Lots of fire blue left on the pieces parts. It does not appear to have even been carried. Notice the cocking serrations aren't cut through the entire height of the slide. I'd never noticed this on a 1903 before, either because I'd never seen one this early (and I have a slightly newer Type I) and perhaps Colt changed the tooling, or maybe I've never seen one without enough slide wear to still notice this detail.

The 1908 Colt was purchased from a customer of mine. It was his father's pistol, and dates to 1933. It only has slight holster wear on the front of the slide, but is otherwise in excellent condition. Again, the pics make it look a bit rough.

My total cash outlay on guns last week was $1000. Granted, this doesn't include the Ace. But, the point is, with a "gun a month" limited, I would have missed two of these three jewels.

(Actually, at least half the point is to show off a little. It was a good week!)

-Matt
 
Yeah, PRC-MD, that was it.

Thing is, I'm not really a "collector" as such. All my guns get shot and get shot often. I guess I'm just a "gun nut". No! "Aficionado"! Yeah, that's it.:)


-Matt
 
At least in California, the one-handgun-a-month rule doesn't apply to private party transactions (even though in California they still must go through an FFL). It's still a lousy law, of course.
 
To get around that law you have to get a Collectors license. But then you are on all the Crazy Government Lists
Click to expand...

A C&R doesn't exactly make you "high profile". I've had mine for 3 years, never even been contacted by ATF or any other LEA. They send you some literature every now and then, which includes amendments to the C&R list and relevent new laws. That's it.
 
My total cash outlay on guns last week was $1000. Granted, this doesn't include the Ace. But, the point is, with a "gun a month" limited, I would have missed two of these three jewels.

(Actually, at least half the point is to show off a little. It was a good week!)
Click to expand...

I wonder why there is so much rampid jelousy on THR... or maybe it is just me, but you just spent BEFORE your undisclosed amount about 2 years of my gun budget.

I hate you. :neener:
 
Just so y'all know. If I had unlimited funds (like the current administration), I'd buy all of our THRers a gun a month for life! Well, maybe not all......................:eek:
 
You have violated all laws known to Socialism, comrade, and must immediately surrender both the 1903 and 1908 to me based on the requirement to redistribute assets from the haves to the have-nots.
 
farking bamboo shoots!!!!

PRNJ just instituted "one gun a month"... right when i found two great deals. I dont really need either one, but I want both. I gots to figue this out.
 
I wonder why there is so much rampid jelousy on THR... or maybe it is just me, but you just spent BEFORE your undisclosed amount about 2 years of my gun budget.

I hate you.
Click to expand...

What I didn't mention is that now I probably won't buy any pistols for quite a few months. :(

Well, unless I find a really good deal on _________. :)


-Matt
 
devildog4329 said:
The Communist state of Maryland had the 1 hand gun every 30 days law and it was horrible. To get around that law you have to get a Collectors license. But then you are on all the Crazy Government Lists :)
Click to expand...
Whoa, better watch it; I mentioned the Government Lists (also jokingly) in another thread concerning silencers and got branded, among other things, "anti-gun" and "a conspiracy nut."
 
You have violated all laws known to Socialism, comrade, and must immediately surrender both the 1903 and 1908 to me based on the requirement to redistribute assets from the haves to the have-nots.
Click to expand...

I might be able to spare an old shot-out CZ-52. :)


-Matt
 
I live in Maryland and I have a Collector's certification and I can tell you it is tough to keep up with one gun a month. I know I am falling behind. I try but it is too tough.
 
I'm jealous. I "collect" those and you've found a couple of real beauties at a great price.
 
Thanks hso. I've got an early Type I '03 and an early '08 (it has a barrel bushing too) in various stages of restoration and slight upgrade. So, these were *needed* to keep me company while the others were gone. :)

hunstsman, you need to see the thread about hiding guns from your wife. Seems like the only reasonable response. :)

-Matt
 
The real problem with such a law is - that it shows the utter contempt our politicians have for THEIR BOSSES!

Seriously, what part of "Shall not be infringed," don't they understand?
 
Virginia has this for handguns (thank you very flipping much Gov. Wilder, Va General Assy looking to make this go away) CCW permits lets you get as many as you want. Wish I could buy 1 a month:cuss:
 
The issue REALLY is...

That the anti's do not see the "1 handgun a month" as infringing for the basic reason that they are still ALLOWING you to buy a handgun. :banghead:

Yes...Stupid logic to say the least. Not to mention all of the hunters who may only covet/use rifles who actually buy into that nonsense, or any other shooting group that the rule does not affect.:what:

Same thin with the legislation back in 1986 to limit the FA's. They were not limiting you being able to buy one, just what was available, and the skyrocketing costs.

That is also the thing we need to safeguard against....All of these ridiculous "bullet bans." They will not infringe on buying or owning guns, just the ammunition.
 
I'm not sure what part of shall not be infringed is confusing.
Click to expand...


The confusing part is how to get away with re-defining it to mean "shall be infringed".


That the anti's do not see the "1 handgun a month" as infringing for the basic reason that they are still ALLOWING you to buy a handgun.
Click to expand...


Yeah, in the same vein, they don't see any type of ban or restriction on certain brands, makes, models, actions, styles, shapes, colors, calibers, gauges, anything as infringement based on the fact that you are still *allowed* to own a weapon at all. They also frequently don't understand why .gov can't just force everyone to keep their guns at firing ranges, as if your right to own a weapon ends with your membership to a range or range closings. It's not *infringed* because you can still *own* a weapon.

PM me if you want a link to a place where you can see this type of ass-showing on display. There are some good people over there who are shooters and are in trenches trying to keep it from being a one-sided anti-gun bashfest, and they win every argument. They could probably use some support every now and again too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top