• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Boxer to Introduce Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Can't buy any new full auto anything. It's a machine gun and BATFE has not been registering new select fire weapons since 1986. If it wasn't made before 1986, it ain't legal.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
As long as the minimum standard is no permits and no training, I'm all in.

I think your standards are totally unrealistic. It should be mandatory that any person in possession of a firearm must have been born and be alive at that particular moment.

I don't think that clones and zombies should be allowed to posses firearms, call me a birther or zombiephobe if you will but I believe very strongly about having tough standards.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
When you end your statement with a question mark it makes me think that you feel that a Federal law is a good idea. If you are referring to the 2A as a Federal law, I wouldn't call it a Federal law.

I am asking that if you consider the Second Amendment to be a law, than is it a joke?

The Second Amendment is an affirmation of a fundamental right to self-defense, but focuses in on firearms as being a tool for self-defense, but generally for protecting self, and Constitution.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I think your standards are totally unrealistic. It should be mandatory that any person in possession of a firearm must have been born and be alive at that particular moment.

I don't think that clones and zombies should be allowed to posses firearms, call me a birther or zombiephobe if you will but I believe very strongly about having tough standards.

:D
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
"Senator Boxer's legislation would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm."

Is it just me or does it sound like Boxer is trying to do a Kalifornia style "good cause" requirement subject to LEO approval on a national scale?
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
"Senator Boxer's legislation would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm."

Is it just me or does it sound like Boxer is trying to do a Kalifornia style "good cause" requirement subject to LEO approval on a national scale?

Refer The HONORLESS Boxer to the 2nd ammendment of the US constitution and then to a dictionary to review and understand the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
Many in our present congress don't give a darn about the Constitution. Heck many don't even know what's in it. They make up laws to suit themselves. That's why they need to go ASAP. Babs call me Senator Boxer is near the top of the list along with her sister Diane Feinstein.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I wish something had been in place that would have prevented the Tuscon shooter from legally obtaining a pistol, but I honestly don't know how such a restriction would have been crafted so as not to restrict sane folks from buying. And yes, I know, he probably would have been able to obtain one illegally.
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
In truth it was illegal

He had to lie on his purchase forms. Seems there was this question about habitual use of marijuana or something. His process was in order but his lie made it an illegal aquisition.

Requiring law enforcement commentary eliminates "Shall Issue". I am sure this is the point of the excercise. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Domestic enemies are unfortunately all too common in Congress.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
He had to lie on his purchase forms. Seems there was this question about habitual use of marijuana or something. His process was in order but his lie made it an illegal aquisition.
And of course that was immaterial to the crime or its motivations. He didn't kill six people because he used marijuana. I'm sure he's every bit as much of a fruitloop stone sober as he is stoned.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
He had to lie on his purchase forms. Seems there was this question about habitual use of marijuana or something. His process was in order but his lie made it an illegal aquisition.

Requiring law enforcement commentary eliminates "Shall Issue". I am sure this is the point of the excercise. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Domestic enemies are unfortunately all too common in Congress.

Actually, considering how the question is written, saying that he is not a user might not be a lie. The question is written in the present tense. Should you answer yes if you tried marijuana ten years ago? One year ago? One week ago? I would say that, if you are not currently stoned, an answer of no could be justified. The question would be effective if it asked, "Have you used....in the past....?" As it is worded, a user could answer no and still reasonably claim not to be lying.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Actually, considering how the question is written, saying that he is not a user might not be a lie. The question is written in the present tense. Should you answer yes if you tried marijuana ten years ago? One year ago? One week ago? I would say that, if you are not currently stoned, an answer of no could be justified. The question would be effective if it asked, "Have you used....in the past....?" As it is worded, a user could answer no and still reasonably claim not to be lying.

I certainly hope they don't change it to "Have you ever....?"
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I am asking that if you consider the Second Amendment to be a law, than is it a joke?

The Second Amendment is an affirmation of a fundamental right to self-defense, but focuses in on firearms as being a tool for self-defense, but generally for protecting self, and Constitution.

Ummmmm self defence isn't mentioned in the second amendment, it is inclusive in the right to bear arms. Let us not forget the real reason the second amendment was written. To keep politicians in check.

"The Second Amendment isn't about hunting deer, it's about hunting politicians." Congressman "B1" Bob Dornan.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
From the OP's linked article:

"Senator Boxer said, "The tragic events in Tucson earlier this month are a reminder of why we need common-sense gun laws.

No, Senator Boxer. It's a reminder as to how both the criminals and nutcases will never follow any gun laws, as well as a reminder to ensure law-abiding citizens always have free and ready access to the tools they need to defend themselves against the criminals and nutcases, commensurate with our Constitution's Second Amendment which prohibits any and all infringement of our right to keep and bear arms.

This measure will establish reasonable permitting standards for Americans who wish to carry concealed firearms.

No, it won't. It will only infringe on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

According to a recent poll, more than 60 percent of respondents believe there should be a reasonable permitting process for those who wish to carry concealed firearms."

Sounds to me like she polled her office staff. I'm surprised she achieved 60% from them. Cool. She must wield her authority over them in true Marxist fashion.

Yet another fine Kalifornut who thinks they're smarter than all of us combined...
 

KansasKraut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
116
Location
Verona, WI
?

Has anyone ever noticed how the gun-control people frame their arguments? They always preface their attempt to denigrate your rights and freedom of choice with the words "common sense." By so doing, they automatically place any counter-arguments outside the realm of "common sense," as in "Oh. You don't want to have to pay for individually microstamped cartridges (Brady Bunch, LOL!)? But that's just common sense!" Or "If you're a private (!) citizen selling a gun to another private (!) citizen, that citizen should have to pass a background check. You don't think so? But that's just common sense!" Anyway, just thought I'd share that with y'all, as it pisses me off to no end, and is an underhanded attempt by the locusts to take away your constitutionally enumerated rights. BE ON GUARD!
 
Last edited:
Top