MNGunTalk.com

Sorcerer wrote:Well if you think it’s coming, it might be coming, a red flag order, pick a brick an mortar gun shop and put every think on consignment at an elevated price and roll the dice that they won’t sell. That is if the red flag cr_p makes it through. Some one with an FFL could possibly make a living “ holding” firearms on consignment.

Ghost wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:Well if you think it’s coming, it might be coming, a red flag order, pick a brick an mortar gun shop and put every think on consignment at an elevated price and roll the dice that they won’t sell. That is if the red flag cr_p makes it through. Some one with an FFL could possibly make a living “ holding” firearms on consignment.

Plan A would be to squash it like a bug.

Plan B would be to minimize the risk if plan A fails.

Holland&Holland wrote:

Ghost wrote:

Sorcerer wrote:Well if you think it’s coming, it might be coming, a red flag order, pick a brick an mortar gun shop and put every think on consignment at an elevated price and roll the dice that they won’t sell. That is if the red flag cr_p makes it through. Some one with an FFL could possibly make a living “ holding” firearms on consignment.

Plan A would be to squash it like a bug.

Plan B would be to minimize the risk if plan A fails.

I think plan A is to defeat this legislation. Keep them focused on cell phone use in cars instead.

bstrawse wrote:
We are not going to try and "fix" this bill. We intend to kill it.

Bryan

yukonjasper wrote:Is there really no mechanism in place that forces legislators to research the areas of any new bill they are proposing to identify whether an existing law could be amended? They have staff and I assume each of the committees is generally aware of the existing laws and would suggest an amendment over an entirely redundant or overreaching new law.

I think it was a Garage Logic idea to have alternating years of passing and nullifying laws no longer useful. Or, better yet, for every new law 2 laws have to be struck down. Sunset provisions in some areas would be great.

Sorcerer wrote:You can try to get in the way of a search warrant, but it would end badly for you. They would react in such a way that they may kill you.

Let's be realistic about this:

Police can obtain permission for a "no knock" dynamic entry if they have reason to believe a firearm is in the home.

In the case of serving these secret orders, there will always be firearms in the home.

A recent example of this took place in St. Paul. Because the target of a warrant was staying in a house owned by someone with a Permit to Carry, Minneapolis PD was authorized in the warrant to use a "no knock" dynamic entry. The smashed in the front door and stormed the home with a heavily-armed SWAT team, in the process shooting two dogs (killing one and wounding the other). The target of the warrant was not in the house.

So what this means, seriously, is that a judge can issue an order in secret, and the first time you will find out about it is when the police storms your house in the middle of the night, blasting your door off the hinges, smashing windows, throwing flash bangs, pointing machine guns at you, terrorizing your family and killing or endangering your pets.

Not to mention the possibility that you or someone you love might be killed in the process, as we saw happen recently in Maryland, and several other cases around the US, like the recent "swatting" case in Kansas. Or the many cases where the police raid the wrong house (maybe they are after your neighbor).

This law is very, very dangerous.

crbutler wrote:Don’t call the damn things “flash bangs”

They are concussion grenades.