Got it. A court ruling that actually does the opposite of giving the gov't more control is a bad thing. And I'm the na?ve one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
[panic]
Printable View
Got it. A court ruling that actually does the opposite of giving the gov't more control is a bad thing. And I'm the na?ve one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
[panic]
Who cares. The government should have zero ability to link a gun to a purchaser. Nor should anyone need to seek permission from the government to purchase a tool specifically intended to keep government in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by battlemidget
re-reading my post, I can see where my description was confusing. I was referring to detectives and investigative elements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Attachment 91757Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
This is a one off judicial order that won't stand the test of time. (in part, because the courts logic is flawed, the practice of serializing firearms goes back more than a hundred years before it was required by law).
And it's not a victory for gun owners, it's a victory for gun thieves. Gun owners aren't going to go grinding off the serials of their guns and kill all the value of them. I challenge you to find a legitimate owner that, GCA or not, would go grinding off the serials of their Colts, Winchesters, or World War II collection.
99.9% of the time, that doesn't happen until they are stolen or intended to be used in the commission of a crime. I celebrate actual victories, this one is a massive pile of "meh". It's not a step one way or the other, it'll get overturned and the headline is dumb, rooting for it doesn't help our overall image imho (much like the left rooting for giving felons a vote from prison), but it's hardly a blip on the radar to matter either way.
Now pro-80% or home build ruling, those would be a step in the right direction.
Ok, I'm lost on your comments here to honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
This ruling (how ever short lived or ineffective) is a step away from Govt control, not towards it.
And this:
"....Next they will require a chip implant and bar code tattoo. If they don't like you, you get a brain pain device. Proposed by the Republicans and funded by the Democrats......."
I dont see how that applies here or leads to that.
But to each his own.
Oh, ok I'm following now:Quote:
Originally Posted by battlemidget
I would assume this will make things harder for them.
It's one less charge they can use against bad people, doing bad things.
But I'm also not sure how much this will affect laws Nation wide.
I'm in the "this doesn't really help us camp" though.......... since I cant see why you normally want to remove a serial.
Now if it leads to reversing the 80% nonsense ............ Great!
Though ANY court led push back we get................ I'll take.
That's kind of where I'm at. I agree that probably no one is going to run out and file off serial numbers. The point of the whole thing is a federal court judge is using logic and historical precedence to make a ruling that isn't unfavorable to gun owners. If that's the case, it's a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar77
Consider it a sort of protest ruling; it was made and written in a way to highlight concerns about the current ban on means testing. Like 'look what you are making me do, Supreme Court.'
To some extent, a win is a win. But this was more a ruling in protest versus a ruling in support.