The NRA used to say no warning shots - they’re both legally and tactically problematic. But that was for home invasion.
The Astorian reports voters in Clatsop County will decide whether to prohibit county resources from being used to enforce any local, state and federal law or regulation that restricts the right to keep and bear firearms, accessories or ammunition.
The rule would cover any tax, levy or fee on the purchase or ownership of firearms, tracking requirements, background checks, confiscation orders or any restriction on the open or concealed carrying of firearms.
Holy shit. So you can buy any gun if this passes I think.
Doesn’t mean anything.
Gun laws aren’t enforced by county sheriff, it’s enforced by the ATF or maybe state trooper/police/whatever. If you’re “prohibited person” according to Oregon laws you’re definitely prohibited by Federal law.
Sure if that county holds Federal inmates on contract, perhaps they could refuse to hold those who are in for gun possession.
So it’s more symbolic than anything else.
But you know I hear stories of gang members who are known to own guns yet law enforcement does nothing? It’s weird that they would put someone in prison for a 20 year old “felony” but not do anything to armed gang members…
I believe ATF would still have jurisdiction over NFA stamps for full-auto weapons. So while local/county resources wouldn’t comply in a b/g check, the FBI and the ATF could possibly confiscate anything acquired without paying NFA tax and being NFA registered.
That said, I’m pretty sure any new Federal gun control legislation is dead on arrival. Likely for generations to come, or until today’s children pass away, at the soonest.
Thanks to BLM, antifa, and the gormless Democrat party I don’t think any Americans living today see any value in limiting access to semi-automatic firearms, including black rifles of any caliber.
Maybe the Dems will take another crack at it around the year 2100.
existing gun laws are enough for the ATF to stay busy jailing anyone (who will have a higher chance of being black) who has ANY felony records in the past, big or small. They don’t like someone, they do a background check on him, and finds a weed possession conviction from 30 years ago. They got him.
If things go the way Democrats evidently want them to go, and US cities see police defunded and Americans are forced to defend life and property without benefit of police at all, then it’s very likely the ATF goes away in a bipartisan vote. Or becomes merely the AT, no F.
I’m thinking the Dems and their thugs have likely yanked the teeth clean out of the ATF.
Preventing someone from getting a gun is one thing.
Taking a gun away from someone is a lot trickier. And more dangerous.
That’s the difference between gun laws and guns.
You don’t understand something…
Felon in possession is taking guns away from someone. That’s what the law demands.
So if a felon were to possess a gun, and his conviction was over 30 years old, the ATF will still come and take his guns away and put him in prison for 10 years.
You seem to think the law is magical or something.
Frankly this falls into the realm of what can happen, not what always, without fail happens.
For example, it depends on the nature of the felony itself, whether it is expunged (for whatever reason), and whether the gun owner comes at all to the attention of the ATF.
So to say “the ATF will come and take his guns away” is more accurately stated as “the ATF may be able to deny him ownership of guns.”
The difference in meaning is highly significant.
Prove it. Where’s the case?
…for a whole lot of reasons.
hmmm. that be a bum-load of swing-voters over to zeee reich-side, eh?
“Don’t be shtupid, be a shmarty…”
Reminder: only law abiding citizens bother to apply for permits.
What was the question again?
The pro gun church
Do they also worship the Alpha-Omega bomb?
I doubt it , as they believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ.
The second coming will be an earth shattering kaboom. All sin will be atomized.