Fired worker, 45, uses a pistol with a laser sight - will laser sights be the next bumpstock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deanimator said:
There's no "right" either to enter the United States illegally or to stay here illegally.
Click to expand...

1) Who in this thread is saying otherwise?

2) You appear to be talking about and defending the National Emergency, which is talking past my comment that has to do with President Trump’s precedent-setting gun control by executive order.
 
Nah, it won't be laser sights or any of that. They want the big fish. They've gotten some traction in the past for "high capacity" magazines so they are using that as a tool to go after semi auto everything. The bills floating around are Guns "capable" of holding more than 30 rounds.. which means everything..because it's impossible to have a gun with a detachable magazine that couldn't take a high cap mag. They want it all and anything else they say is just b.s. theater.

"This ban includes guns with grenade launchers and bayonets and nuclear death rays or the ability to use a magazine over 30 rounds." (translation: b.s., b.s., b.s., take everything)
 
Last edited:
psyopspec said:
1) Who in this thread is saying otherwise?

2) You appear to be talking about and defending the National Emergency, which is talking past my comment that has to do with President Trump’s precedent-setting gun control by executive order.
Click to expand...
I have a right to keep and bear arms.

An illegal alien has no right to come here or stay.

Trump is enforcing existing law.

A gun ban violates the constitution.
 
The Liberal said:
More assertive gun control laws would likely have allowed law enforcement to confiscate the weapon involuntarily. If Mississippi had been compelled to put its fingerprint and crime data into a centralized database that Illinois pulled its FOID data from, there’s a chance he could have been picked up sooner. And if he’d been in most other states, there would never even be a discussion of state responsibility, because they don’t have FOID equivalents.

Had this man been limited to a revolver, probably wouldn’t have killed as many people.
Click to expand...
The shooter was prohibited from acquiring, owning, and carrying a firearm. The state instituted these prohibitions, and was aware he was in violation of them. The state cannot protect society from men like that by placing further restrictions on my Constitutional freedoms.
 
I think I'm the only one to mention the state of emergency so I think he was talking about my post.
The immigration/ wall/ bump stocks isn't relevant to the conversation. Without preaching politics, I never offered my opinion on that. My point is that twice the President has used other means to circumvent the check and balance system recently. Once by going around every branch, as well as the BATF with bump stocks because he knew nothing would pass. And again by the state of emergency for funding because the house wouldn't pass that one. My opinion on the two subhects doesn't matter at all, my opinion of the means used is relevant however. The point was that having the senate, or even when we had both, that the President (red, blue, bull moose whatever color Teddy chose for that one, ... doesn't matter) isn't supposed to go unchecked or circumvent the system. That's the entire premise of our system. He blatantly banned and made illegal bump stocks that were legal and declared so by the governing body, by signing a paper. He set a precedent that Obama/Clinton etc would love to have followed. They knew that the other branches would check them as would the supreme court, which is the way it's supposed to work. Again, what if Clinton's awb (especially mags) had been done the way Trump did bump stocks? Immigration nor 2A was the point. The point is that the president isn't supposed to single handedly rule by declarations and signing papers. And if not met before the next president (or next or eventually) it will absolutely affect our rights. What if Harris/Cortez/ or whoever were to get elected and follow suit? It's bad enough that they may well have all three branches. But if allowed to go around both branches and the court? It's relevant to this thread because his precedent is exactly why none of us know if lasers/ white tank tops or funny hats will be targeted by a signature. I'm vehemently against chewing gum, soda , and Crocs.....I wouldn't agree with an executive order against them because eventually a President would find something that I did like.
It's no longer "that will never pass in the house/ senate" twice recently he has shown clearly that doesn't matter. Even if I agree on both of them, condoning circumventing the system to get what we want is foolish and will bite us back very soon I'm afraid.
Anyway sorry for the length of the post, but i felt clarifying might get us back on topic. Banning lasers and how it's not as silly or unlikely an idea as it was a before the recent things.
 
Last edited:
It was a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun. With regards to being a gun-free zone, maybe it’s because they work in America, not a Brazilian favela or Damascus? Like...do you strap up to poop?
 
I have to agree with Creston and others... using executive orders to bypass the proper channels is a real issue. Immigration/guns/abortions/smoking/seatbelts whatever it doesnt matter. It cant be done that way.

Incidentally, this kinda thing catching on is the reason why 2a is so important.

Imagine after every single gun is gone... then they decide that music, books, speeches, assemblies are illegal. Can't have the masses getting worked up about gov mandated wages/hours/taxes...

$15/hr min now... 7c a day later... what other end game can there possibly be??
 
The Liberal said:
It was a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun. With regards to being a gun-free zone, maybe it’s because they work in America, not a Brazilian favela or Damascus? Like...do you strap up to poop?
Click to expand...
Its circular reasoning...
America is safe because we have gun free zones/ we have gun free zones because America is safe...
Yet violence still happens and almost always in a gun free zone. Do you think he would have done this if most of his former co-workers were armed? Do you think he would have been successful had he tried?
 
WiTom said:
The man was not suppose to have a gun. The laws on the books, once again, were not carried out. They knew about this man in 2014. Their answer, more laws.
Click to expand...
Well the problem becomes which right do you infringe on? Peoples 4th and 5th amendment rights, regarding due process of law and against unreasonable searches/seizures. Or people’s 2nd amendment rights. I don’t agree with either, or have an answer. Though I know tighter gun laws won’t change anything, and have real world data to back that.
 
I keep trying to find a way to promote and counter some discussion here but cannot without making it political or mean spirited so I have decided to mill about smartly on other threads...
 
As new info has come to light there are some serious questions of why more direct action wasn't taken against this individual. To get a FOID this individual had to have completed a form with a series of 'yes/no' questions mostly similar to a 4473. He would have had to have said "No" about his prior felony on the form----thus committing perjury at the state level. It is entirely possible his prior conviction did not show up on the background check the ISP did at this point and he received a FOID card. When he used his FOID to buy his pistol he would have lied on the 4473 about the felony conviction as well....thus perjury at the Federal level (in both cases I suppose it would only be perjury if he was aware that he had been convicted of a felony...I am assuming he was aware of this.) When he applied for IL CCW permit they got his prints, discovered the conviction, denied the permit and further required him to relinquish his firearms to the police. This FOID revocation letter is pretty common....folks with certain orders of protection, inpatient mental illness, battery convictions (etc) receive them all of the time. But in this case I have to wonder why someone didn't catch the fact that this man had already committed a new felony by (presumably) lying on his FOID ap and for the gun purchase that followed? And I am speculating the new bold solution will be to require prints for the FOID card itself her in IL....at the very least.
 
crestoncowboy said:
I think I'm the only one to mention the state of emergency so I think he was talking about my post.
The immigration/ wall/ bump stocks isn't relevant to the conversation. Without preaching politics, I never offered my opinion on that. My point is that twice the President has used other means to circumvent the check and balance system recently. Once by going around every branch, as well as the BATF with bump stocks because he knew nothing would pass. And again by the state of emergency for funding because the house wouldn't pass that one. My opinion on the two subhects doesn't matter at all, my opinion of the means used is relevant however. The point was that having the senate, or even when we had both, that the President (red, blue, bull moose whatever color Teddy chose for that one, ... doesn't matter) isn't supposed to go unchecked or circumvent the system. That's the entire premise of our system. He blatantly banned and made illegal bump stocks that were legal and declared so by the governing body, by signing a paper. He set a precedent that Obama/Clinton etc would love to have followed. They knew that the other branches would check them as would the supreme court, which is the way it's supposed to work. Again, what if Clinton's awb (especially mags) had been done the way Trump did bump stocks? Immigration nor 2A was the point. The point is that the president isn't supposed to single handedly rule by declarations and signing papers. And if not met before the next president (or next or eventually) it will absolutely affect our rights. What if Harris/Cortez/ or whoever were to get elected and follow suit? It's bad enough that they may well have all three branches. But if allowed to go around both branches and the court? It's relevant to this thread because his precedent is exactly why none of us know if lasers/ white tank tops or funny hats will be targeted by a signature. I'm vehemently against chewing gum, soda , and Crocs.....I wouldn't agree with an executive order against them because eventually a President would find something that I did like.
It's no longer "that will never pass in the house/ senate" twice recently he has shown clearly that doesn't matter. Even if I agree on both of them, condoning circumventing the system to get what we want is foolish and will bite us back very soon I'm afraid.
Anyway sorry for the length of the post, but i felt clarifying might get us back on topic. Banning lasers and how it's not as silly or unlikely an idea as it was a before the recent things.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that this is potentially very dangerous, Trump is not the first to do this. And, if I recall correctly Obama used it multiple times to get around things. So, don’t make it out like he is the first or the last that will use it. This is precisely the reason I asked my question in legal about whether or not a president could unilaterally do away with the 2A. However, that thread was closed. I still don’t have a definitive answer. I guess the closest thing was that he could and it would be settled in courts but would be law until that was decided, if they ever took the case. So, yes he may have screwed us all. Maybe it was the plan the whole time. But I can tell you that many people would most likely not comply with such stuff so I’m not sure it would really matter. And it would require mostly federal officers to enforce as we have seen a lot of locals that said they would not enforce anything of the such. So, who knows how it would actually play out.

What I do know is everything in your life requires lots of work and time from your job to family, to baseball and football and anything else that your family does. Many of us will bust our butts to make enough money for a new toy or something our wife wants. Many will spend boatloads if money to go on a hunt and fly 8 hrs away, but when it comes to actually supporting the 2A, I want all of you to seriously ask what you do besides sit on the internet and complain? If you aren’t out at your clubs and rallying support or going to rally’s and being heard and making noise then you aren’t doing anything fruitful. Our reps are constantly getting bombarded by anti’s and many of them will tell you that they rarely hear from gun owners. So go out and get to work.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm actually trying quite hard in my responses to keep it as apolitical as possible. And after this post I'm out completely on this one.
I know Trump isn't the first to use an executive order or declare an emergency. FDR had almost four thousand executive orders. Many used thousands. The current admin has used 50 or 60.
My issue is that an EO is to change the way a law is enforced. Which is what everyone else used them for. Now it's getting to using those things to make laws circumventing both houses (as well as an ATF ruling) with only the court to use any oversight (which is a slow process). I know with the partisanship not much would ever get through but isn't the right way. I'm not anti-trump I agree with him more often than not. But if he is allowed to do these things on issues we may even agree with, then how will the next or next or next do it with things we don't? Allowing one person to make law without oversight is a dictatorship. We aren't one.

State of emergencies have been declared for many reasons. Floods, earth quakes, snow, riots. Wanting something that the house won't pass is a new one. Ignore what the subject is that can change Look at the bigger picture.
If one thing that was previously declared legal (and I agree that the ATF was probably wrong. Doesn't matter) can be made legal and ordered contraband. Then so can lasers. And that's the issue
 
Last edited:
crestoncowboy said:
Also if I'm reading correctly, Mississippi did submit the prints. Ill didn't require them until he tried to get a concealed permit.
Click to expand...

Exactly. IL has draconian gun control. The state of IL issued the shooter a FOID card that allowed the purchase of a firearm. IL is a point of contact state for purposes of NICS checks. IMO: Some one in IL dropped the ball on the NICS check.

www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics-participation-map.pdf

After discovering their man was a convicted felon, the panjandrums in IL failed to confiscate the perps firearm/s. Despite being arrested for domestic violence, disorderly conduct and damage to property the state of IL did nothing.

"Aside from his felony, Martin had been arrested six times by Aurora police on traffic and domestic violence issues. He was arrested most recently, in 2017, by police in nearby Oswego, Ill., for disorderly conduct and damage to property, authorities said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d-illinois-police-say/?utm_term=.de1dfb86f456
 
I have no doubt the liberal media will demonize anything and everything possible to further their agenda. Lasers, optics, Trijicon sights, grips. Perhaps even training, after all who really needs to be highly skilled to merely defend themselves.
 
The only thing I caught from news media was the closing line about how the shooter used a smith and Wesson military and police handgun with a laser sight and high capacity magazine. All I know to say is we need common sense and tort reform.
 
The Liberal said:
More assertive gun control laws would likely have allowed law enforcement to confiscate the weapon involuntarily. If Mississippi had been compelled to put its fingerprint and crime data into a centralized database that Illinois pulled its FOID data from, there’s a chance he could have been picked up sooner. And if he’d been in most other states, there would never even be a discussion of state responsibility, because they don’t have FOID equivalents.
Click to expand...
More "assertive" gun control laws would likely have allowed law enforcement to confiscate EVERYONE'S weapons involuntarily... which is of course the ultimate goal.

The Liberal said:
Had this man been limited to a revolver, probably wouldn’t have killed as many people.
Click to expand...
Had EVERYONE been limited to pretending that the police will protect them as individuals, he probably still would have gotten whatever gun he wanted and killed as many or more people.
 
The Liberal said:
It was a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun. With regards to being a gun-free zone, maybe it’s because they work in America, not a Brazilian favela or Damascus? Like...do you strap up to poop?
Click to expand...
Apparently there are only violent criminals in Brazil and Syria. Who knew?

When somebody says "strap up" that's pretty much a guarantee that they believe in enforced victimization.
 
I will wager that no one in Aurora wanted to prosecute a citizen for a wepons violation that occurred due to the "incompetence" of a State agency.

Defense would surely use the fact that the FOID was issued as a bludgeon in the trial. The illegality and perjury would probably tip the evidence toward conviction. Defense then appeals saying that the FOID process is flawed, even, perhaps, unconstitutional. All of the sudden, the FOID system becomes a huge 2nd Amendment issue. That's not likely to come out clean in the wash, post-McDonald (not for McDoland being applicable, but for the holding that strict scrutiny is required in every jurisdiction).

Also, Springfield has a serious inferiority complex due to how chicagoland pushes the rest of the state around. A dinkt town like Aurora would find itself in deep kimchee for challenging the FOID issue.

Now, for 2¢, every single civil suit in this debacle is going to go after the deep State pockets for the FOID failure. Which will likely lead to a fingerprint check/or BI to get a FOID. Maybe. Perhaps.
 
The state of Illinois passed some serious gun control. The law lacks an effective mechanism for dealing with citizens whose FOID cards are revoked. The IL state police sends a letter to the person whose FOID card is revoked . The same state police then inquire about the disposition of firearms, trusting the person whose FOID card was revoked to dispose of his firearms. This is crazy.

The state police could get a court order to confiscate the firearms but they're too busy or something. A bill was proposed in the legislature that would have allowed prompt confiscation of firearms from those whose FOID cards were revoked. The legislature rejected the bill because it would have placed a burden on police: Say what!!!!

"Illinois lawmakers who support more gun control measures said Martin was able to keep the gun because of a flaw in the 1968 law that requires residents to get a Firearm Owner's Identification card, or FOID card, to purchase firearms or ammunition. They must pass a background check, but the law does not mandate that police ensure weapons have been removed if a red flag is raised later.

Legislation was introduced in 2016 to require police go to the homes of gun owners who have their FOID cards revoked and search for the weapons, but it failed over concerns it would overtax police departments, said Democratic Rep. Kathleen Willis.

She wants to see a similar measure introduced again."

https://myhughesnet.hughesnet.com/n...attacker_took_gun_to_work_he_shouldnt_have-ap

That law is not about keeping guns from violence prone citizens. It's so much feel good stuff.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gary Slider
  • Locked
NC . . . DC & Empty Brass . . ID/SC Reciprocity . . . IL Car Carry & Laser Sights
Replies
4
Views
462
zoom6zoom
Z
H
  • Locked
Area gun companies await next round
Replies
1
Views
309
Henry Bowman
H
R
  • Locked
Know Your Enemy
Replies
1
Views
504
bfieldburt
B
G
  • Locked
IL HB2414 Assault Weapons Ban Ultra-Merged-Mega-Thread
Replies
12
Views
712
Johnnybgood
J
hso
  • Sticky
Important Sunday NYT analysis article to use.
Replies
6
Views
6K
Vern Humphrey
V
Back
Top