Uh, about that Portland gun buy-back....

[Dave Workman]

Divisions in the ranks at Portland gun turn-in

There were, if one reads accounts in the Portland Oregonian and Portland Tribune, some surprising turns at the weekend gun turn-in that may raise some eyebrows.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

That first guy in your article was a posterboy Fudd.

He should get started on his gun registration idea. Set up a table out there with a sign saying "criminals, please register your illegal/stolen guns here, thanks for your cooperation".

 

[Nutty4Guns]

That first guy in your article was a posterboy Fudd.

Agreed!

 

[rawen2]

The Tribune article also stated that only 43 people showed up to turn in guns. Wow, what a turnout for a city the size of Portland.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The Tribune article also stated that only 43 people showed up to turn in guns. Wow, what a turnout for a city the size of Portland.

That is the way those things always go. They seldom ever actually collect anything except for a few old broken Ravens and Lorcins. Then they often parade out a bunch of the departments AR's and a bunch of confiscated weapons from the evidence locker and lay them out on a tarp for the media to take pictures of so they can pretend they took a bunch of scary rifles and handguns off the streets.

 

[22many]

The Tribune article also stated that only 43 people showed up to turn in guns. Wow, what a turnout for a city the size of Portland.

Maybe the people of Portland are starting to wise up and realize that the police are just the clean up crew and won't protect them.

 

[Bacchus]

Liberal setup.

 

[FMJ 911]

I wonder what would happen if you took Blackbeard's Cannon to a gun turn in?

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

I wonder what would happen if you took Blackbeard's Cannon to a gun turn in?

It'd be a waste of time?

 

[RVTECH]

That first guy in your article was a posterboy Fudd.

Lots of these types out there. They are the ones that raise 'Sport Hunting' to almost a religious level. They worship it. However to them the only guns necessary are high end custom 'Sporters' needed only for hunting. Nothing else needs to exist because they have no useful purpose. I watched a hunting show some time ago and it was populated by these types. They never missed a chance to mention how unnecessary things like AKs, ARs, auto pistols were to sport hunting, or anything for that matter.

 

[rufus]

That is the way those things always go. They seldom ever actually collect anything except for a few old broken Ravens and Lorcins. Then they often parade out a bunch of the departments AR's and a bunch of confiscated weapons from the evidence locker and lay them out on a tarp for the media to take pictures of so they can pretend they took a bunch of scary rifles and handguns off the streets.

When shenanigans like this happen, the story the media should go with is the dishonesty within the police ranks and the overtime paid to the officers taking part in the self-serving stunt. Me thinks that would sell more newspapers, but what do I know.

 

[jcw]

All this turn in was is a way for the politicians, police (political tools with guns), and the anti-gun nuts to frame the argument for further discussion on a future legislative issue. Pure political bulldroppings. I suspect the baseline the anti's will use in their argument is that hunters have no use for anything but bolt, pump, lever action, or single shot firearms.

 

[pioneer461]

The ironic thing is, criminals do not need to register their guns. That's right. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a convicted felon could not be charged with failure to register his guns, because to do so would violate his 5th Amendment right against self inceimination. Only honest, law abiding citizens can be compelled to register thier guns.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968). 7-1 ruling.

 

[Spad]

Now that is an interesting piece of info about the Supreme Court decision. If Obama gets any more appointments to the court you can bet that would be overturned if challenged again....Spad