HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » gejohnston » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Rock Springs, Wyoming
Current location: Sweetwater County, Wyoming & Citrus County, Florida
Member since: Mon Aug 7, 2006, 12:19 AM
Number of posts: 15,602

Journal Archives

Mark Glaze compares Armatix pistol with Diebold voting machines

On Monday night's All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, New Jersey State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg joined Hayes to discuss "smart gun" legislation she helped pass in her state. But it was the curious assertion by a supporter of the technology, claiming that electronic voting machines are now "fool-proof", which kinda just blew my mind.

Mark Glaze, spokesman for Everytown for Gun Safety, a group which, according to its website "brings together survivors of gun violence to share their stories and advocate for laws that will prevent future tragedies," said twice during the conversation, that e-voting systems are now "fool-proof."

While there were once concerns about e-voting systems, he said (see his full remarks below), those worries have now been assuaged thanks to "public and private partnerships at both the federal and state level that guaranteed that these machines were fool-proof"


In 2006 Armatix filed a patent for a "kill switch". German-English translation by Google Translate.

Did the ATF create a loophole in the Hughes Amendment?

here is the paragraph
Because unincorporated trusts are not “persons” under the GCA, a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) cannot transfer firearms to them without complying with the GCA. Thus, when an FFL transfers an NFA firearm to a trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust, the transfer is made to this person as an individual (i.e., not as a trust). As the trustee or other person acting on behalf of the trust is not the approved transferee under the NFA, 18 U.S.C. 5812, the trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust must undergo a NICS check. The individual must also be a resident of the same State as the FFL when receiving the firearm.

So, basically they want a NICS check on anyone who picks up the machine gun for an NFA trust. Sounds reasonable, I'm OK with that.
the amended part of the Gun Control Act
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

So, the ATF is claiming that a unincorporated trust is not a person, and the Hughs Amendment says "no person"

The writer's point:
In turning to the National Firearms Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 5801, et seq., we find that a “person” is defined as including a trust, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7701. Yet, there exists no 922(o)esque provision in Section 5801, et seq.

Therefore, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 5822, an unincorporated trust may lawfully transfer and make machineguns, as it is not a “person” for purposes of the GCA and Section 922 only applies to “persons” as defined by the GCA. And yes, this opens up a lot more issues for ATF in relation to the purchase of firearms by trusts under the GCA. Someone isn’t likely to be employed much longer…

So, the Hughes Amendment seems to apply to "persons" as defined by the GCA, which don't include trusts according to ATF lawyers. But, trusts are people under the NFA, which was not amended by the Hughes Amendment.


I find it interesting and amusing, but I don't claim to be a lawyer, so any lawyers out there???????????????

SYG debate at UC Berkley

My observations: I was a little surprised how few people knew that California is a SYG state; Sunny Hostin's intellect is on par with Sara Palin's and she lost the bet and became the subject of a Downfall parody; Hostin's debate partner didn't seem prepared either.

The whole thing is about 97 minutes.

What does this quote mean to you?

I found it on a Canadian gun rights website while looking for something else. I have no idea who this Jeff Snyder is, other than he wrote an essay that can be purchased on Amazon, and seems to be obscure enough that this individual with that name doesn't come up in the first several listings and any search engine I tried. I actually don't care who he is because I am only interested in the specific quote.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994

Inside San Jose's Tent City

Messed up and wrong is an understatement.

worst mass murder in Calgary's history

What Calgary police chief Rick Hanson called the "worst mass murder" in the city’s history didn’t end at the barrel of a gun.

Instead, the 22-year-old suspect identified on Tuesday as Matthew de Grood is accused of entering the kitchen at a house party, taking “a large knife” and using it to fatally stab four men and one woman, all of whom were students in their 20s.

"I call it moral panic,” said Janne Holmgren, director for the Centre for Criminology and Justice Research at Mount Royal University. “Sometimes fear drives a lot of legislation, unfortunately.”
Holmgren, the criminology professor with Mount Royal, agreed that anything can become a weapon if placed in the wrong hands.

Even Statistics Canada lumped other cutting instruments such as broken bottles, screwdrivers and scissors into the “knife” category.

“Instead of focusing so much on the weapons issue being used, maybe a better way to look at it is to think about addiction issues, alcoholism, drug abuse. That’s what drives crimes,” Holmgren said. “It’s not your drawer of knives.”


My question is: why are mass murders outside the US rarely reported here, even though ours are in every paper in the world. Also, why are mass murder by firearm front page news, but other means are on page five below the fold?

I wonder how I can get one? Perfect for Wyoming winds.

We might be seeing wind turbines in the skies instead of fields soon. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology startup has come up with a new type of floating turbine that's more efficient — and can deliver power and WiFi connectivity to remote areas.
The invention could have a major impact in places like Alaska, with vast swaths of land that are off the grid, and without traditional sources of power and internet access.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/altaeros-energies-wind-turbine-is-also-a-wifi-hotspot-2014-4#ixzz2yXyJ4pcE

How can we encourage safe storage?

How can we get people to move their guns from those pretty wood and glass cabinets to safes? It isn't just about small children finding a loaded one, although 62 per year are 62 too many, the larger issue is this:
Most crime guns enter the black market through theft. according to the, rather old, Wright-Rossi study, five out of six. That was before NICS. That is also the main reason most countries have safe storage laws.


If you could buy the Cleveland baseball team, or the

DC NFL team, what would you change their names to?

Why did gangs rarely use guns before the Gun Control Act?

Miller's (1992) study indicated that gangs had become more dangerous than ever in the 1970's. He attributed this to four major motives: honor, defense of local turf, control , and gain . In the 1970's, "gang crime was more lethal than any time in history; more people were shot, stabbed, and beaten to death in gang-related incidents than during any previous decade . . . and the prevalence and sophistication of firearms used was unprecedented" (Miller, 1992:142).

Of course, my question is "why didn't they use them until then?" It couldn't be about access. until the Gun Conrol Act,all they needed was a Sears catalog and a money order. If they were in New York, they just needed a PO box in CT, or one of the many "undocumented pharmacies" to do it for them. Where I grew up, guns were, and are, in about 55-70 percent of the households. Yet when the cops had their "scare straight board" they would bring to health class in the 1970s they not only brought examples of various drugs and paraphernalia, but also confiscated weapons. Other than a rifle and shotgun that got the hacksaw treatment, the were knives and improvised medieval melee weapons. Which begs the question, why make a mace when you can rip off Mom's .38?
Was it because they wanted guns, but could not afford them?
Was it because guns were for "wusses", kind of like the criminal element in the UK even before UK had any gun control laws? (Starboard Tack referred to this as "the rules")
Was it because guns were associated with cops, outdoors people, and the "squares" in rifle club, while the King Bad Ass in the movies had switchblades and homemade zip guns?

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »