Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Gun laws, state vs federal

kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 9:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

Is that Kansas registered statute? I searched for the 50-1206 but couldn't find it
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 9:46:06 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 9:14:19 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

Is that Kansas registered statute? I searched for the 50-1206 but couldn't find it

yes I searched for kansas 2nd amendment protection act
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 9:56:02 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?

From the way that reads Kansas is saying 'we ain't doing shlt. This is all fed. No Kansas enforcement whatsoever.' So one pass fed form 4473 and you are good to go.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 12:43:49 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 9:56:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?

From the way that reads Kansas is saying 'we ain't doing shlt. This is all fed. No Kansas enforcement whatsoever.' So one pass fed form 4473 and you are good to go.

I'm not sure if you even need the background check since what brought this to my attention was someone making guns and suppressors, stamping them with made in Kansas and selling them w/o a licence.
https://youtu.be...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:22:39 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 12:43:49 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:56:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?

From the way that reads Kansas is saying 'we ain't doing shlt. This is all fed. No Kansas enforcement whatsoever.' So one pass fed form 4473 and you are good to go.

I'm not sure if you even need the background check since what brought this to my attention was someone making guns and suppressors, stamping them with made in Kansas and selling them w/o a licence.
https://youtu.be...

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:32:15 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 1:22:39 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 12:43:49 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:56:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?

From the way that reads Kansas is saying 'we ain't doing shlt. This is all fed. No Kansas enforcement whatsoever.' So one pass fed form 4473 and you are good to go.

I'm not sure if you even need the background check since what brought this to my attention was someone making guns and suppressors, stamping them with made in Kansas and selling them w/o a licence.
https://youtu.be...

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 4:47:03 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:32:15 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 1:22:39 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 12:43:49 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:56:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?

From the way that reads Kansas is saying 'we ain't doing shlt. This is all fed. No Kansas enforcement whatsoever.' So one pass fed form 4473 and you are good to go.

I'm not sure if you even need the background check since what brought this to my attention was someone making guns and suppressors, stamping them with made in Kansas and selling them w/o a licence.
https://youtu.be...

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:47:44 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 4:47:03 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:32:15 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 1:22:39 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 12:43:49 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:56:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:49:54 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 9:39:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

The key difference is that there is no constitutional amendment for marijuana. This is basically stating that it will not enforce restrictions to the second amendment. Any conflict between Kansas and the US interpretation would need to be settled in court.

Secondly, it doesn't restrict federal agents from enforcing a federal statute around gun restrictions in the state of Kansas.

In a way this is also used with states to bow out of getting involved with validating citizenship in the course of business and law enforcement. Leave it to the feds to deal with. Of course there is no amendment on immigration enforcement, but Article 1 Section 8 is often used to justify what is more known as sanctuary cities.

yeah I'll have to look into it some more when I can, but my thought is can they enforce something they really shouldn't have amended in the first place, by the literal "shall not be infringed"? And who's real authority is it, the feds or states?

From the way that reads Kansas is saying 'we ain't doing shlt. This is all fed. No Kansas enforcement whatsoever.' So one pass fed form 4473 and you are good to go.

I'm not sure if you even need the background check since what brought this to my attention was someone making guns and suppressors, stamping them with made in Kansas and selling them w/o a licence.
https://youtu.be...

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM
Posted: 1 week ago

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

if you watch the news and do a little research when was the last time a murder involved a suppressor, also search youtube on how to make one at home, it's pretty easy, so what would stop someone from doing what you are implying? yep nothing, yet no one does it, hhmm I wonder why. There's a myth busters episode on suppressors you should search it up and watch it.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 3:40:19 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 3:37:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

if you watch the news and do a little research when was the last time a murder involved a suppressor, also search youtube on how to make one at home, it's pretty easy, so what would stop someone from doing what you are implying? yep nothing, yet no one does it, hhmm I wonder why. There's a myth busters episode on suppressors you should search it up and watch it.

Frankie Gotti was just taken out by a hit man with a suppressor in Queens last week, usually mobsters use them or professional hit man for hire.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 3:51:05 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 3:40:19 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:37:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

if you watch the news and do a little research when was the last time a murder involved a suppressor, also search youtube on how to make one at home, it's pretty easy, so what would stop someone from doing what you are implying? yep nothing, yet no one does it, hhmm I wonder why. There's a myth busters episode on suppressors you should search it up and watch it.

Frankie Gotti was just taken out by a hit man with a suppressor in Queens last week, usually mobsters use them or professional hit man for hire.

so if the knew that then he was caught so what good was the suppressor? guess none lol
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 4:03:39 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 3:51:05 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:40:19 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:37:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

if you watch the news and do a little research when was the last time a murder involved a suppressor, also search youtube on how to make one at home, it's pretty easy, so what would stop someone from doing what you are implying? yep nothing, yet no one does it, hhmm I wonder why. There's a myth busters episode on suppressors you should search it up and watch it.

Frankie Gotti was just taken out by a hit man with a suppressor in Queens last week, usually mobsters use them or professional hit man for hire.

so if the knew that then he was caught so what good was the suppressor? guess none lol

I think the suppressor is only good on a sniper rifle, you can kill from far away, up close it's harder to get away after the body slumps next to you.

Did the Virginia sniper use a suppressor or just the cover of the trunk of the car?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 4:12:19 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 4:03:39 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:51:05 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:40:19 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:37:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

if you watch the news and do a little research when was the last time a murder involved a suppressor, also search youtube on how to make one at home, it's pretty easy, so what would stop someone from doing what you are implying? yep nothing, yet no one does it, hhmm I wonder why. There's a myth busters episode on suppressors you should search it up and watch it.

Frankie Gotti was just taken out by a hit man with a suppressor in Queens last week, usually mobsters use them or professional hit man for hire.

so if the knew that then he was caught so what good was the suppressor? guess none lol

I think the suppressor is only good on a sniper rifle, you can kill from far away, up close it's harder to get away after the body slumps next to you.

Did the Virginia sniper use a suppressor or just the cover of the trunk of the car?

Muhammed used a 22 pistol at one point, but I didn't read anything about a suppressor for the bushmaster, just the trunk. When I view footage and reports on the U.S. troops in the middle east I have never seen a sniper with a suppressor, I don't think the military uses them, there's probably a reason.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 5:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 8:30:50 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
so this is new news to me since I don't live in that state.... or states
Article 12. - MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, AMMUNITION.Next
50-1206.Q95;Certain federal laws made inapplicable; prohibition against enforcement. (a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
(b)Q95;No official, agent or employee of the state of Kansas, or any political subdivision thereof, shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding any personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas.
History:Q95;L. 2013, ch. 100, " 6; Apr. 25.
Alaska, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho and S. Dakota have similar laws, though not sure if they pertain to firearms or whatever. And so far it's been found to be constitutional although there's still some case challenges pending. If states can do this, then they can do it for marijuana and if they can do it for marijuana then then can do it for guns or pretty much anything really.

I lived in Alaska when it was implemented but they took the teeth out of the bill by not prosectuting federal agents who enforced unconstitutional gun laws. Shame.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2016 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

If my gun made as much noise as the 'liberal' I'm persuading with it, that would kind of defeat the purpose.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2016 9:19:23 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 11/29/2016 4:03:39 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:51:05 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:40:19 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:37:30 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:33:27 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:

That's freakin' awesome and I'm not being sarcastic. Can I see you I'd? Ok sir here is your sig 716.

yeah the only thing he might get in trouble for is having a suppressor and not paying the fed taxes on it, which is the whole thing behind the hoops they make you go through to buy one, so they can collect their fees and stop you from making your own on the cheap, it all makes sense now.

You sir just answered the whole, well most, of the rational behind the atf: second tie ring of tax collection.

I'm sure it was a pandering feel good move to restrict suppressors and then they saw a tax deterrent opportunity as well, not that it makes any sense to begin with, so I'm hopeful for the Hearing protection act, though I'm not sure I would spend money on a threaded barrel and suppressor as I don't think the prices will go down, but it would be nice.

Why, are you planning your next hit on a target and you need the suppressor.

if you watch the news and do a little research when was the last time a murder involved a suppressor, also search youtube on how to make one at home, it's pretty easy, so what would stop someone from doing what you are implying? yep nothing, yet no one does it, hhmm I wonder why. There's a myth busters episode on suppressors you should search it up and watch it.

Frankie Gotti was just taken out by a hit man with a suppressor in Queens last week, usually mobsters use them or professional hit man for hire.

so if the knew that then he was caught so what good was the suppressor? guess none lol

I think the suppressor is only good on a sniper rifle, you can kill from far away, up close it's harder to get away after the body slumps next to you.

And yet we don't hear of such nonsense happening in real life aside from special forces. There are other legal reasons why to have a suppressor. Mainly for hearing protection. I can target shoot without disturbing hoplophobic liberals. I can hunt without hearing protection as I need to hear the game. I can defend myself indoors without ruining my hearing. Try shooting a pistol from indoors and you'll se what I mean.

Did the Virginia sniper use a suppressor or just the cover of the trunk of the car?

You tell me. Besides, he got caught didn't he? If he did used a suppressor a lot that did him anyway.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born