|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,520
Posts545,763
Members14,419
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 49 |
I have purchased a gun from Cabela's in Northern Ilinois using my C&R without any issues. I was told however that the specific gun must be listed in the printed ATF C&R list. Just my experience.
Vince
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7 |
... I also don't know why you folks from places like California and New Jersey haven't bombarded the BATF and your Congressmen with complaints of their refusing to abide by C&R requirements....
Jim As someone who once spent a couple hours in someone's living room listening to Senator Lautenberg (look up his stance on gun control sometime) talk about stuff (mostly about how great he is/was and why his being a senator was a reflection of the natural order of the universe), and who lived in NJ longer than anyone should be required to, I can tell you a couple things about talking to those pols - and that applies to pols of all parties (it's a matter of degree, not difference). 1. If you complain that the rules they've imposed on possessing and buying guns are too onerous, they'll smile, tell you it's for everyone's good, and complement themselves that things are working as intended. Talking to them is a waste of time. Their minds, such as they are, are made up and nothing will change them. 2. Pols in NJ regularly make pronouncements about how they want to further restrict guns, usually in the aftermath of some knucklehead doing something dumb or out of anger. They get big applause for this. They take that to mean they're right. 3. I sat on a grand jury once, and there were more than a couple people who'd almost beg for more charges to pile on a defendant if the word "gun" was even mentioned in the testimony. That's how thoroughly they were propagandized. 4. If you want to get a purchaser's card, you pretty much have to sign away all your rights, such that the police can come in and poke through your life and house any time for any reason or no reason at all. Best thing to do: move to another state.
fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
... I also don't know why you folks from places like California and New Jersey haven't bombarded the BATF and your Congressmen with complaints of their refusing to abide by C&R requirements....
Jim As someone who once spent a couple hours in someone's living room listening to Senator Lautenberg (look up his stance on gun control sometime) talk about stuff (mostly about how great he is/was and why his being a senator was a reflection of the natural order of the universe), and who lived in NJ longer than anyone should be required to, I can tell you a couple things about talking to those pols - and that applies to pols of all parties (it's a matter of degree, not difference). 1. If you complain that the rules they've imposed on possessing and buying guns are too onerous, they'll smile, tell you it's for everyone's good, and complement themselves that things are working as intended. Talking to them is a waste of time. Their minds, such as they are, are made up and nothing will change them. 2. Pols in NJ regularly make pronouncements about how they want to further restrict guns, usually in the aftermath of some knucklehead doing something dumb or out of anger. They get big applause for this. They take that to mean they're right. 3. I sat on a grand jury once, and there were more than a couple people who'd almost beg for more charges to pile on a defendant if the word "gun" was even mentioned in the testimony. That's how thoroughly they were propagandized. 4. If you want to get a purchaser's card, you pretty much have to sign away all your rights, such that the police can come in and poke through your life and house any time for any reason or no reason at all. Best thing to do: move to another state. Your last line makes the most sense of your post and that's exactly what I did 16 years ago. Arizona doesn't abide by any of the B.S. you've outlined in your post and we intend to keep it that way. Jim
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16 |
Jim,
I'd like to think you're right, but with more and more people in the urban sprawl of Phoenix-Tucson area, and the fact than many are young, the liberals are making inroads in AZ. There's just a handful of points advantage to the Republican party.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292 |
Jim:
Arizona has already changed for the worse...That is why we left after nearly 30 years in AZ......
I went to college at Arizona State in the early 60's and you would not recognize Arizona today in comparison to how "Arizona used to be"....the midwest-eastern liberals, with Illinois leading the surge (according to the state statistics) have flooded Arizona and brought with them the mindset and habits that they wanted to get away from, how many times have you heard "back home we used to do it this way".....What used to be a wonderful conservative state, is no more......
This is how someone as stupid and liberal as Napalitano was elected........
These American immigrants brought with them their voting habits from when they were back in "their home state"......as we used to say, 'Snowbirds don't tan, they Rust'..........and "Welcome to Arizona, now go home"....these snow birds would come out, spend a winter or two, then decide to permanently move to Arizona......THE REST IS HISTORY MY FRIEND............Basically Florida 101.......
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
Jim:
Arizona has already changed for the worse...That is why we left after nearly 30 years in AZ......
I went to college at Arizona State in the early 60's and you would not recognize Arizona today in comparison to how "Arizona used to be"....the midwest-eastern liberals, with Illinois leading the surge (according to the state statistics) have flooded Arizona and brought with them the mindset and habits that they wanted to get away from, how many times have you heard "back home we used to do it this way".....What used to be a wonderful conservative state, is no more......
This is how someone as stupid and liberal as Napalitano was elected........
These American immigrants brought with them their voting habits from when they were back in "their home state"......as we used to say, 'Snowbirds don't tan, they Rust'..........and "Welcome to Arizona, now go home"....these snow birds would come out, spend a winter or two, then decide to permanently move to Arizona......THE REST IS HISTORY MY FRIEND............Basically Florida 101.......
Doug: I relocated here(Yes from Illinois) 16 years ago. I lived there after being born and raised in Massachusetts. All I can do is compare Arizona with those two liberal hellholes where I once resided. Arizona is a breath of fresh air compared to those stinkers. I understand what you're saying in regard to liberal relocators and some of my neighbors of that persuasion have taken strong exception to my collecting interests. The worse ones I encountered moved here from California. In many cases they're on their way back as they bought there houses at the peak of the housing boom and are now seriously underwater or being forclosed on. Napolabimbo got elected due to the fall out from Symington's activies who preceded her as Governor. She's pretty dense but also devious and believed to be up to her neck in the Fast and Furious scandal right along with Holder. The bottom line is there may be better States to live in but I haven't found one and I don't personally know of many conservatives who are ready to give up here. Jim
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 123
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 123 |
Thank you very much Mike! You clarified my questions for me.
Best,
David
David
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 580
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 580 |
Back on Topic....
I have never seen the answer to the question of the C&R License is this a "may" or a "shall" issue?
What I mean is that CC laws are written as "shall" issue a permit or "may" issue a permit. Hawaii is "may" issue, and using that has not issued a CC permit in over 15 years. Is an 01FFL obligated to sell a C&R gun to a C&R holder? Or are they, like bar owners, able to refuse service to anybody for any reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,345 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,345 Likes: 391 |
I recently ran into a similar situation when I bought an 1888 vintage Lefever 10 gauge. The seller wanted an FFL copy for transfer. I pointed out to him that the gun was a pre-1899 antique and e-mailed him a copy of the law pertaining to antique guns from the ATF website. He called his ATF contact and was told that it is true that pre-1899 guns do not require transfer EXCEPT in the case of antiques for which commercially loaded ammo is still readily available.
I again tried to explain that the exemption the ATF guy quoted only pertained to REPLICAS of Antiques. I vainly tried to explain that an original Sharps rifle would be an Antique that did not require FFL transfer, but that a replica Sharps in the same caliber would require transfer. He was not deterred, and told me that this ATF contact "is the guy who can pull my license, so I'm going to do what he says." I had to bite the bullet and send him an FFL copy which created further expense and hassle.
If there was indeed and exemption to Antique status for guns which are chambered for readily available ammo, that would disqualify virtually everything, since companies like Old Western Scrounger supply ammo for almost anything.
My local FFL dealer ran the same question past his contact at the nearest ATF Field Office, and was told that if the receiver was made prior to 1899, it's an Antique, and no FFL transfer is required. Plain and simple.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7 |
Seems like it would be a hell of a lot simpler for all involved if the ATF would write the regs as simply as they told your friend's contact, i.e., if the receiver was made prior to 1899, it's an antique. Pretty much everyone can understand that.
fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
|
|
|
|
|
