No one has turned in bump stocks in NJ after ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

They weren't law breakers until they were legislated into being criminals.

Perfectly legal one day, a would-be felon at the stroke of midnight.


That's not a criminal. That's someone victimized by a politician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

They weren't law breakers until they were legislated into being criminals.

Perfectly legal one day, a would-be felon at the stroke of midnight.


That's not a criminal. That's someone victimized by a politician.

No, that’s a criminal who thinks he is above the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

They weren't law breakers until they were legislated into being criminals.

Perfectly legal one day, a would-be felon at the stroke of midnight.


That's not a criminal. That's someone victimized by a politician.

No, that’s a criminal who thinks he is above the law.

So I'm sure you would agree then that Rosa Parks was a criminal because she refused to sit in the back of the bus, as required by law, right?

Or that Jews were dutifully required to get on the trains, because after all, it iz zee law!


So they were criminals too, right? Just acting like they were above the law, right?

[Anonymous]

Classic example of why we should NOT comply:

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/california-farmer-charged-with-12-felonies-after-trying-to-register-his-guns-KaYA9xPcY0eSpeNnNm6PCw/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Classic example of why we should NOT comply:

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/california-farmer-charged-with-12-felonies-after-trying-to-register-his-guns-KaYA9xPcY0eSpeNnNm6PCw/

He was in possession of what are alleged to be illegally modified assault rifles (flash suppressors) and silencers, as well as banned types of ammo. Boo f*cking boo. His daddy did grow some of California’s finest grapes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

+1

Criminals who shouldn't have fire arms.

Good point. Getting caught with a bump stock should ban the criminal from future gun ownership. Dangerous known lawbreakers should not be armed.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jajajajajaja time to go door to door.

Super excited to see the police engagement of American citizens to collect these illegal devices.

Totally worth it.

Of course the thousand of illegal guns criminals use to commit crimes won’t be taken. The criminals aren’t giving up their illegal guns.

But bump stocks? Go get ‘em, boys.

Gun owners like to talk about how they are law abiding citizen but apparently not in this case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic example of why we should NOT comply:

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/california-farmer-charged-with-12-felonies-after-trying-to-register-his-guns-KaYA9xPcY0eSpeNnNm6PCw/

He was in possession of what are alleged to be illegally modified assault rifles (flash suppressors) and silencers, as well as banned types of ammo. Boo f*cking boo. His daddy did grow some of California’s finest grapes.

He was an FFL and a Class II / 07 SOT. Basically a firearms dealer and licensed manufacturer. The suppressors were law enforcement sales samples, and the "modified" AR15 was simply an ordinary AR15 that didn't have a CA-required bullet button device installed. But the rifle in question may have been a law enforcement sales sample, which doesn't require the CA-required modification.

The whole thing may end up being merely a paperwork mix up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

+1

Criminals who shouldn't have fire arms.

Good point. Getting caught with a bump stock should ban the criminal from future gun ownership. Dangerous known lawbreakers should not be armed.

+1

Well, lots of us are armed already and we're going to stay that way, regardless of whatever ex-post facto laws you try and foist upon us. So you have two options: leave us alone, or start trouble. Personally, I think (and hope) that you should choose the former rather than the latter.

Because the latter means you think you'll be sending others out to kick down the doors of people you don't like, who won't comply with your unconstitutional laws. You won't do it yourself, because you're a coward. But you'll pay others to do it for you. And consequently, you'll get some of them hurt or killed while they're out killing people like those you don't like. Eventually, some of those who haven't had their doors kicked in yet, or are related to victims who have, are going to start getting proactive, and taking that fight back to the people who egged on the door kicking in the first place.

That's how civil wars get started.


So please, leave us alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

+1

Criminals who shouldn't have fire arms.

Good point. Getting caught with a bump stock should ban the criminal from future gun ownership. Dangerous known lawbreakers should not be armed.

+1

Well, lots of us are armed already and we're going to stay that way, regardless of whatever ex-post facto laws you try and foist upon us. So you have two options: leave us alone, or start trouble. Personally, I think (and hope) that you should choose the former rather than the latter.

Because the latter means you think you'll be sending others out to kick down the doors of people you don't like, who won't comply with your unconstitutional laws. You won't do it yourself, because you're a coward. But you'll pay others to do it for you. And consequently, you'll get some of them hurt or killed while they're out killing people like those you don't like. Eventually, some of those who haven't had their doors kicked in yet, or are related to victims who have, are going to start getting proactive, and taking that fight back to the people who egged on the door kicking in the first place.

That's how civil wars get started.


So please, leave us alone.

Snort. Another “law-abiding” gun owner, ladies and gentlemen! As long as it’s the laws they choose
to abide by!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

+1

Criminals who shouldn't have fire arms.

Good point. Getting caught with a bump stock should ban the criminal from future gun ownership. Dangerous known lawbreakers should not be armed.

+1

Well, lots of us are armed already and we're going to stay that way, regardless of whatever ex-post facto laws you try and foist upon us. So you have two options: leave us alone, or start trouble. Personally, I think (and hope) that you should choose the former rather than the latter.

Because the latter means you think you'll be sending others out to kick down the doors of people you don't like, who won't comply with your unconstitutional laws. You won't do it yourself, because you're a coward. But you'll pay others to do it for you. And consequently, you'll get some of them hurt or killed while they're out killing people like those you don't like. Eventually, some of those who haven't had their doors kicked in yet, or are related to victims who have, are going to start getting proactive, and taking that fight back to the people who egged on the door kicking in the first place.

That's how civil wars get started.


So please, leave us alone.

Snort. Another “law-abiding” gun owner, ladies and gentlemen! As long as it’s the laws they choose
to abide by!

Exactly. Just a bunch of criminals at heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic example of why we should NOT comply:

https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/california-farmer-charged-with-12-felonies-after-trying-to-register-his-guns-KaYA9xPcY0eSpeNnNm6PCw/

He was in possession of what are alleged to be illegally modified assault rifles (flash suppressors) and silencers, as well as banned types of ammo. Boo f*cking boo. His daddy did grow some of California’s finest grapes.

Again, a criminal at the stroke of midnight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

+1

Criminals who shouldn't have fire arms.

Good point. Getting caught with a bump stock should ban the criminal from future gun ownership. Dangerous known lawbreakers should not be armed.

+1

Well, lots of us are armed already and we're going to stay that way, regardless of whatever ex-post facto laws you try and foist upon us. So you have two options: leave us alone, or start trouble. Personally, I think (and hope) that you should choose the former rather than the latter.

Because the latter means you think you'll be sending others out to kick down the doors of people you don't like, who won't comply with your unconstitutional laws. You won't do it yourself, because you're a coward. But you'll pay others to do it for you. And consequently, you'll get some of them hurt or killed while they're out killing people like those you don't like. Eventually, some of those who haven't had their doors kicked in yet, or are related to victims who have, are going to start getting proactive, and taking that fight back to the people who egged on the door kicking in the first place.

That's how civil wars get started.


So please, leave us alone.

Snort. Another “law-abiding” gun owner, ladies and gentlemen! As long as it’s the laws they choose
to abide by!

Exactly. Just a bunch of criminals at heart.

Yep.

Just another criminal like Rosa Parks. We'd belong in jail with her, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bump stock owners are law breakers. Are we surprised?

+1

Criminals who shouldn't have fire arms.

Good point. Getting caught with a bump stock should ban the criminal from future gun ownership. Dangerous known lawbreakers should not be armed.

+1

Well, lots of us are armed already and we're going to stay that way, regardless of whatever ex-post facto laws you try and foist upon us. So you have two options: leave us alone, or start trouble. Personally, I think (and hope) that you should choose the former rather than the latter.

Because the latter means you think you'll be sending others out to kick down the doors of people you don't like, who won't comply with your unconstitutional laws. You won't do it yourself, because you're a coward. But you'll pay others to do it for you. And consequently, you'll get some of them hurt or killed while they're out killing people like those you don't like. Eventually, some of those who haven't had their doors kicked in yet, or are related to victims who have, are going to start getting proactive, and taking that fight back to the people who egged on the door kicking in the first place.

That's how civil wars get started.


So please, leave us alone.

Snort. Another “law-abiding” gun owner, ladies and gentlemen! As long as it’s the laws they choose
to abide by!

Just curious... what if some republicans got a majority wherever you live (chortle, inconceivable, right?!?!) and passed a local law that required you to keep a bible in your home?


What would you do? Would you comply? Because it's the law.

Or would you refuse to comply, because it's unconstitutional?


Yeah, it might (or not) get sorted out in the courts one day... but for now, the law required you to have a bible in your home, despite you not wanting it.


So, would you comply? Or would you be a "criminal"?