America's rebel sheriffs fight back against gun curbs with 'Second Amendment Sanctuaries'

Moves to tighten gun laws in the US are facing a backlash from sheriffs in rural communities who are refusing to uphold new restrictions by declaring their counties "Second Amendment Sanctuaries".

The wave of mass shootings, notably at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 pupils and staff were killed last February and two survivors committed suicide this week, has prompted state legislatures to pass a raft of measures.

New laws have included including compulsory background checks, a ban on assault weapons and raising the minimum age for gun ownership.

With Democrats making sweeping gains at local level in last year's mid-term elections, the pace of new legislation has intensified.

Nevada is set to debate a comprehensive firearms control bill which will make modifying a weapon a criminal offence and allow localities to create "gun free" zones.

Arizona and Arkansas are also currently considering "red flag" bills which would allow weapons to be confiscated from owners who are considered dangerous.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/30/rebel-sheriffs-fight-back-against-gun-curbs-second-amendment/

phildidge wrote:Moves to tighten gun laws in the US are facing a backlash from sheriffs in rural communities who are refusing to uphold new restrictions by declaring their counties "Second Amendment Sanctuaries".

The wave of mass shootings, notably at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 pupils and staff were killed last February and two survivors committed suicide this week, has prompted state legislatures to pass a raft of measures.

New laws have included including compulsory background checks, a ban on assault weapons and raising the minimum age for gun ownership.

With Democrats making sweeping gains at local level in last year's mid-term elections, the pace of new legislation has intensified.

Nevada is set to  debate a comprehensive firearms control bill which will make modifying a weapon a criminal offence and allow localities to create "gun free" zones.

Arizona and Arkansas are also currently considering "red flag" bills which would allow weapons to be confiscated from owners who are considered dangerous.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/30/rebel-sheriffs-fight-back-against-gun-curbs-second-amendment/

And a federal judge in California just through out their 10 round magazine limit.  The number of bullets needed in a magazine is debatable and up t o the citizen to decide. This after a woman with a magazine in excess of 10 rounds repelled a home invasion and two women with smaller magazines ran out of ammunition, and weren't successful.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:Moves to tighten gun laws in the US are facing a backlash from sheriffs in rural communities who are refusing to uphold new restrictions by declaring their counties "Second Amendment Sanctuaries".

The wave of mass shootings, notably at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 pupils and staff were killed last February and two survivors committed suicide this week, has prompted state legislatures to pass a raft of measures.

New laws have included including compulsory background checks, a ban on assault weapons and raising the minimum age for gun ownership.

With Democrats making sweeping gains at local level in last year's mid-term elections, the pace of new legislation has intensified.

Nevada is set to  debate a comprehensive firearms control bill which will make modifying a weapon a criminal offence and allow localities to create "gun free" zones.

Arizona and Arkansas are also currently considering "red flag" bills which would allow weapons to be confiscated from owners who are considered dangerous.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/30/rebel-sheriffs-fight-back-against-gun-curbs-second-amendment/

And a federal judge in California just through out their 10 round magazine limit.  The number of bullets needed in a magazine is debatable and up t o the citizen to decide. This after a woman with a magazine in excess of 10 rounds repelled a home invasion and two women with smaller magazines ran out of ammunition, and weren't successful.

Would that not be down to being a poor shot, as why would you need more than one bullet to stop an intruder?

Unless there is more than 10 intruders, your argument is weak and all it shows is that the women was clearly not a good shot

I think it should be mandatory for people who own guns at home to have to pass courses on shooting and with a view only to self defense in the home

I mean, if you are unable to hit and deter with 10 rounds, what difference would 40 rounds make? In reality they fired 20 rounds between them, based on your claim, as there was two of them.

Have to say, surely to the two women with two guns, had more rounds, than the women with one gun?

You need to rethink your argument Maddog

Again, people clearly need training on how to shoot. As you could arm them with a M60 machine gin and no doubt some would still miss

phildidge wrote:I mean, if you are unable to hit and deter with 10 rounds, what difference would 40 rounds make?

Because in a firefight when you are fighting for your life you try to throw as much lead towards your assailants as you can. 

This isn't like hunting.  Your target may only present itself for a millisecond. Under those conditions you are going to miss a lot.  

And in the California case the woman with the larger magazine was successful.  The ones without were not.  Its impossible to know how many is enough for every situation.  

So it's best to let the citizen make that call.

phildidge wrote:Have to say, surely to the two women with two guns, had more rounds, than the women with one gun?

You need to rethink your argument Maddog

Again, people clearly need training on how to shoot. As you could arm them with a M60 machine gin and no doubt some would still miss

Who said the two women had two guns?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:I mean, if you are unable to hit and deter with 10 rounds, what difference would 40 rounds make?

Because in a firefight when you are fighting for your life you try to throw as much lead towards your assailants as you can. 

This isn't like hunting.  Your target may only present itself for a millisecond. Under those conditions you are going to miss a lot.  

And in the California case the woman with the larger magazine was successful.  The ones without were not.  Its impossible to know how many is enough for every situation.  

So it's best to let the citizen make that call.

So why is it that in once case the women with one gun and less ammunition than two women, with two guns and more ammo. Was able to deter the attackers?

Good shooting and being trained to do so.

Going off how people panic of which most people do. Having guns tha hold more ammunition, is not going to make a blind bit of difference

They will simple expend more ammunition

So in other words being able to keep a cool head, being able to shoot properly, is what counts. Not the amount of ammunition

So your argument is again utterly weak

Those two women know doubt could have been armed with ak47 and still failed to prevent being attacked

I understand how emotions play a part in situations, as we see a number of cases where the US cops react on emotions and when adrenaline kicks in. To the view a number of people end up dead, by such reactions.

So the view on ammunition is utterly weak. If people fire blindly at attackers or the attackers are smarter than the defenders. No amount of more ammunition would make a difference

Your argument is really weak

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:Have to say, surely to the two women with two guns, had more rounds, than the women with one gun?

You need to rethink your argument Maddog

Again, people clearly need training on how to shoot. As you could arm them with a M60 machine gin and no doubt some would still miss

Who said the two women had two guns?

You did

Maddog wrote:


And a federal judge in California just through out their 10 round magazine limit.  The number of bullets needed in a magazine is debatable and up t o the citizen to decide. This after a woman with a magazine in excess of 10 rounds repelled a home invasion and two women with smaller magazines ran out of ammunition, and weren't successful.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:I mean, if you are unable to hit and deter with 10 rounds, what difference would 40 rounds make?

Because in a firefight when you are fighting for your life you try to throw as much lead towards your assailants as you can. 

This isn't like hunting.  Your target may only present itself for a millisecond. Under those conditions you are going to miss a lot.  

And in the California case the woman with the larger magazine was successful.  The ones without were not.  Its impossible to know how many is enough for every situation.  

So it's best to let the citizen make that call.

My call is that I need a briefcase nuke to protect my house, and it's my call to make!

5, 10 and 20 round magazines go on rifles;  and maybe SMGs where available...

Handguns have their own 'clip' style magazines (usually somewhere between 10 and 16 rounds, depending on make and model..), or cylinders in the case of revolvers (5 or 6 rounds, maybe 7 with some "custom" .357 magnums..).

How will anyone know what capacity clip was in a handgun, unless it was seized immediately after the shooting --  with no time for the shooter to swap it out  ?  The only way that authorities would know if someone had the standard clip instead of some mandated smaller capacity one, would be if they admitted to it themselves..

I agree with Didge here --  those good little wimmin' folk weren't good shots. A bit of training, and practice, would be better than simply allowing them more bullets in one hit..

Compulsory training, and membership of a local pistol club, should be considered mandatory if allowing the likes of them to own handguns, simply on the basis of self defence..

As for stopping intruders during home invasions, a short-barrelled shotgun will usually often be more effective than either a rifle or a handgun...

Well, the vast majority of the time, if someone buys a gun to protect themselves, and that gun is fired outside of a shooting range, someone innocent gets hurt or killed.

Home protection ? short barrel semi-auto or pump action Shotgun firing Buckshot, you might have to re-decorate house afterwards though !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

5, 10 and 20 round magazines go on rifles;  and maybe SMGs where available...

Handguns have their own 'clip' style magazines (usually somewhere between 10 and 16 rounds, depending on make and model..), or cylinders in the case of revolvers (5 or 6 rounds, maybe 7 with some "custom" .357 magnums..).

How will anyone know what capacity clip was in a handgun, unless it was seized immediately after the shooting --  with no time for the shooter to swap it out  ?  The only way that authorities would know if someone had the standard clip instead of some mandated smaller capacity one, would be if they admitted to it themselves..

I agree with Didge here --  those good little wimmin' folk weren't good shots. A bit of training, and practice, would be better than simply allowing them more bullets in one hit..

Compulsory training, and membership of a local pistol club, should be considered mandatory if allowing the likes of them to own handguns, simply on the basis of self defence..

As for stopping intruders during home invasions, a short-barrelled shotgun will usually often be more effective than either a rifle or a handgun...

+1

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Because in a firefight when you are fighting for your life you try to throw as much lead towards your assailants as you can. 

This isn't like hunting.  Your target may only present itself for a millisecond. Under those conditions you are going to miss a lot.  

And in the California case the woman with the larger magazine was successful.  The ones without were not.  Its impossible to know how many is enough for every situation.  

So it's best to let the citizen make that call.

My call is that I need a briefcase nuke to protect my house, and it's my call to make!

Hopefully I'm out if town when you use it.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Who said the two women had two guns?

You did

Maddog wrote:


And a federal judge in California just through out their 10 round magazine limit.  The number of bullets needed in a magazine is debatable and up t o the citizen to decide. This after a woman with a magazine in excess of 10 rounds repelled a home invasion and two women with smaller magazines ran out of ammunition, and weren't successful.

Two women, each had one gun.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

5, 10 and 20 round magazines go on rifles;  and maybe SMGs where available...

Handguns have their own 'clip' style magazines (usually somewhere between 10 and 16 rounds, depending on make and model..), or cylinders in the case of revolvers (5 or 6 rounds, maybe 7 with some "custom" .357 magnums..).

How will anyone know what capacity clip was in a handgun, unless it was seized immediately after the shooting --  with no time for the shooter to swap it out  ?  The only way that authorities would know if someone had the standard clip instead of some mandated smaller capacity one, would be if they admitted to it themselves..

I agree with Didge here --  those good little wimmin' folk weren't good shots. A bit of training, and practice, would be better than simply allowing them more bullets in one hit..

Compulsory training, and membership of a local pistol club, should be considered mandatory if allowing the likes of them to own handguns, simply on the basis of self defence..

As for stopping intruders during home invasions, a short-barrelled shotgun will usually often be more effective than either a rifle or a handgun...

The cops carry 30 round magazines. 

Are they bad shots? 

Do you know what a right is? The word compulsory should never used in the same sentence as the word "right".

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

You did

Two women, each had one gun.

And together the rounds in each combined would be more than the women with the one gun. Showing and proving round capacity makes very little difference to an armed confrontation

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

5, 10 and 20 round magazines go on rifles;  and maybe SMGs where available...

Handguns have their own 'clip' style magazines (usually somewhere between 10 and 16 rounds, depending on make and model..), or cylinders in the case of revolvers (5 or 6 rounds, maybe 7 with some "custom" .357 magnums..).

How will anyone know what capacity clip was in a handgun, unless it was seized immediately after the shooting --  with no time for the shooter to swap it out  ?  The only way that authorities would know if someone had the standard clip instead of some mandated smaller capacity one, would be if they admitted to it themselves..

I agree with Didge here --  those good little wimmin' folk weren't good shots. A bit of training, and practice, would be better than simply allowing them more bullets in one hit..

Compulsory training, and membership of a local pistol club, should be considered mandatory if allowing the likes of them to own handguns, simply on the basis of self defence..

As for stopping intruders during home invasions, a short-barrelled shotgun will usually often be more effective than either a rifle or a handgun...

The cops carry 30 round magazines. 

Are they bad shots? 

Do you know what a right is? The word compulsory should never used in the same sentence as the word "right".

Yesa please explain how, what this right is?

Do you have a right to a rocket launcher?

A grenade?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


The cops carry 30 round magazines. 

Are they bad shots? 

Do you know what a right is? The word compulsory should never used in the same sentence as the word "right".

Yesa please explain how, what this right is?

Do you have a right to a rocket launcher?

A grenade?

Arms as defined by statute. The size of the magazine doesn't alter the definition of the arm. 

Rocket launchers are out. Grenades I think are out.  Dynamite and Flame Throwers are legal.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Yesa please explain how, what this right is?

Do you have a right to a rocket launcher?

A grenade?

Arms as defined by statute. The size of the magazine doesn't alter the definition of the arm. 

Rocket launchers are out. Grenades I think are out.  Dynamite and Flame Throwers are legal.

So if laws can be deemed to own a gun, why would you moan about laws restricting round capacity?

Hence the very reason you are claiming a right, is based on the same reason to restrict capacity

You only have a right through law and the law is rightfully changing on capacity

Like I said the ammount of ammunition makes little difference in a gun fight. What matters, is a level head and the ability to be able to shoot properly

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Arms as defined by statute. The size of the magazine doesn't alter the definition of the arm. 

Rocket launchers are out. Grenades I think are out.  Dynamite and Flame Throwers are legal.

So if laws can be deemed to own a gun, why would you moan about laws restricting round capacity?

Hence the very reason you are claiming a right, is based on the same reason to restrict capacity

You only have a right through law and the law is rightfully changing on capacity

Like I said the ammount of ammunition makes little difference in a gun fight. What matters, is a level head and the ability to be able to shoot properly

Because magazines dont alter the mechanics of the gun.  

It's not like semi vs full auto. Those are different weapons.  

That's why the judge struck down the California law.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So if laws can be deemed to own a gun, why would you moan about laws restricting round capacity?

Hence the very reason you are claiming a right, is based on the same reason to restrict capacity

You only have a right through law and the law is rightfully changing on capacity

Like I said the ammount of ammunition makes little difference in a gun fight. What matters, is a level head and the ability to be able to shoot properly

Because magazines dont alter the mechanics of the gun.  

It's not like semi vs full auto. Those are different weapons.  

That's why the judge struck down the California law.

So what, as seen there is no reason to hold more rounds in a gun

In fact the more ammunition a gun holds, leads to potentially more victims from an attack

Hence its a no brainer to restrict them

I can understand people wanting to own guns for hunting, but any other notion to carry them, is a recipe for disaster

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Because magazines dont alter the mechanics of the gun.  

It's not like semi vs full auto. Those are different weapons.  

That's why the judge struck down the California law.

So what, as seen there is no reason to hold more rounds in a gun

In fact the more ammunition a gun holds, leads to potentially more victims from an attack

Hence its a no brainer to restrict them

I can understand people wanting to own guns for hunting, but any other notion to carry them, is a recipe for disaster

Next gun you buy can be a single shot. Problem solved.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So what, as seen there is no reason to hold more rounds in a gun

In fact the more ammunition a gun holds, leads to potentially more victims from an attack

Hence its a no brainer to restrict them

I can understand people wanting to own guns for hunting, but any other notion to carry them, is a recipe for disaster

Next gun you buy can be a single shot. Problem solved.

Why? When I have no desire to own a gun

Mr C just yesterday offered to buy me a pretty pink pistol after seeing one of my library volunteers packing heat (not in my library, although that’s allowed [but that is a whole other topic] but in the grocery store. I guess she thinks the potatoes are going to rise up ) but I politely (well maybe not) declined his offer.  

Then he said he would get one for the house. I asked why, was it scared? I have pointed out numerous times that if someone broke in while we were sleeping, I wouldn’t hear it above him/1 dog/3 cats all snoring (and people wonder why I take naps) and that he is basically dead when he sleeps. If (and that’s a big if) he woke up and jumped over the bed to the closet, got his rifle and then found the bullets and then loaded them, all the while being naked, we would either be dead already or the criminal long gone.

And no the answer isn’t leaving it loaded by the bed, because accidents do happen so let’s just take away that probability.

I’ve lived in and traveled in many different countries without having guns and look, I’m still here. It’s a miracle, can I get an amen!

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Next gun you buy can be a single shot. Problem solved.

Why? When I have no desire to own a gun

See how simple this is. You choose to not own a firearm. Someone else chooses to own one with 90 round drum.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Why? When I have no desire to own a gun

See how simple this is. You choose to not own a firearm. Someone else chooses to own one with 90 round drum.  

Not simple at all, as there is no requirement or necessity to own a gun with a 90 round drum.

In fact I find it idiotic why a person would need to

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

See how simple this is. You choose to not own a firearm. Someone else chooses to own one with 90 round drum.  

Not simple at all, as there is no requirement or necessity to own a gun with a 90 round drum.

In fact I find it idiotic why a person would need to

No necessity for a Ferrari either.

Free people like stuff they don't need.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Not simple at all, as there is no requirement or necessity to own a gun with a 90 round drum.

In fact I find it idiotic why a person would need to

No necessity for a Ferrari either.

Free people like stuff they don't need.  

But a ferrari is not designed to kill, where a gun and its ammunition, is.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No necessity for a Ferrari either.

Free people like stuff they don't need.  

But a ferrari is not designed to kill, where a gun and its ammunition, is.

Thank you! Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:


But a ferrari is not designed to kill, where a gun and its ammunition, is.

Thank you! Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I under stand what guns do. Why do you think cops carry them? To hunt squirrels?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Thank you! Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I under stand what guns do. Why do you think cops carry them? To hunt squirrels?

Don’t be obtuse.

Cass wrote:

phildidge wrote:


But a ferrari is not designed to kill, where a gun and its ammunition, is.

Thank you! Why is this so hard for people to understand?

You are welcome me Lady

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I under stand what guns do. Why do you think cops carry them? To hunt squirrels?

Don’t be obtuse.

I'm hardly being obtuse. Why do police officers carry guns if there is no real need to have one?

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Don’t be obtuse.

I'm hardly being obtuse. Why do police officers carry guns if there is no real need to have one?

I love how you constantly move the goal posts on this

You have gone from ammunition to now the police carrying guns.

I mean seriously?

The only time we have armed police on the streets is due to higher terrorist threat levels.

Otherwise the Uk Police do not carry them

So if you have a gun culture, with high crime, with some trigger happy cops. Is going to lead to countless unecessary deaths in the US.

A person with a knife can at best take out a couple of people

A gun however can take mutiple people out from distance.

Its why you see in the US so many mass shootings

Your country needs stricter gunlaws, like we have in the UK

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm hardly being obtuse. Why do police officers carry guns if there is no real need to have one?

I love how you constantly move the goal posts on this

You have gone from ammunition to now the police carrying guns.

I mean seriously?

The only time we have armed police on the streets is due to higher terrorist threat levels.

Otherwise the Uk Police do not carry them

So if you have a gun culture, with high crime, with some trigger happy cops. Is going to lead to countless unecessary deaths in the US.

A person with a knife can at best take out a couple of people

A gun however can take mutiple people out from distance.

Its why you see in the US so many mass shootings

Your country needs stricter gunlaws, like we have in the UK

No thanks. Your country needs more freedom. Not that you would know what to do with it.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I love how you constantly move the goal posts on this

You have gone from ammunition to now the police carrying guns.

I mean seriously?

The only time we have armed police on the streets is due to higher terrorist threat levels.

Otherwise the Uk Police do not carry them

So if you have a gun culture, with high crime, with some trigger happy cops. Is going to lead to countless unecessary deaths in the US.

A person with a knife can at best take out a couple of people

A gun however can take mutiple people out from distance.

Its why you see in the US so many mass shootings

Your country needs stricter gunlaws, like we have in the UK

No thanks.  Your country needs more freedom. Not that you would know what to do with it.  

I have plenty of freedom, one that is rightly free of guns.

I guess it’s about freedom to be fearful.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I love how you constantly move the goal posts on this

You have gone from ammunition to now the police carrying guns.

I mean seriously?

The only time we have armed police on the streets is due to higher terrorist threat levels.

Otherwise the Uk Police do not carry them

So if you have a gun culture, with high crime, with some trigger happy cops. Is going to lead to countless unecessary deaths in the US.

A person with a knife can at best take out a couple of people

A gun however can take mutiple people out from distance.

Its why you see in the US so many mass shootings

Your country needs stricter gunlaws, like we have in the UK

No thanks.  Your country needs more freedom. Not that you would know what to do with it.  

Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, (even Hong Kong, Japan and France, on some measures..) all have more "freedoms" than the USA...

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores

What Amerika does have is a lot of delusional fools willing to believe the 19th century lies about being the the land of the free, and the home of the brave..

And their "God given rights" to take a gun and blow away dozens of schoolkids at a whim.

Where Amerika will lead in certain fields is in certain "economic freedoms" --  the freedom to own governments, exploit the workers, rip off customers, steal intellectual and property rights..

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/human-freedom-index-2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices