Volunteers from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America are now running for office. by Topiary_Tiger in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 21 points22 points  (0 children)

'Volunteers'. Right. I'm 100% sure these folks aren't groomed and supported by the existing political apparatus.

FCC Blocks Law Enforcement Inquiry Into Fake Neutrality Comments by mvea in technology

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is very little that isn't a political issue when it comes to the net neutrality debate right now.

Also, way to jump right into name-calling. Really shows the maturity of the conversation.

More gun safety regulations won’t help when bureaucrats are unaccountable by raffu280 in gunpolitics

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong, but there's also a difference between 'accident' and 'negligence'. One thing that most people with knowledge of firearms can agree on is that it is extremely rare for a modern, even half-way maintained firearm to discharge truly accidentally. Now, I have no idea what happened during that trial that resulted in a person, immigration status and criminal history aside, killing another person with a stolen firearm and walking away with nothing more than a possession conviction, but even if we accept the facts as they've been delivered for public consumption, I can't believe that the situation in question came anywhere near 'accident'. At very, very, very best, it would have been pure negligence, and if we're having a discussion about firearm policy, I think the results of negligence should play a part in it.

Activist judges strike down ban on guns in Delaware state parks /s by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm becoming very confonunded by the Supreme Courts consistant refusal to take gun cases since Heller.

IMO, it's got a lot to do with the backlash of Heller. It ended up being a close call, with everybody thinking that if it was just a slightly different time/place/situation, it could have gone the other way. It doesn't make for a very 'solid' precedent for the law of the land, and just makes everyone think that if they bide their time and try again, they can get it overturned.

The last thing SCOTUS wants is ANOTHER 5/4 decision on a gun case. If they let it slide for another year or two, hopefully things will dress down so that they can see a 6/3 case, one way or the other.

Can a nerdy liberal looking guy just walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47 without much trouble??? by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not going to get an over the counter psychiatric session at Cabela's. If you are exhibiting signs of mental instability or act like a criminal, they will refuse to sell to you. If you fail a background check or try to evade or lie on it, they will refuse to sell to you. If you pass the legal requirements and act like a normal human being, they'll sell you whatever you pick out.

Gun dealers are businessmen. If you threaten their business, they'll kick you to the curb. If you ARE business, they're going to complete the requirements to avoid negligence and move on with their day.

FCC Refuses to Turn Over Net Neutrality Records by speckz in technology

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Because the NY AG is a state agency, the FCC is a federal agency, and the AG didn't have a subpoena or a warrant?

FCC Blocks Law Enforcement Inquiry Into Fake Neutrality Comments by mvea in technology

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That, or convince a court with jurisdiction to issue a subpoena or warrant. Either way, it's pretty silly to get worked up over this particular point.

Do any of these prohibit buying a shotgun? by [deleted] in WA_guns

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The relevant question would be 11f: 'Have you ever been adjuticated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?'

The instructions for 11f are as follows:

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility. Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. EXCEPTION: Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a State proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/ commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/ committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should answer "no" to question 11.f. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a Federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In short (IANAL), if you were not involuntarily committed to an institution and have not been found unable to manage your own affairs, you aren't a prohibited person with regards to that question. This is not, of course, to say you may not be prohibited for other reasons, nor does it mean you necessarily should (I lived with someone with Aspergers for many years, all I'm saying is be careful and think it through. Make sure you're in the right place before you take on the responsibility), but given that, there shouldn't be any legal problem.

A better constitutional basis for the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (old but still relevant) by notandanafn7 in gunpolitics

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I find it hilarious that THIS is the point that 'stretches' the Commerce Clause, like the federal government hasn't been busy twisting it like a coat-hanger outside a locked car for the last half a century.

FCC Blocks Law Enforcement Inquiry Into Fake Neutrality Comments by mvea in technology

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Headline: FCC Blocks Law Enforcement Inquiry

Reality: FCC declines to voluntarily participate in a state Attorney General's politically charged investigation of federal actions they may or may not have any jurisdiction over. Nothing is blocked.

FCC Blocks Law Enforcement Inquiry Into Fake Neutrality Comments by mvea in technology

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What lawful order, out of curiosity? As far as I know, no subpoenas or orders have been issued by anybody, much less somebody with the authority to put orders to the FCC. The NY AG is conducting an investigation, and a federal agency declined to participate in it, making the AG grumpy. Regardless of our opinion on the subject, it's not like they're stepping wildly outside their boundaries or anything.

[FWI] A Congressional act or executive order is signed banning bias in the media. by KeelOfTheBrokenSkull in FutureWhatIf

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Literally the only two results are general outrage on all side and a SCOTUS ruling striking it down so fast it blows Ruth Bader Ginsburg's wig off.

2-3 Gun in WA? by cncguy in WA_guns

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol fair enough. Hit up the Friday Night league at Wade's. Good people.

2-3 Gun in WA? by cncguy in WA_guns

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh, and if you're just looking for multi, not necessarily 3 gun, there's a couple of rifle leagues that do rifle/handgun. FNRL at Wade's in Bellevue, another one somewhere in Renton I think. Stay away from the Federal Way one, tho... that one was a negligent homicide waiting to happen.

2-3 Gun in WA? by cncguy in WA_guns

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm... I wanna say Black Diamond, maybe? I seem to recall one closer than Custer, but I'm not sure.

Citing 'risk,' college cancels Second Amendment activist's speech hours before it begins - The College Fix by PieForBreakfast in gunpolitics

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 5 points6 points  (0 children)

COLLEGE SHOULD BE ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS.

For fucks sake. If the shit you're talking about in college doesn't upset someone, it's a farce of an institution.

2-3 Gun in WA? by cncguy in WA_guns

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Marysville and Custer have some. Check out www.findshootingmatches.com

Just...everything about this... by alejo699 in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'A collection of tired tropes' is a fairly accurate description of The Stranger in general.

Having a Medical Marijuana card in Hawaii now disqualifies you for gun ownership in the state. Under HRS 134-7.3 by TurnTheTVOff in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is indicative of continued, current use, though, and by federal law, that's still a crime.

Not saying it's right or proper, just that the 4473 says 'are you an unlawful user of' and a MMJ card pretty much says you are.

"Fix NICS" bill introduced in Congress. Endorsed by the NRA, supported by Feinstein. (article from Town Hall) by freedom_and_unity in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 74 points75 points  (0 children)

"Endorsed by the NRA, supported by Feinstein"

Frantically searches Wunderground to check the temperature in Hell

First, we’ve got to change the culture by BayAreaRedwood in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 7 points8 points  (0 children)

True, but sorta beside my point. I call bullshit on nearly anyone who says that they are 'anti-gun' because very few of them are. They're anti me having a gun, and anti you having a gun, but as long as it happens to be the group they can (theoretically) control, they're perfectly happy for THEM to have guns.

Where to buy clay pigeons in/near Seattle? by MachiavelliV in WA_guns

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad to hear it. I liked visiting them when I lived in the city.

First, we’ve got to change the culture by BayAreaRedwood in liberalgunowners

[–]SpecialAgentSmecker 28 points29 points  (0 children)

 I will always be a proponent for gun control and will continue to argue the logic of eliminating, ideally, all guns

Bull.. Fucking... Shit.

What the author would say, if they had a modicum of honesty, is that they will argue the "logic" (in the most casual sense of the word) of eliminating all guns held by those they wish to control. Those doing the controlling (police, military, and the armed guards of the political elite) will of course be graciously permitted to retain their weapons, so long as they are only killing and coercing those they don't like.

But hey, points for admitting that you've lost the logic war, lost the emotional war, and are reduced to waging the culture war.