davidmcbeth
Banned
I would like to read .. get ideas for mine ...
WHAT? Am I reading this correctly?
YOU of all people, want to get "ideas" from others on here so you can write your testimony? I can't believe David McMeth is at a loss of words, say it ain't so!! The world is gonna end!!!
My writing's section concerning the registration (ya know ya gotta renew like 90 days before the 1 yr exp. date or your screwed):
So what are the goals of the legislature and its members? This can be answered from examination of individual legislator’s statements that this author has obtained through FOIA requests over the past several weeks. Lets examine a few..
“..guns are appropriate to hunting and target shooting but not to the community..” Sen. Meyer, who clearly believes that the 2nd amendment applies only to hunters and target shooters; it’s an affront to this state’s citizenry.
“…handguns and rifles that are more than .22 caliber, can hold more than 7 rounds, or can be semi-automatically fired banned. Guns already in circulation that fall into these categories must be placed in target range lock-down cases. Possession of such weapons outside of target ranges banned as of Oct 1, 2013…” Rep. Fleischmann who wishes to ban almost all guns and remove them from citizens’ possession. Clearly Rep. Fleischmann wishes to live in China … it’s east, have a good journey comrade.
“..First amendment. …yelled Fire! .. Subject to arrest” Sen. Bye But one can yell “fire” w/o being arrested if there is a fire; and speaking of fires, I don’t not have a fire in my kitchen right now so does this mean I do not need an extinguisher? That’s the mentality of our legislature now, trying to dictate what arms and equipment we need without considering why we need them or even being able to state when an arm could be needed and under what circumstances it would be. Preposterous. Also, in oral arguments in the Heller and McDonald cases before SCOTUS, the court noted that the 1st amendment rights have also caused deaths, so this “guns kill people” argument is a moot point when speaking about our natural rights and rights acknowledged by our courts; and its wrong altogether.
“...guns in lawful compliance paying liability premiums would invariably protect their second amendment rights…others ..would … eliminat(ing) possession of firearms…” obtained from Rep. Godfrey (concerning insurance mandates) indicating his enthusiasm with gun grabs which is a similar viewpoint of the gun registration scheme of SB 1076; it’s a gun grab when one considers that it’s a yearly requirement to be re-applied for months before the registration lapses. This is the purpose behind the registration processes noted in that SB 1076, there is no doubt. Rep. Godfrey’s records indicate that he clearly thinks that the second amendment does not even exist.
Dave - my testimony is about registration on section 32
I need to know where to send my testimony to get it on record tomorrow... can you direct me where to send it?
SB1076 requirement of limiting magazines and making possession of standard magazine illegal is another civil & property rights issue.
SB1076 does not include a removable magazine capacity restriction.
Look again ... at the first few pages .. it bans guns with a 10rd+ detectable mag.
So it does it sneakily ...
Citation please. If you can find it in the bill, please paste it here. The only capacity restrictions I see in that bill deal with fixed magazines, not removable magazines.
It does it through expanding the definition of assault weapons .. IMO