Originally Posted By freethepeople:

Originally Posted By DanTSX:

Originally Posted By LibertarianYankee:

Originally Posted By DanTSX:

Judges will now determine if something is legal or not.





Which means you have to get arrested and pay legal fees just to test the waters. And only your particular model is ruled on. There's tons of guns. Do the math. Lot's of potential arrests.



Basically - shoot first ask questions later.



The state has nothing to gain by advising and everything to lose.



If they mistakenly state something is legal, then it's hard to bring you up on charges for it. Especially if you have proof of a conversation you had with the state official regarding particular firearms(s). Worst case scenario is charges are dropped and they update the list later if they change their minds. But you walk away free. Maybe they allow another grace period for people with firearm X (like was done for the .22lr AWs).



If they mistakenly state something is illegal, then less arrests will take place because in general, law abiding folks abide by the law. Less people purchasing deadly assault weapons so less people to charge. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if NO ONE got busted after a year of the law in place rolls around?



Why WOULD they comment? It only hurts them to. Which reaffirms the notion that the elites and those that do their bidding don't give a fuck about all your "redneck fantasies of shooting school children and urban youth (ermm.... "deer") with your 30 capacity high powered automatic magazine bullet clips". They want power.



Oh yeah, and thought I'd mention a phrase used a lot in IT: "security through obscurity". Out of its normal context, but has an ironic meaning in this one.... Which means you have to get arrested and pay legal fees just to test the waters. And only your particular model is ruled on. There's tons of guns. Do the math. Lot's of potential arrests.Basically - shoot first ask questions later.The state has nothing to gain by advising and everything to lose.If they mistakenly state something is legal, then it's hard to bring you up on charges for it. Especially if you have proof of a conversation you had with the state official regarding particular firearms(s). Worst case scenario is charges are dropped and they update the list later if they change their minds. But you walk away free. Maybe they allow another grace period for people with firearm X (like was done for the .22lr AWs).If they mistakenly state something is illegal, then less arrests will take place because in general, law abiding folks abide by the law. Less people purchasing deadly assault weapons so less people to charge. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if NO ONE got busted after a year of the law in place rolls around?Why WOULD they comment? It only hurts them to. Which reaffirms the notion that the elites and those that do their bidding don't give a fuck about all your "redneck fantasies of shooting school children and urban youth (ermm.... "deer") with your 30 capacity high powered automatic magazine bullet clips". They want power.Oh yeah, and thought I'd mention a phrase used a lot in IT: "security through obscurity". Out of its normal context, but has an ironic meaning in this one....



you got it.



I don't think it has to do so much with an anti-gun attitude at DPSS, but rather that there are 1. too many questions coming to them. 2. they are not prepared to answer them. 3. their in-house legal advice is therefore advising them to refrain on the matter while we engage in what is essentially a "loophole mining" exercise, and attempting to use DPSS's firearms unit as the gatekeeper.



So I am really not understanding the out rage here, event though I understand your frustrations. you got it.I don't think it has to do so much with an anti-gun attitude at DPSS, but rather that there are 1. too many questions coming to them. 2. they are not prepared to answer them. 3. their in-house legal advice is therefore advising them to refrain on the matter while we engage in what is essentially a "loophole mining" exercise, and attempting to use DPSS's firearms unit as the gatekeeper.So I am really not understanding the out rage here, event though I understand your frustrations.



everything you said is right, but I think the bottom line is that this is the law of the land now, and they cant enforce it, this is all things that should have already been in place. I feel like Hartford just signed the paper and then patted themselves on the back "whelp its a law now" and obviously didnt even think about how its gonna effect all the government employees in charge of this type of thing.

everything you said is right, but I think the bottom line is that this is the law of the land now, and they cant enforce it, this is all things that should have already been in place. I feel like Hartford just signed the paper and then patted themselves on the back "whelp its a law now" and obviously didnt even think about how its gonna effect all the government employees in charge of this type of thing.



They should at least be able to do it for manufacturers like stag. Similar to the ATF tech branch, but that obviously results in it's own level of beurocacy and work.



I can understand them not wanting to make a decision on the various AIDS cannons we come up with here. They should at least be able to do it for manufacturers like stag. Similar to the ATF tech branch, but that obviously results in it's own level of beurocacy and work.I can understand them not wanting to make a decision on the various AIDS cannons we come up with here.