The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
I want me some depleted uranium bullets...but Academy and Walmart were all out last time I checked.koine2002 wrote:That whole thing was painful to read. It looks like they want to turn Georgia into New Jersey. Also, if I'm right about my understanding of what's in them, it also bans the bi-metal cheap ppu and Tul ammunition.(B) Any bullet that can be fired from a pistol or revolver that:
(i) Has projectiles or projectile cores constructed entirely from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;
(ii) Is fully jacketed with a jacket weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile, is larger than .22 caliber, and is designed and intended for use in a firearm; or
(iii) Does not have projectiles whose cores are composed of soft materials, including, but not limited to, soft materials such as lead, lead alloys, zinc, or zinc alloys, frangible projectiles designed primarily for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores that the Attorney General of the United States finds to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes or industrial purposes or that otherwise do not constitute armor-piercing ammunition as defined by federal law;
Bitter Clinger wrote:These Georgia Dem are traitors given the documented rise in terror plots nationwide under the current White House:
http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63612136
VMI77 wrote:Bitter Clinger wrote:These Georgia Dem are traitors given the documented rise in terror plots nationwide under the current White House:
http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63612136
Nah, they'd be traitors even if no one had ever heard of a terrorist.
Thx. Good point!Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?Iunnrais wrote:Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731
Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered.Wonder if the author(s) read the 5th amendment at all...
I understand the rationale as I've heard it from the left before, but isn't there an ex-post facto consideration in making a crime out of what was previously legal and then seizing property on that basis? If not it seems a neat end run around the Constitution. Why even have an imminent domain proceeding....why not just make ownership of a desired property illegal and seize it as contraband? And by the same logic wouldn't the State also be able to seize your home, vehicles, and other property, including cash, where those now illegal guns are being kept?JALLEN wrote:Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?Iunnrais wrote:Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731
Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered.
I suppose I think of imminent domain in terms of real property only, since that is what I dealt with, and have never heard of the government taking personal property in that fashion.VMI77 wrote:I understand the rationale as I've heard it from the left before, but isn't there an ex-post facto consideration in making a crime out of what was previously legal and then seizing property on that basis? If not it seems a neat end run around the Constitution. Why even have an imminent domain proceeding....why not just make ownership of a desired property illegal and seize it as contraband? And by the same logic wouldn't the State also be able to seize your home, vehicles, and other property, including cash, where those now illegal guns are being kept?JALLEN wrote:Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?Iunnrais wrote:Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731
Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered.
Your truck example is better but I was thinking of real property when I wrote my response. I was specifically thinking of the case in New London CT where the city seized property to give it to a developer based on an expectation of greater tax revenue. It's more of a reach than your truck example but as you say, concepts can be twisted into just about anything.JALLEN wrote:I suppose I think of imminent domain in terms of real property only, since that is what I dealt with, and have never heard of the government taking personal property in that fashion.VMI77 wrote:I understand the rationale as I've heard it from the left before, but isn't there an ex-post facto consideration in making a crime out of what was previously legal and then seizing property on that basis? If not it seems a neat end run around the Constitution. Why even have an imminent domain proceeding....why not just make ownership of a desired property illegal and seize it as contraband? And by the same logic wouldn't the State also be able to seize your home, vehicles, and other property, including cash, where those now illegal guns are being kept?JALLEN wrote:Do you think the government pays you when they seize your stash of smack, crack or other illegal to possess items?Iunnrais wrote:Link to the actual bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en- ... 016/HB/731
Painful read - no grandfathering and no compensation for weapons surrendered.
The Feds are also seeding states like Georgia with immigrants, legal and illegal, to hasten that demographic shift.SA_Steve wrote:Georgia is changing (demographically) more rapidly that any other state. Will be a blue state in 10 years or less.