HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » gejohnston » Journal
Page: 1


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: 17,502

Journal Archives

leading self defense lawyer and competitive shooter calls Texas Open Carry jackasses

A friend of mine sent me this. I pondered about using it, but the point of the op ed outweighs the source. While I disagree with some things and ambivalent about other opinions he expresses here, like repealing the Gun Control Act, I completly agree with the point of the op ed.
I also think that anybody engaged in the practice of “Open Carry in YOUR FACE!!!” (henceforth “OCIYF!”) is behaving like a jackass.

Actually, I think they’re worse than that, but I’m trying to keep this a family-friendly post.

What, you might ask, is “OCIYF!”? It’s an activity, usually orchestrated among multiple participants, to openly carry firearms for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention to themselves, usually by means of frightening a populace unfamiliar with the sight or practice of open carry. They typically to do this to increasing degrees until they compel action against their “OCIYF!” activities, at which point they express outrageously outraged outrage.


Oh, if case anyone is curious, it is this guy.

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.
Go to Page: 1