In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
What am I missing here?
jev1969
Member Posts: 2,691
Don't know if this is legal to do but if not I'm sure I'll get poofed.....
what am I missing here, this seems like a pretty good value at this price and from what I've seen while shopping for an AR???? Anything I'm overlooking that is obvious to you "Experts" in ARs???? I know it may get crazy at the end but no action so far seems a bit strange to me? I'm a serious buyer for an AR, just can't make up my mind and can't learn enough about features and styles and models and makes and.....etc etc etc but looks good to my dumb eyes????
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=94691928
what am I missing here, this seems like a pretty good value at this price and from what I've seen while shopping for an AR???? Anything I'm overlooking that is obvious to you "Experts" in ARs???? I know it may get crazy at the end but no action so far seems a bit strange to me? I'm a serious buyer for an AR, just can't make up my mind and can't learn enough about features and styles and models and makes and.....etc etc etc but looks good to my dumb eyes????
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=94691928
Comments
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=269097911
There are a couple of others up there in that range but they are either engraved or Limited Edition Guns. So am I missing something or is this guy just looking for one of the buyers PT Barnum was referring to?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=130972369
by Don Schwarz
CHAPMAN v. HOUSTON WELFARE RIGHTS ORG., 441 U.S. 600 (1979)
441 US 600, 613
In that sense all federal rights, whether created by treaty, by statute, or by regulation, are "secured" by the Supremacy Clause. }
THE Gun Control Act OF 1968
One section of law says that firearms can only be sold in compliance with state law, while another sections says that no state shall enact laws the are in direct and positive conflict with federal law on the subject of firearms, such that both cannot stand together.
The state law cannot impede or burden the federal law when the state law is applied.
Which section of the Act of Congress controls; the one that says that all State laws must be obeyed regarding firearms, or the section that says that State laws shall not conflict with federal law in the field of firearms?
To Wit:
"It shall be unlawful for any license importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery, or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance" [ 18 USC ?922 (b)(2)] See: US v Decker, 335 F. Supp. 1168 (1970), affirmed, 446 F. 2d 164 (8 th Cir. 1971), and Service Arms Co. v US, 463 F. Supp. 21 (W.D. Okla. 1978) } page xvii, "State laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms" ATF P 5300.5
but then you read.........................
"No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of a State on the same subject matter, UNLESS there is direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together." page 26,Title 18 USC Sec. 927 "Effect on State law", ATF P 5300.4 (01-00)
What the law says above, is that Congress has no intent of operating in the field of firearms amongst the States, unless, the State laws on firearms, are in direct and positive conflict with federal law, such, that federal law is defeated by the State law in the field of firearms. If federal law sets the minimum standard of firearm possession, and the State enacts laws that conflict with the federal standards, then the federal standards will rule.
But the US Supreme Court said this about the Gun Control Act of 1968 citing the intent of Congress as stated by Senator LONG
UNITED STATES v. BASS, 404 U.S. 336 (1971)
{"404 US 336, 353
5. Senator Long's explanatory comments reveal clearly the purpose, the intent, and the extent of the legislation:
"I have prepared an amendment which I will offer at an appropriate time, simply setting forth the fact that anybody who has been convicted of a felony . . . is not permitted to possess a firearm . . . .
"It might be well to analyze, for a moment, the logic involved. When a man has been convicted of a felony, unless - as this bill sets forth - he has been expressly pardoned by the President and the pardon states that the person is to be permitted to possess firearms in the future, that man would have no right [404 U.S. 336, 354] to possess firearms. He would be punished criminally if he is found in possession of them." 114 Cong. Rec. 13868 (emphasis supplied).
"What the amendment seeks to do is to make it unlawful for a firearm - be it a handgun, a machinegun, a long-range rifle, or any kind of firearm - to be in the possession of a convicted felon who has not been pardoned and who has therefore lost his right to possess firearms. . . . It also relates to the transportation of firearms.
"Clauses 1-5 describe persons who, by their actions, have demonstrated that they are dangerous, or that they may become dangerous. Stated simply, they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society. This title would apply both to hand guns and to long guns.
"So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and has been expressly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm.
". . . The important point is that this legislation demonstrates that possession of a deadly weapon by the wrong people can be controlled by Congress, without regard to where the police power resides under the Constitution.
"Without question, the Federal Government does have power to control possession of weapons where such possession could become a threat to interstate commerce . . . .
"Nor would Title VII impinge upon the rights of citizens generally to possess firearms for legitimate and lawful purposes. It deals solely with those [404 U.S. 336, 356] who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to possess a firearm - those whose prior acts - mostly voluntary - have placed them outside of our society. . . .
. . . . .
". . . I am convinced that we have enough constitutional power to prohibit these categories of people from possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm. . . . }}}
"""Nor would Title VII impinge upon the rights of citizens generally to possess firearms for legitimate and lawful purposes.""""
How can you possess a firearm to comply with the intent of Senator LONG for legitimate and lawful purposes, should a state enact a law that inhibits and impedes the intent of Congress and it not be the case, that the State law must recede?
If you can fill out an ATF FORM 4473, why do you have to comply with any state law regarding firearms, such, that the State laws would be in "direct and positive conflict" with federal law, such, that you couldn't possess a firearm in a State, unless you also purchase a State Firearm License to possess the firearm? Which "LAW" is LAW ---- 18 USC ? 922 (b)(2) or 18 USC ? 927?
Does 922 control, or 927 control? Does Federal law control, or does State law control? Does the intent of Congress control, or does theoretically enacted state gun laws control? Do lawful Americans get to possess a firearm if they can fill out the ATF FORM 4473, or do lawful Americans get denied because they are not "suitable persons" under an undefined Massachusetts law and are not issued a License to Carry which makes them "prohibited" under 922, but they are not prohibited under 927?
A Massachusetts citizens CAN POSSESS under federal law, but is denied under State law, but federal law under 927, says that State law cannot conflict with federal law.
Is it, that a lawful American can only possess a firearm, if they are in compliance with every State law and published ordinance, such that those State laws and published ordinances under 922, are in compliance with 927?
How can any of the above stand together without being in direct and positive conflict?
How do you obey two masters? Which Master is Master?
Is our right to possess firearms secured under the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution by the Gun Control Act of 1968, or is this "federally secured right" to be infringed by the States?
Is the Supreme Court wrong in : CHAPMAN?
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
Article IV US Constitution
Under the Act of Congress of May 1790, Congress commanded the states to honor those state public acts, evidenced by the state seal being thereon. This authority given to Congress is under Article IV, and Article VI of the Constitution.
The issuance of a firearm license by a state, is a "public Act".
As this is true, then as long as you have an official state seal on your firearm license, and because of the authority of Title 18 USC Sec. 927, you will be lawfully able to carry your firearms in other states, as you do in your own home state.
So please, someone tell me what it is I don't understand about the INTENT of Congress regarding the Gun Control act of 1968 in relation to mere state laws on firearms as clearly stated by Senator LONG?
If Congress can control who cannot be in possession of a deadly weapon - in any State - Congress also can control who CAN BE IN POSSESSION of same, without regards to any opposing state law!
How can Congress have the power to deny to certain prohibited people the right to possess a firearm, then the States come along, and then make those who ARE NOT DENIED under federal law, obligated to obtain a permission slip from the state to possess that which THEY ARE NOT DENIED, under Federal law?
Send your comments: comments@armedfemales.com
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/featuredwriter/missing.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
everyone loves the short barreled colts.
Here is a bright stainless snub nose cobra. I don't know what his reserve will be but cleaned up it should be worth more than the other one anyday.
The nice thing about bright stainless is, they can be polished back to like new condition.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=269656005
I have a .357 King Cobra and wanted to see what they were going for and ran accross this one:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=269097911
There are a couple of others up there in that range but they are either engraved or Limited Edition Guns. So am I missing something or is this guy just looking for one of the buyers PT Barnum was referring to?
...isn't the 'N', of 'KING' screwed up,, ??? guess that makes it rare