Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Lankford cosponsored new bill re: interstate transporting of firearms
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bigfug" data-source="post: 3325512" data-attributes="member: 4864"><p>I'd ask Lanford's response. It is possible (and I am playing devils advocate here) that he is trying to define the terms of transportation, as a lot of cops (and civilians) believe that is the word of law now (almost verbatim). So people can and have been charged (mostly gangbangers when a cop is wanting to hassle them, or so I have heard, or people crossing into CA, NY, etc) for improper transportation. Improper transportation already is law, but how to legally transport is not defined. Therefore an officer can use whatever judgement or opinion he has and write the summons. By defining it, he is "protecting" us, as we can now "comply" with the law, and can no longer be "unjustly" charged because we don't have a FOID or license to buy ammo. Like right now, if I drove into CA with a case of 223 in my trunk, I'm pretty sure I am a felon. But if I were legally transporting it through, I am good. Make sense?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bigfug, post: 3325512, member: 4864"] I'd ask Lanford's response. It is possible (and I am playing devils advocate here) that he is trying to define the terms of transportation, as a lot of cops (and civilians) believe that is the word of law now (almost verbatim). So people can and have been charged (mostly gangbangers when a cop is wanting to hassle them, or so I have heard, or people crossing into CA, NY, etc) for improper transportation. Improper transportation already is law, but how to legally transport is not defined. Therefore an officer can use whatever judgement or opinion he has and write the summons. By defining it, he is "protecting" us, as we can now "comply" with the law, and can no longer be "unjustly" charged because we don't have a FOID or license to buy ammo. Like right now, if I drove into CA with a case of 223 in my trunk, I'm pretty sure I am a felon. But if I were legally transporting it through, I am good. Make sense? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Lankford cosponsored new bill re: interstate transporting of firearms
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom