A Century of Progress
My heart burns with feeling, but,
My mind, it's cold and reeling
--Love or Confusion, Jimi Hendrix
I maintain that
Chaos is the future
And beyond it is freedom
Confusion is next and next
after that is the truth
You gotta cultivate what you need
to need
--Confusion is Next, Sonic Youth
______________________
Ranger recently purchased a 1911 A1 pistol and a 1909 Argentine Mauser in an absolute auction. While playing with his new toys, the little label on the case, "Not Legal in California" hit him like a hole in the head.
[As an aside, several of the largest gun shops in the Panhandle of Florida are going belly up, a telling trend. When gun shops die in Bible Belt, Redneck Heaven, U.S.A., you know things are bad.]
The pistol is a century old design, in continual production and in use in every dust up the U.S. Army enters. The 1911 A1 is iconic as the Colt Peacemaker and just as popular with today's shooters. It has a 7-round magazine with one up the snout, so why is it illegal in California? ?
In fact, if it had a 50-round mag, why would it be illegal? Before calling me a dumb-ass, I conceded the arguments against hi-cap magazines are valid, but we are not talking reason. We are talking 2nd Amendment, and we either believe gun ownership is an inalienable right, or we do not. There are no restrictions to sporting use or restrictions on capacity or auto mode in the Constitution.
It is illogical to concede that we have gun rights that can't be infringed, then say that a century-old pistol design is illegal in any state of the Union. Ditto the waiting period strictures.
Ranger currently owns several 1911 A1's (to include two WW II wartime production Colts.) In order to get my hands on the latest acquisition he had to fill out an ATF form indicating that he is everything a good, gun-loving American should be. Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms & Florida require a 5-day waiting period called a "cooling period", which is odd since I have a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 magnum in my car right outside the gun shop door -- how much cooler can I get? That's downright frosty.
[Since the gun was purchased Saturday, the waiting period starts Monday when the paperwork was filed, so it becomes a 7-day waiting period, depending upon circumstance.]
The gun shop would not allow Ranger to take possession of the 100-yr-old Mauser rifle because he had a handgun in the cooling off phase, even though there is no waiting period for long arms. Where is the consistency? Is it not reasonable to contend that the transaction took place when the gavel fell? So why didn't the waiting period start at that time?
Answer-because we all fear ATF and their arbitrary rulings.
The Supreme Court recently slapped down Arizona for its immigration laws using the logic that no state can have a law which is harsher than Federal law. If true for U.S. Code, then should it not be exponentially true for a Bill of Rights freedom? Why can California have such a draconian gun law? Would I, as a Floridian, be arrested if the California Highway Patrol found the weapon/1911A1 in my vehicle? Why is the same gun both legal and illegal, depending upon geography? Are we not one country?
Gun laws amount to harassment, and fail to address the real issues facing society.
Labels: 2nd amendment, cooling period, gun laws, second amendment
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:51 AM
15 Comments:
Psst! Waiting periods and gun regulations in California only apply to the Peasants. Pass it on!
In other news, another Middle East nation is now in our cross-hairs as we initiate yet ANOTHER act of war.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/obama-call-syrias-assad-step/story?id=14330428
By KIRIT RADIA (@KiritRadia_ABC)
Aug. 18, 2011
President Obama today called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down, as his crackdown on the country's anti-government uprising continues to escalate and U.S. allies condemned the Assad regime.
"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way," Obama said in a statement. "His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing and slaughtering his own people ..."
For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."
Off topic but in wondering around the tubes found this.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/ultimate-sniper-rifle/all/1
jo6pac
JO,
This link was fun to read, but a .5 cartridge does not go down range - it's the projectile that goes down range.
As for the 2400 meter kill i can't believe that there was no wind. I'm just a cynic.
We use 30/338's for 1000 yard WIMBLETON MATCHES,and this was a necked down 338. Now the sniper rifle is a simple 338 mag.This is a African big game round.
The big selling point for the Barrett 5o is that ammo is available thru the unit level ammo supply , if the shooter needed emergency resupply.
Most snipers use Match grade ammo.
My question- if the target is 2400 meters away then why not use artillery or mortars?
jim
Hi Jim,
"if the target is 2400 meters away then why not use artillery or mortars?"
Or a Chinook loaded with SEAL's?
Dave
Thanks, I wondering what you thought.
jo6pac
Dave,
That would Seal the deal.
jim
There are plenty of .45s in California. I suspect that labeling was a fraud for some reason. Why even bother put it on a firearm in FL?
The last two firearms I purchased were an M1 Garand from our local Long's Drugs and a SMLE at Big 5. Both work just fine but are considered antiques by the state of CA so I was able to pay for them and take them away with no waiting period.
Gordon,
The M1 is as fine a gun as was ever made.
jim
Gordon,
I can't find p19128lp on the Ca approved gun list. This is my pistole.
jim
The bottom line, jim, is the same reason that we can't drive 110 on the Interstate.
Many vehicles are capable of handling just fine in excess of 100mph. I've driven that fast, and feel very confident of my driving skill. The Interstate highway system is designed for high-speed travel. Germany, for example, has had no significant problems without a legal top speed limit since the end of the Occupation.
In a sensible world you would be able to take a "high-speed driver's test", show that you were perfectly capable of driving 110, get a license that showed that, and off you'd go.
But a combination of difficulty of regulation, scabs of dumb fuckers on the road, alcohol, and bad choices, make it simpler and easier for the state to just enforce a 70mph speed limit for everyone.
Same with gun laws.
Governments have always had legitimate interest in keeping all sorts of stuff out of certain people's hands or certain people out of other people's businesses. Gun laws would seem to fall in that category. I'll agree that a bolt action rifle and a hundred-year-old automatic pistol seem like an example of excessive regulation, but that's arguing the details, not the principle.
Chief,
Yep, i'm talking details.
The big detail that keeps getting stuck in my craw is the 2nd amendment.
SHALL NOT INFRINGE.
BTW- I've taken all 4 of my Mini coopers, over the years up to 130 mph on the public highways.I also do not have CCW permit.
jim
Chief,
I forgot to mention that the Bill of rights is silent on car speed limits, therefore imho this is a faulty comparison.
jim
Wait, are you suggesting that the powers that be should read, understand, and then obey the Constitution of the United States?
Hmmm...
Are you further suggesting that there is a mechanism for changing said document, that ought to be followed if it turns out improvements need to be made?
Sorry. You, sir, are clearly an unpatriotic terrorist, and I don't have time to entertain such nonsense as you proclaim here!
Here's the prob. - I think the Second Amdt is a tough call here.
If the Framers had wanted us all to own all the firearms in our MTO&E all they would have had to write is "The Right of the People to own and bear arms shall not be infringed".
But they didn't.
They started off by saying that thing about how a "Well-Regulated Militia" is important, se we all get to go armed.
So there's LOTS (IMO) of wiggle room. Enough to allow the feds and the states to prohibit full auto, weapons that fire explosive projos (I sure as fuck don't want the Columbia Villa Crips with indirect fire capability..!), this type of weapon, that type of weapon.
In a prefect world there would be no need to ban ANY "type" of weapon.
Instead, the Constitution would read "A Well-disciplined Population being essential to a nice Place to Live, the Right of Everyone Except Fucking Flaming Assholes Liable to Pull A Hogleg For Some DumbAss Reason Or No Fucking Reason At All To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed".
And then you'd have to take a test where various people fucked with you in various ways and you'd have to show that you knew when to pull steel and when not to, and if you failed, sorry, Charlie, no bang stick for you!
In a nation of 100 people, we could make that work.
Until then, my suspicion is that we'll have to live with some form of weapons restrictions or another.
I'll agree that's fucked. But I'd also argue that a whole pantsload of people are fucked, and those are the ones I DON'T want getting their sweaty little hands on some surplus PPSH...
oh com'on Chief, first they take our guns, then next they'll come for our cameras.
it's true.
http://tinyurl.com/447zy8p
but truly, some of the people pushing support for the 2nd Amendment are among the most totally fucked, screwed and scrambled in the noggin this nation has to serve up.
http://tinyurl.com/3jnwnla
bb
Post a Comment
<< Home