Possible ban?

[20mm]

Did I miss where the guy making random assertions tried to pawn off the work of backing up those assertions with fact and added insult to injury by heaping scorn and work on someone whose had put time, talent, and treasure into the fight?

The fact is that Minneapolis city ordinances ban assault weapons and they've confiscated a number of these weapons. They have a ban in effect. It's presumptuous to assume all of the confiscations have been issued using other laws.

If you're going to claim the ban is meaningless you should prove it.

[Mn01r6]

Did I miss where the guy making random assertions tried to pawn off the work of backing up those assertions with fact and added insult to injury by heaping scorn and work on someone whose had put time, talent, and treasure into the fight?

The fact is that Minneapolis city ordinances ban assault weapons and they've confiscated a number of these weapons. They have a ban in effect. It's presumptuous to assume all of the confiscations have been issued using other laws.

If you're going to claim the ban is meaningless you should prove it.

Minnesota also bans sodomy. The fact that something is written in law or in ordinance does not mean it is valid and enforceable. State law preempts the city ordinance and makes it unenforceable. If the Minneapolis police were to confiscate an "Assault Weapon" under the unenforceable ordinance, they would be sued six ways to Sunday.

[20mm]

Minnesota also bans sodomy. The fact that something is written in law or in ordinance does not mean it is valid and enforceable. State law preempts the city ordinance and makes it unenforceable. If the Minneapolis police were to confiscate an "Assault Weapon" under the unenforceable ordinance, they would be sued six ways to Sunday.

Are you a lawyer? State, federal or international laws may preempt local laws, but that doesn't mean they are not enforced, can't be enforced, or are un-enforcable.

Maybe you're one of those special people that laws don't apply to:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08 ... r-old-boy/

[plblark]

Chuckle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[jshuberg]

Minneapolis city ordinance 393.85 appears to have been passed in 1992. However state preemption of firearms regulations (471.633) was passed in 1985. Either the city council in 1992 were complete morons, and didn't realize that the ordinance was void the moment it was passed, or it was an entirely symbolic gesture. I'm guessing it was the latter to make a "statement".

If anyone had their "assault weapon" confiscated under MPLS 393.85 we would know about it. The folks at GOCRA would know about it. There are plenty of people with their ear to the rail that something like this would never go unnoticed. Any claims that people are having their firearms confiscated under 393.85 and we would need to submit a FOIA request to discover it is absolute BS.

Conspiracy theorists thrive in an absence of information. As soon as you bring facts to the table, or ask them to do the same, they get all defensive and try to redirect the argument. That's when you know they aren't worth paying attention to. 'Nuff said.

[bstrawse]

Yes - but were these weapons seized under:
1) A state firearms statute OR
2) A judge's order under state law (bail condition, pending felony charges, etc) OR
3) Minneapolis's ordnance that has no authority due to state pre-emption

1 and 2 are legal under state law, 3 is not.

That's the question - you've previously asserted that it was due to #3. What other information do you have to back up this assertion?

B

I asserted that they were confiscated. MN-GOCRA could easily find out why with a FOIA request. Maybe use some of those PAC funds.

FOIA is a federal law that applies to federal agencies. I think you mean the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act... but what do I know.

The Minneapolis city ordinance is completely pre-empted under state law. Please point us to an instance where firearms have been confiscated under the assault weapons ban that the city has in place.
b

[Mn01r6]

Minnesota also bans sodomy. The fact that something is written in law or in ordinance does not mean it is valid and enforceable. State law preempts the city ordinance and makes it unenforceable. If the Minneapolis police were to confiscate an "Assault Weapon" under the unenforceable ordinance, they would be sued six ways to Sunday.

Are you a lawyer? State, federal or international laws may preempt local laws, but that doesn't mean they are not enforced, can't be enforced, or are un-enforcable.

Maybe you're one of those special people that laws don't apply to:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08 ... r-old-boy/

You do seem to be very confused about conflicts and preemption and would probably benefit from talking with a competent attorney.

[tazdevil]

You are posting absolute BS and calling it true. You have the burden to prove you aren't just making crap up. That report you linked to said they had only confiscated 10 rifles in all of 2012 and I would bet that was from prohibited persons or drug houses raided\

I don't have any burdens, and you apparently don't have anything to worry about. Pretty cool huh?

You mean you haven't MET any burdens and you have proven that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong.

I worry about ignorant statements like yours tacitly imposing that illegal ban on law abiding citizens.

Maybe that's the idea Mn01r6, perhaps a anti in disguise?

[Mn01r6]

Either a troll or an anti...which would make him a troll. I suppose it doesn't really make a difference.

The bottom line is he has taken his lashes and this thread can be referenced by future inhabitants of murderapolis when considering a rifle that would be "banned" under the preempted city ordinance. Buy an AR and sleep well knowing the jackbooted thugs won't be coming to confiscate your rifle...under this ordinance...yet. Then give what you can to GOCRA and MNGOPAC.