dpreguy

I can learn. Thanks

As usual, anything in NY is puffed up and fucked up.

I can learn. Thanks.
As usual, most NY stuff is puffed up and fucked up.

Unless the reporter has it wrong - the reporter said the order to show cause was issued by a "Supreme Court Justice".

(Yes the district court equivalents in NY are called the Supreme Courts, but trial judges are called judges.)

Appeals court members are called Justices. Trial court judges are called Judges. If the reporter was using the correct terminology, it was issued at the appellate level.

Yes, 616.
Garrison Keilor-Prairie Home Companion had a field day with this one. Seems the telephone area code for Minneapolis is 616 so he narrates an imagined phone call (as only garrison Keilor can) where the devil is calling the phone company saying he never gets any calls because everyone is thinking his area code is 666; and he has been placed on hold with the phone company for over a thousand years and he's tired of listeneing to the elevator music for that long.......etc it is a hoot!

Kill the thread

This isn't a reply to f94, but a general question.

A long time ago the Cypres 1 units were thought to be affected by the pilot keying the mike to transmit. Or something like that. The Cypres factory solution back then was to insert the display unit into a "silver sleeve". This was a little plastic tube/sleeve which was somewhat opaque but still allowed the user to see the readings. Supposedly shielded the unit from the mike keying. I saved a couple and put them in my Cypres notebook, just because I am a collector.

Are we about to see "silver sleeves" (covers) for the display and/or the box itself make a comeback?

I would strongly suggest the wind tunnel. Tell them your concerns and let then instructors get you to the stage where you do it naturally.

Makes no sense to go back to the 70's 80's and 90's when all we had was advice. We have wind tunnels now, and they are one of the great advances in our sport for these types of problems.

I doubt you'll remember all of the "dick to the dirt" and "pretend to pee" stuff anyway. 20-30 years ago that's all we had. Advice. Take advantage our new technology and get over this hump. It's there. My advice is to use it and not rely on the "dick"/ "pee" "push the bush" and whatever other stuff was good in the previous era of our sport.

OK I'll walk the walk of shame here. Reread it and it does say ("after it is turned on") I guess I should have had it in front of me and read it more carefully.

OK all.

I'm not getting the test part. press the usual button and if it flashes red it is OK? That much is simple, but dang it, wouldn't it always flash the first time, and do so three times to turn it on?

Or is the Service Bulletin direction only to apply after it has has been turned on and THEN hit the button once and see the flash before each jump? I doesn't actually say that, but I guess that's what they mean?

Insurance: Any scheme that ID's a particular gun with make model and serial number connected with the name and address of the owner is a registration scheme. Same transparent intent, different scheme. Also, "mandatory" means a citizen not only has to pay to exercise a constitutional right, but a failure to pay will have consequences of some sort, which could, and New York probably would be confiscation of the uninsured gun.

We now have a list of persons who cannot purchase guns at guns stores. The list is about 15 or more categories, but starts with convicted felons, those under restraining orders, whose charged as felons, etc. . Now, add to the list the mental defectives, and the ones who are about to blow (James Holmes Aurora movie and Adam Lanza Newtown) who could have been and should have been on the list too, and we are now intelligently getting somewhere. How to do this? Holmes was under psych care and the psychiatrist who was meeting with him asked campus security Auroria Campus to bar him from the university, and asked for campus security escort etc should have been able to at least submit his name to be on the "can't purchase" list. She knew he was a dangerous patient and( my term=about to blow) and did nothing. She is now being sued. Maybe because there wasn't anything she could do? Don't know about that. Adam Lanza's mother (maybe this is urban legend now and not true) anyway we have all heard speculation that she was about to try to commit him when he killed her. Yes this is speculation , but his brother upon hearing what Adam Lanza had done wasn't at all surprised. So, at the very least, the psychiatrist at Auroria campus and Adam Lanza's mother and his brother should have been able to submit his name to be on a list of "can't purchase firarms" persons. ( Yes I know Adam L didn't buy them he stole them from his mom) I don't remember if Laughner /Gabrail Giffords had persons who know if he was gong to blow.
How this reporting would occur and how to keep persons who just don't like someone from putting their enemies on the list etc. is something that would have to be figured out, but efforts or plans or procedures to let those who are counseling patients and close associates, family members, and including the high school kids who were reading the posts of the Columbine shooters, should be able to report these mentally unstable persons and at the very least submit their names to someone who can evaluate these reports of mental suspects, who would, after evaluation of these reports, put some of these reported persons on the 'can't buy' list until that person can be cleared. Once again, reporting with a motive has to have a biteback, but it seems to me that almost all of these shooters had someone who knew they were about to "blow". The actual procedure of how all of this idealistic idea would be accomplished is open to all with creative and fair minded persons. The "Willowbrookers"-mentall health professionals, who would on principle, oppose ANY such reporting will predictably oppose it. In my opinion, some idea such as this would at least be trying to go after the actual problem = gun sales to those who shouldn't have them. The whole thrust now is wrong headed. Going after gun ownership of those who would never even think of using them illegally. This is just my idea, sticky wicket, of how to proceed to accomplish the goal of most: Keep guns from those who shouldn't have them; and leave the rest of the gun owning populace alone and free of fees and governmental interference.

I am comfortable in calling the judge's decision "agenda based" as it requires hundreds of dollars, and if you own multiple handguns, maybe thousands of dollars to exercise/enjoy a constitutional right. And in New York City, a renewal of those fees every three years.

Poll taxes (paying to vote) has been ruled an unconstitutional burden that would have a chilling effect, or worse, upon voting - a constitutional right. I doubt this judge would allow charging a fee to vote.

In my opinion, viewing his reasoning: This judge is anti gun and probably wouldn't have balked at any fee, regardless of it's magnitude, to own a handgun in your home in New York. That mindset equals an agenda to me. Not paying the fee means you can be charged and arrested for owning an unregistered handgun in New York. Arrest, followed by seizure for evidence (no, you won't get it back) will basically eliminate a New York resident's ability to have a gun in their home, unless one has a lot of money. That was/is the transparent intent of the NY legislature and Gov Cuomo in the first place. Hopefully a lawsuit in fed court will prevail and strike this scheme as unconstitutional.

Can anyone actually shed some light on the question that started this topic:

Was there an automatic AR15 style (Bushmaster) rifle used to kill the children in Newtown? Or is the MSNBC commentator correct - quoting that the killings were done with 4 handguns, and not any rifle with 30 round magazine capacity?

The " well regulated militia argument/reasoning" has been kicked to the curb for a couple of years now. The Supreme Court ruled in the Chicago and DC cases that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The silly "militia" argument has been intelligently tossed into the trash bin. Hope it stays there.

Oh great. Another judge with an agenda instead of a brain. So I guess that this same judge wouldn't mind a $340 fee for a three year privilege to vote?

It's not illegal not to register your car. You just can't drive it on the roads. It can set in your driveway and you won't get arrested. You aren't a criminal just because you didn't register your car. And you don't have a constitutional right to own or drive a car.
However, if you don't have the money to pay for New York's pistol registration, you can be arrested for possessing a pistol because you didn't register it As in any criminal case, they will seize it for evidence, and you will never get it back.

No person should have to pay to talk on a corner (free speech), or have to pay to go to church,(freedom of religion) to vote(no poll tax) or pay anything to own a firearm. I don't understand why those who oppose having to pay to vote feel that gun owners should have to pay anything to own a gun. They just have an anti gun, and an anti self defense mindset, and aren't really bothered by this obvious conflict of views regarding constitutional rights.

tk
It's already being done in New York. Confiscation by fee. Or at least "unable to possess" is here and now.

Handgun in your home must apply for permit $340
(In NY City it expires every 3 yrs, then reapply - another $340)

$94 for instaprint fee, $105 if a paper copy is req.

Must apply to a "licensing officer, who may require a handgun safety course. Average cost of such is $100 to $250

Total cost $540 to $690 to own a pistol in your own home in New York. If you don't pay, you are owning it illegally.
I don't know what the fees are if you own multiple hand guns.

"Confiscation" or simply being unable to possess are the same. If you are arrested for this violation the gun is seized as evidence, and you will never get it back. This confiscation by fee is a transparent disarming tactic, and will be part of any gun haters legislative wish list. Municipalities get in the act too, as in new York City.

I think I'm getting all of this, but: if "universal background checks" are required, how does a private seller get this bkgrnd check done? And, if his univ bkgrnd check idea is passed, I think it will be on this existing EZ form, the same or somewhat modified version of it. This private seller will have to fill out and hold onto? the EZ form or a copy, and the ID's of him, the transferor and the ID of the transferee and the make model and serial number of the firearm is entered into that EZ form and sent in to the feds? This is defacto registration as I see it. One 'lives in being' interval away from all guns and owners being in a fed or state registry.

The call for "universal background checks" seems to me to be a very obvious defacto gun registration scheme. Slow moving at first, but relentless if it passes.

This is what is being loudly promoted, and the media is eating it up, and each commentator is driving home the reasonableness of this. They are all targeting (forgive the pun) the so-called "gun show loophole" which is nothing more than a private sale, done in the parking lot or at a display table.

How to make sure, (for example) John Hinckley, if released, doesn't buy a gun from a private seller is the dilemma, as I am sure no one wants him or anyone else who is such a mental defective, or felons who were convicted of a violent crime and other evil persons to be able to purchase from any source. Dealer or private. How to accomplish this without actual or defacto registration is the problem to solve. Ideas? Doing nothing is an option, but it doesn't look like that idea will endure in the present frenzy.

Andy 9 I agree with you. No government should be allowed to have lists of gun owners or the guns they possess.
rushmc In Iowa:
1. Does the permit to purchase identitfy each firearm with make model and serial number?
2. How are private sales of pistols handled in Iowa?
3. Can a father give a pistol to his son w/o paperwork or can a deceased give a pistol to his someone by inheritance w/o paperwork?

cody teti Thank you for your information. I agree with you to the extent that the background check system in place with NCIC etc. now for retail shops is working to prevent some prohibited classes of persons from buying. I am not even opposed to background checks for buyers for private transfers as long as it doesn't ever identify the weapon by make model or serial number, and the government cannot have records of that transfer. For example: If John Hinkley were to be released, (actually, I think he already has furloughs) and starts mumbling about Jodie foster, I would not want him to be able to buy a gun from a shop or a private citizen. How to do this without the defacto regsistration danger is the tricky wicket.

I am not well informed as to how the EZ form filled out by the gun shops is stored or who has access to it or how the records are handled/destroyed, or if they are destroyed at all, or anything. I think you are better informed than I am on that. I am simply opposed to any background check system that will result in the our states, cities or federal agencies even temporarily having a list of gun owners with their addresses and serial numbers and type and makes of guns. It is my belief that if there are such lists, even temporary ones, there will be ways and situations where the governments will access them. Keeping guns out of the hands of mental defectives, and stalkers and such is a goal shared by everyone. How to do it without the governments having lists/records is a problem for creative minds. Anyway, thank you for your intelligent post.

I am aware of the 6 month data erasure requirement now existing, but I don't trust the data to remain unavailable when disorder may occur. Paper information can be ordered to be computerized and computer data is recoverable if one has the expertise. Does anyone really think the same paper forms restrictions and 6 month data purging/destruction idea will survive this present wave of hysteria and nonsensical ideas now posited by the anti gun crowd? I simply am saying that the new universal background check sought is destined to grow in scope and content and is not likely to be so limited as the present rules now dictate. There will be many who will advocate that 6 months data storage be increased to a year, and then two years and then 5 years and so on, to the point where the data may never be erased, or even if it is, to be recoverable in case of national emergency.. A governor can use his executive power to suspend laws in an emergency, and so can the president and so can congress, both the executive powers and congress's powers can order outright confiscation in the name of an emergency...can order computer experts to unpurge/retrieve this registry information held in the computers of the states and the national government in a declared emergency. etc etc.
Would they? The anti gun crowd will want them to, and continue to drive their cause with hysteria and emotion; and I predict eventually make a serious run at abolishing the second amendment itself and go for total disarmament. Will these scenarios play out? They might or might not. In the meantime, the seeming reasonableness of the universal background check should be outed in it's intent, and viewed with great suspicion as a huge first step towards total gun registration- the only ultimate purpose of total gun registration being total confiscation by order or fee.

If readers think my scenarios are paranoia, or impossible, just look in the newspapers for a daily list of the laws now being proposed in our state legislatures and by cities covering not only guns, but crossbows, swords and other devices, along with fees (small at first) and storage requirements and locks etc.. The intent is there, and universal background checks for transfers of guns and other devices are going to be proposed with conditions far in excess of the present background check rules. Will reason prevail or will hysteria?

I've been wondering about the call for "universal background checks". At first glance it seems harmless and reasonable. But, consider the following: Looked up the contents of it. Federal Form EZ 4473 is what they are suggesting. The headlines and posters are not mentioning that this also covers "transfers"-not just sales. This Federal Form 4473 requires the ID of the firearm by it's description and serial number, and the names addresses and government issued ID of the transferor and transferee. The result is that within one generation, and of course incrementally as it goes along, EVERY FIREARM LEGALLY TRANSFERRED will be "registered", or at least recorded along with the transferor and transferee and their addresses and other ID info.. Make no mistake about this. The anti gun forces are pushing the universal background check idea to make sure all firearms and the names and addresses and soc sec or drivers license numbers of their owners are in one database, making outright confiscation possible and confiscation by fee a predictable event. (Example is that it now costs a resident of New York to pay a semiannual fee of somewhere around $300 -have to google this- just to have it in your house) Confiscation by fee is happening now in New York, and confiscation by fee or just outright confiscation is only a legislative decision away by governmental fiat at the whim of the Feinsteins and Bloomburgs and their ilk.

Do not be deceived by the seeming innocence or claimed reasonableness of the call for "universal background checks". It will take only a few years, and without question the passage of only one generation to have defacto registration of every legally transferred firearm in our country. Then cherry pick those for outright confiscation or just keep imposing and increasing the fees to own them and most of them will be gone to overnment smelters. And make no mistake -that is the intent.

Look up Form 4473 and see for yourself. This isn't science fiction. It is now.

Marriage is a legal term. With marriage comes a multitude of statutes in every state.
All states have laws regarding: bigamy, incest, prohibitions to marry if children are within a certain degree of affinity (as in brother and sister, not just consanguinity), inheritance rights, the right of a defendant to object to testimony of a spouse - which the spouse may invoke also (unless the spouse is the victim), adoption rules, consents to surgery or signing a 'do not resuscitate=DNR'document, living will privileges and obligations about prolonging life, laws of inheritance when someone dies intestate, income tax laws and probably a few others that in an instant I can't think of. There are probably dozens.

This isn't a comment about whether homosexuals SHOULD be able to marry. Just a reminder that in every state there are many statutes that refer to a legal marriage to define or limit certain rights or create privileges.

According to the History Channel and the Miller Directory of Guns the Schmeisser MP 43, eventually renamed the MP44 in 1944, shot a 7.92 shorter round developed for automatic fire, and was named the Sturmgewehr which is German for "assault rifle". (This design concept set the standard for almost every auto and semi auto rifle following, from the AK 47 to the M16 etc.) It is possible that some media person recently coined the term "assault weapon"; but the term "Assault Rifle" was designated as the name for the MP44 in 1944.

Yes, this is trivia.

A beauty!!

And this inmate survey is accurate? Because inmates are inherently honest about such questions?
Dump the so called "inmate survey" in the nearest landfill, as it has the value and the validity of trash. Waste of electrons.