La sues polymer 80

[AregularGuy]

Originally Posted by Lanejsl

This seems like a loser for LA. Not sure how polymer 80 has violated a single law. This is a political stunt.

Never stopped anyone in CA before. They will "reinterpret" the law to make it fit the narrative. Remember the Exile Machine and other vendors and the mag parts lawsuits? They didn't break any laws but got hit with expensive lawsuits.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Lol, sue an 80% manufacturer instead of the ****bags and their enablers who are using guns for criminal purposes. That city needs to learn to swim.

[-hanko]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I agree

And yes criminals will do criminal stuff not going to argue that that is going to change

And yes I agree increasing the penalty for being caught with a polymer 80 might be a viable option however increased penalties will not negate the criminal willingness to commit crimes if that worked the death penalty would be more effective at preventing murder

But if we see that the criminals are using a certain method to obtain guns easily and without all of the other crimes they usually had to do seems to me like it would make sense to limit that access point even if they will find another one

I just love that holier-than-thou attitude.

[Cowboy T]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

At some point we have to draw the line with libertarianism versus the greater good. I am not for more bull**** laws however I am all for making it more difficult and a harsher penalties to obtain and use a stolen gun and if polymer at 80 is being used as an avenue around this then the loophole might need to get closed


Dictated but not read, voice typing plus bad eyes equals typos

Originally Posted by bugsy714

While I do agree with some of the sentiment I don’t agree with all of your conclusions. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise my entire point of posting was that there are perfectly reasonable and rational gun owners who support limiting access to polymer 80 guns


Dictated but not read, voice typing plus bad eyes equals typos

Then perhaps you might permit me to try.

When the Founding Fathers drew up our government, they had experience with more restrictive government, which is why so many left the UK and came here. That's why they fought for the 13 Colonies' independence. Their experience was with, what we call in the IT industry, "default deny" style governments. They realized that was a road to tyranny, so they came up with a "default allow" government. That government is codified in our Constitution. The government is assigned only the powers that it needs by Us, The People--not the other way around. I know, we've allowed our politicians to overreach, but I'm speaking of the Founding Fathers' intent here, and that was "default allow".

An 80% lower, whether it's made by Polymer80 or someone else, is by law not a firearm. It takes machining to make it actually useable as a gun. It has always been legal in the United States to be able to make your own firearm, so long as it's not a Class 3 NFA firearm, and even those were legal to make your own up to 1986. This is a right, not a privilege, by both the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. Remember also that per SCOTUS, the entire Bill of Rights does convey to the states.

Therefore, those attacking the right of, say, me or someone else to make my own pistol are attempting to infringe on my rights. I haven't shot anyone. I haven't even threatened anyone with a firearm or any other weapon. And I am most certainly not a criminal. I see no valid reason to attack my rights just because some criminal wants to do bad things; instead, go after the criminal, not me or the rights that I have.

Does this help explain the objection to such limitations?

[DB>]

Watched a piece on NBCLA4 about all the "trash" piled up along the freeways/offramps.... while they touched on the homeless being a big source of this trash, they were more focused on why Caltrans wasn't picking up...

As a society, we have lost our ability to reason and address cause and effect, choice and consequence...

Might be our "education" system has suffered terminal failure.

Or maybe it's Disney's fault that we attach "human" qualities to inanimate objects...

[glock17_1986]

Wtf, gun owners calling for action about this are a special kind of retard. You call for action because of a 3rd parties actions. Let's ban driving as well. This is the dumbest **** I have read in a while.

[Cowboy T]

Originally Posted by S.O.A.R.

I was assuming situations that wasn't present in the post I replied which I have a habit to do. It was a very no-thought-processed reply I regret to have posted.
My bad and I apologize for my unknowingness/forgetfulness of this.

We all make mistakes, man, myself included. Happens. I admire you for the above, though.

[A-J]

Originally Posted by Rover

Before everybody dogpiles on me, I'm not saying there should be illegal, but denying that the problem exists isn't going to get us anywhere but a ban. The sooner we recognize and admit there's a problem, the better we can work to find a solution besides a ban.

It's not matter of denying the problem. It's that the politicians can't bring themselves to admit what the actual problem is. And it has nothing to do with polymer 80.

Originally Posted by Rover

This is one of those issues where I hate to admit it, but the antis do sort of have a point, the easy availability of a complete gun in a box "some assembly required" has become a bit of a problem. Previously for a felon to get a gun they'd either have to know where to steal one from themselves, or rely on somebody else to commit 1 or more felonies on their behalf, now you just order that thing off the internet. Not every prohibited person is a dumb gangbanger, plenty of people smart enough to operate a drill on the prohibited list..

It's really not a problem, the whole "gun in a box" thing. You clearly do not understand how laughably easy it is to get a gun if you're a criminal. I'm a law biding man, but I know, for a fact that I can drive 10 minutes from my house and score a perfectly functional serialized handgun for a couple hundred bucks, no background check, no waiting period other than the length of time it takes the guy to run and get it from the other guy. Meanwhile, to get one legally, I'd have to wait who knows how long for the gun store just to get some in before I pay for it and start waiting.

[MajorSideburns]

Originally Posted by Rover

Have several LEO friends and yes, they pull a lot of P80s off dirtbags. I don't think LA has a case, unless the ATF investigation turns something up that shows P80 knowingly sold kits because they were easy for prohibited persons to acquire.

This is one of those issues where I hate to admit it, but the antis do sort of have a point, the easy availability of a complete gun in a box "some assembly required" has become a bit of a problem. Previously for a felon to get a gun they'd either have to know where to steal one from themselves, or rely on somebody else to commit 1 or more felonies on their behalf, now you just order that thing off the internet. Not every prohibited person is a dumb gangbanger, plenty of people smart enough to operate a drill on the prohibited list.

Before everybody dogpiles on me, I'm not saying there should be illegal, but denying that the problem exists isn't going to get us anywhere but a ban. The sooner we recognize and admit there's a problem, the better we can work to find a solution besides a ban.

No. The problem is LA refuses to prosecute and hold criminals accountable for the numerous crimes they already commit. How many gang members have they released early from hard prison sentences, this year alone because of "Covid-19"? Criminal control is what is needed. Not gun control

[stix213]

Assuming we're dealing with organized gun manufacturing for the purpose of selling to criminals. A ban on 80% receivers does nothing. It will only cause the criminals to get more sophisticated. They just going to walk away from their business? He'll no, they will learn how to use a 3D printer or create the receivers from a solid block. Nothing gained against the criminals, while the law abiding face further restrictions.

What next, ban 3D printers and blocks of aluminum?

[Dvrjon]

All of this becomes moot when the precursor parts law takes effect and all firearm parts have to go through a dealer. That will cut off the parts flow and eliminate this problem.

[ShotgunPreacher]

the coiled viper just sits and waits motionless and quiet in the grass until the enemy mistakingly steps on it

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by ugimports

I can believe it. I have a customer that's a chief of a Bay Area agency..he said most of what they are seizing now are ghost guns..mostly AR pistols..

Ironically...(or maybe not)...he commented, paraphrased "I think the state might be making some new laws about these..." to which I responded "they already did...lots of good that did eh?" ..

And yet a "chief of a Bay Area agency" didn't know that.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

While I do agree with some of the sentiment I don’t agree with all of your conclusions. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise my entire point of posting was that there are perfectly reasonable and rational gun owners who support limiting access to polymer 80 guns

"Reasonable and rational" does not imply what they support it legal.

I might have quite a reasonable and rational position that I should be the king and rule the world because I might rationally and reasonably be the best person to do it, but that doesn't mean I have the right to force it on others.

Usually the misunderstandings of this sort boil down to collectivism vs. individualism. Every time you believe it's "reasonable and rational" to do something to *others*, you're crossing the line of the others simply saying "whether you think it reasonable and rational, we don't want it."

In this case, you have to *prove* that your position does not infringe on *my* rights. Not some random criminal's rights, not on your rights, not on some generic "larger good," but my personal rights. Why should you ban *me* from doing something completely legal?