Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front
"vanity" plate for that very reason.


The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.



I just drive 65. Max.



I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT
State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the
interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in
general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65....

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim
that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't
think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or
repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls

and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide
who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined
judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of
view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other
things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions
that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do....
be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front
"vanity" plate for that very reason.


The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.



I just drive 65. Max.



I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT
State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the
interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in
general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65....


I understand. I just don't feel the need to test the limits.

I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.

We could stop all automobile deaths if we made automobiles illegal.

We could stop all knife deaths if we made knives illegal.


Sure.

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim
that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't
think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or
repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls


and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide
who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined
judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of
view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other
things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions
that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do....
be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.


It was called a discussion Scott, something you are not capable of doing
without getting all puffy and getting your underwear in a bunch.

Just ignore it.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, October 31, 2014 7:30:25 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

But yet you wrote " I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65". Seems that you have no problem that "you don't really give a **** about me or my family" when you are driving above the limits set by your elected officials.

Fact is, I don't talk on my cell phone when driving, I keep to the right except when passing, I'm courteous to other drivers, and I actually actively participate in driving. I'm far safer than 99.9% of the other drivers on the road, even when speeding at 15 over the limit.

And no, I don't speed in a neighborhood, mine or anyone else's. And it does **** me off when someone does.

It's all about making the right judgment calls Know what I mean?

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:30 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim
that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't
think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can
rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the
tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or
repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the
room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls


and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide
who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined
judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of
view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other
things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions
that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do....
be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.


It was called a discussion Scott, something you are not capable of doing
without getting all puffy and getting your underwear in a bunch.

Just ignore it.





You are incredible... lol...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 7:30:25 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

But yet you wrote " I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65". Seems that you have no problem that "you don't really give a **** about me or my family" when you are driving above the limits set by your elected officials.

Fact is, I don't talk on my cell phone when driving, I keep to the right except when passing, I'm courteous to other drivers, and I actually actively participate in driving. I'm far safer than 99.9% of the other drivers on the road, even when speeding at 15 over the limit.

And no, I don't speed in a neighborhood, mine or anyone else's. And it does **** me off when someone does.

It's all about making the right judgment calls Know what I mean?


I don't really think 5 mph over is all that bad, and neither do the cops
or the state... Folks that use radar dectectors do it so they can go
insanly over the speed limit and don't tell me different, if they
didn't, they wouldn't have any need for a detector.. that's why I don't
need one...

Had to share this story
 

On 10/31/2014 10:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front
"vanity" plate for that very reason.


The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target.

Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the
radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights.
The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass
body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator)

These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with
retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material
It would buy you several hundred feet anyway.
They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front
of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet.



I just drive 65. Max.



I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT
State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the
interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in
general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65....


I understand. I just don't feel the need to test the limits.

I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.





I did the same thing in the 80's. St Pete to CT in 24 hours, 1300 miles
but I only took two sleep stops and set my trips to travel mostly at
night in the NE corridor. I did not break any speed limits then though,
it was not my truck...

Had to share this story
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just
remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there.
The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10
year old with a fingernail file could pop it off.



I'd like to see a trigger lock like that. The ones I have (gun
manufacturer supplied) are pretty well made and substantial.
I took the Ruger 10/22 to the range once and forgot the key.
No way could I or anyone else remove the trigger lock unless we
destroyed something (like the rifle).

The chamber locks supplied by the gun manufacturers are also pretty high
quality. Sure, maybe a heavy bolt cutter or half an hour with a hack
saw would work but again, the purpose of a trigger or chamber lock is to
help prevent accidental discharge of the firearm by the owner or an
inquisitive visitor when stored in your home. They are not designed to
prevent theft.

The locks are *required* ... again by law. Even if you purchase a used
firearm from a licensed dealer up here, the dealer is required to
furnish a lock.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 12:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.



I agree with that. Idealism is nice but reality prevails, something
many far left liberals can't get though their heads.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 1:50 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:53:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



That's why the show is interesting. It goes into that sort of stuff.
It's not a liberal political thing like the rest of the MSNBC programing.


I have no interest in watching a prison reality show. I spent plenty
of time in the prisons when I was inspecting and a little bit of that
kind of reality goes a long way.



That's why the show is worth seeing once in a while for those of us who
have never seen the inside of a jail or prison. Most of the inmates
have a totally different outlook on society and life in general and it's
a way of thinking that most of us cannot fathom.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 1:28 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:15:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:40 PM, wrote:

They do sell a tag cover that you can read the tag through but it
seriously reduces the laser reflection and it is hard to see from an
angle, frustrating cameras.



Heh. You don't have annual vehicle inspections in Florida like we do.
People have tried the plastic over the front plate trick by getting
fancy plate holders. Won't pass inspection if you have one installed.

That was another bureaucratic boondoggle that we got rid of. In fact
it was a democratic governor who did it. (Bob Graham)



Years ago Massachusetts required all of the privately owned gas stations
and repair shops that were licensed by the state to do vehicle
inspections to install dynamometers (at considerable expense) for under
load emission testing. Your car or truck would be driven onto the
rollers and a sensor was placed in the exhaust. Emission levels at idle
and at high speed were taken by a computer.

Then, about 3 or 4 years ago active emission tests were eliminated. All
the stations had to dig out the dynamometers or simply no longer use them.

All they do now is plug the computer into the vehicle's OBD-II connector
and check for faults. If your car is a 1996 or older, it is exempted
from this test completely and all they do is check the horn, lights,
etc., like they did 35 years ago. Some stations will jack up the front
end and check for bad ball joints or tie rods.

When we had the winter house in Jupiter FL, I bought a used Ford Ranger
down there and registered it in Florida. I was very surprised to find
out there was no vehicle safety or emission testing required.
Up here you have to get a car, new or used, inspected within 7 days of
purchase.

The only problem I ran into in Florida was getting insurance. Because
the Ranger had Florida tags I couldn't put it on my MA insurance policy.
Then, because I held a MA driver's license, I was told I couldn't get
insurance. Finally Allstate gave me a policy but only after they
received a fax from my MA insurance company stating that I had held a
policy for some number of years and was in good standing.

The other thing unique to MA is that it is the only state in the Union
that does not issue temporary paper tags (or plates).

When we sold the place in Florida my last trip back involved hauling two
Harley motorcycles back to MA. I bought an enclosed trailer and got a
temporary FL tag for it that was good for 30 days. Used it to drive
home, then tossed the paper tag away.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:25:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.

I used to go to Florida from Southern Md twice a year for years. It is
a shorter ride (950 or so) to St Pete and my fastest trip was a tad
over 14 hours door to door. Usually it was more like 17 or 18 with a
short nap in a truck stop or a rest station along the way (Brunswick
Georgia generally) By then the sun was up and I did the Florida leg.

I had a radar detector but the real aid was the childrens band radio
and choosing your travel time carefully. I did most of the driving at
night but I was a midnight to 8 guy anyway.



The worst part of driving to Florida (or anywhere south of here) is
getting through the southern part of CT, New York and New Jersey.
After that it's a pretty easy drive except for some parts of Maryland.

I used to leave MA at about 11 pm after sleeping in the afternoon or
evening. That would usually get me over the George Washington Bridge in
New York just before the major rush hour traffic.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The
Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a
casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING
FOR MARYLAND."

Had to share this story
 

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 01:44:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just
remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there.
The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10
year old with a fingernail file could pop it off.

The guns I've bought here all came with the same type lock:
http://www.info4guns.com/graphics/pi...cable_lock.jpg

Each has it's own key. Probably could be picked or the cable cut, but
would keep a kid from accidentally loading the gun and shooting
someone.

Had to share this story
 

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 01:38:18 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:16:32 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:30:15 -0400, KC wrote:


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

If you lived in Maryland when they were the speed trap state, it would
make more sense to you. 65 on the beltway was not endangering anyone.
Writing tickets for it was simply revenue.


Were they writing tickets for less than ten over?

Yes. 9 over was $20 and one point, 10 over was $40 and 2 points.
Five over generally got you a ticket.
When they did the Beltway at rush hour, usually everyone got a 9 over
ticket. They would shoot the first car in a "platoon" (pack), 20 cops
would jump out in the road and wave everyone over. They would write
like crazy until they were are cited, and do it again.
They usually had the ticket pretty much made out before they got there
and they just put in the time and the name, DL number etc. This was
production speed trapping at it's finest.

If you didn't stop, you got an "evading" ticket and you were in
serious trouble. You might even be arrested and have your car
impounded.

That was when a radar detector was handy. If you had enough warning,
you could drop out of the pack and pull over on the shoulder if
necessary. Usually just being obviously slower than everyone else was
enough but you had the real chance of being hit from behind.

At least one of those pack wolves would be just over the rise up
around the Hwy 4 exit. I haven't seen that since we returned from
Germany back in '91, but they were sure there in the mid-80's and
earlier.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:10:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, wrote:

How many crime guns have actually been traced to a gun show?
You do understand a licensed dealer still needs to record "private"
sales I suppose.



Sure. In many states he "records" it in his little black book that is
subject to audit ... maybe. Wasn't that the case in the kid who used
his mother's gun to shoot up some kids at a school? The ATF hadn't
checked his books for years.

That is because none of the guns he handled were ever investigated in
a crime. That should be a good thing.
When they did go looking for one, the system worked. Isn't all you are
looking for?

It also doesn't stop a private or gun show dealer sale of a firearm to a
person legally prohibited from owning one. That was proven by the TV
investigation where they sent a guy to gun shows and he was able to buy
anything he wanted with no background check performed.

There is nothing to stop a person from selling a gun to a person who
shouldn't have one. It is already illegal and making it "more" illegal
is meaningless. If 10 years and $100k fine is not a deterrent, what do
you think your new law would impose that would do the trick? Death?



Did you read the wording on the Federal Transfer Form that John posted a
link to?

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what good it does.
It basically says that you can sell or transfer a firearm to a convicted
felon or nut case as long as you didn't know he was a convicted felon or
nut case.


The form I put a link to, 'Record of Firearms Transfer...', is not a
'Government Form' of any kind. It's more a courtesy form. I don't even
know who or what originated it.

Had to share this story
 

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Don't know how you got that from what Greg said. Felons making
transfers are not going to worry about paperwork.

From the ATF:
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#possession-restrictions

Q: Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess
firearms and/or ammunition?

Yes, a person who —

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an
alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his
or her citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of
such intimate partner; or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a
firearm.

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully
receive a firearm.

Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained
prior to the indictment or information.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]

Granted, if Joe Blow walked up and said he wanted to buy my P938, I
wouldn't know if he fell into one of the categories above. So, I
wouldn't sell him my gun.

If he were persistent, I'd tell him to get in the car and we'd go to
the nearest FFL dealer where he could pay the fee and complete the
paperwork.

But, if I'm transfering the gun to someone, like my son-in-law, whom I
know well, then I'll just record the transfer on the form I posted
earlier.

Easy.

Had to share this story
 

On Friday, October 31, 2014 11:07:15 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 7:30:25 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

But yet you wrote " I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65". Seems that you have no problem that "you don't really give a **** about me or my family" when you are driving above the limits set by your elected officials.

Fact is, I don't talk on my cell phone when driving, I keep to the right except when passing, I'm courteous to other drivers, and I actually actively participate in driving. I'm far safer than 99.9% of the other drivers on the road, even when speeding at 15 over the limit.

And no, I don't speed in a neighborhood, mine or anyone else's. And it does **** me off when someone does.

It's all about making the right judgment calls Know what I mean?


I don't really think 5 mph over is all that bad, and neither do the cops
or the state... Folks that use radar dectectors do it so they can go
insanly over the speed limit and don't tell me different, if they
didn't, they wouldn't have any need for a detector.. that's why I don't
need one...

You said you went 8 over. That's insane to some people, but I guess you get to decide where the line is. OK.

Had to share this story
 

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:00:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.


I honestly saw no ridicule in BAR's post. And I don't recall any
ridicule in any of the other posts.

I took BAR's post figuratively - 'anyone' allowing the passage of one
more gun control measure is painting himself into that corner.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 12:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Gun control and it's related issues are a big deal in today's society.
We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and ignore it while clinging to
the 2A and interpretations of what "infringement" means. Eventually it
may be interpreted in a way that gun nuts won't like. Better to
reason, negotiate and find ways to keep 2A rights while satisfying those
who would like to revoke it entirely. This is the 21st century.

===

History has repeatedly shown that a policy of appeasement is the wrong
strategy against an intractable foe. The NRA is frequently criticzed
for their hard ball, "my way or the highway," no compromise tactics
but I think they appreciate that every inch of ground lost will be
twice as difficult to regain. A lot of the political hysteria is a
result of the mostly liberal media flogging every incident for all
it's worth. Meanwhile, the real issue statistically, black-on-black
murder, seems to get very little media attention unless an NFL
football player is involved.

Luckily there aren't too many footballers committing murder, otherwise
they'd have to ban football.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/1/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:25:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.

I used to go to Florida from Southern Md twice a year for years. It is
a shorter ride (950 or so) to St Pete and my fastest trip was a tad
over 14 hours door to door. Usually it was more like 17 or 18 with a
short nap in a truck stop or a rest station along the way (Brunswick
Georgia generally) By then the sun was up and I did the Florida leg.

I had a radar detector but the real aid was the childrens band radio
and choosing your travel time carefully. I did most of the driving at
night but I was a midnight to 8 guy anyway.



The worst part of driving to Florida (or anywhere south of here) is
getting through the southern part of CT, New York and New Jersey.
After that it's a pretty easy drive except for some parts of Maryland.

I used to leave MA at about 11 pm after sleeping in the afternoon or
evening. That would usually get me over the George Washington Bridge in
New York just before the major rush hour traffic.


A detour over the mountains is a pleasant way to avoid those crazy city
dwellas. You just have to safely make your way out of taxachusetts
first.;-)

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 8:01 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The
Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a
casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING
FOR MARYLAND."


Ah .. That suggests the purpose is other than simply to prove the gun
was test fired.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 8:35 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:00:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that
registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we
will ever see that happen.

===

Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule
it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't
consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea
leaves and check which way the wind is blowing.



I guess I've been reading different tea leaves.

If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal
of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that
involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings.

Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with
a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem
tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the
parent or the shooter himself.


They couldn't even get a universal background check approved.

Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the
people you are trying to keep the gun away from.




That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or
probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was
that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it
would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough
to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't
think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of
the next two or three generations.

You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while
standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room.
With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner
of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you.

Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say.



One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with
regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental
people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some
reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule
by some.

But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the
opponent.


I honestly saw no ridicule in BAR's post. And I don't recall any
ridicule in any of the other posts.

I took BAR's post figuratively - 'anyone' allowing the passage of one
more gun control measure is painting himself into that corner.


Poorly worded on my part. You are correct.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 1:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:16:32 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/31/2014 9:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:30:15 -0400, KC wrote:


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

If you lived in Maryland when they were the speed trap state, it would
make more sense to you. 65 on the beltway was not endangering anyone.
Writing tickets for it was simply revenue.


Were they writing tickets for less than ten over?

Yes. 9 over was $20 and one point, 10 over was $40 and 2 points.
Five over generally got you a ticket.
When they did the Beltway at rush hour, usually everyone got a 9 over
ticket. They would shoot the first car in a "platoon" (pack), 20 cops
would jump out in the road and wave everyone over. They would write
like crazy until they were are cited, and do it again.
They usually had the ticket pretty much made out before they got there
and they just put in the time and the name, DL number etc. This was
production speed trapping at it's finest.

If you didn't stop, you got an "evading" ticket and you were in
serious trouble. You might even be arrested and have your car
impounded.

That was when a radar detector was handy. If you had enough warning,
you could drop out of the pack and pull over on the shoulder if
necessary. Usually just being obviously slower than everyone else was
enough but you had the real chance of being hit from behind.


Well, that's nuts I guess glad I wasn't there but I probably wouldn't
have gotten nailed anyway. Aside from the examples I gave above, I
rarely go over the sl anyway. Of course half of my driving is with a
trailer on... Aside from within the city limits in CT, it's gotten to
the point that the average speed say, west of hartford, south of
Cromwell, or East of hartford to the Mass border, the "Average speed" is
probably 75 with the fast lane up around 80-85 a lot of the time
depending on conditions.. Going 65-70 like me holds up traffic, going
55-65 is just dangerous because they will pass you on both sides and of
course as you all know, folks just seem to think cause you have a
trailer, you can maneuver and stop faster than Mario Andretti so they
cut you off left and right... Either way,like I said, it's very rare
when I get more than say, 3-7 miles over.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 8:32 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 11:07:15 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 7:30:25 PM UTC-4, KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars
with collision avoidance systems trip them.

Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them.

This is the one I have:
https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/
Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and
the lasers?
Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really
have not been paying much attention

Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket.

With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare.

So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do!

Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time...


I don't get it.. to me a radar decector means you don't really give a
**** about me or my family, you are gonna' do what ever you want, kind
of like that nurse in Maine who could care less about the quarantine
cause she thinks she is just entitled to put others in danger. Selfish
people use radar detectors to go faster than their elected officials
think they should go to protect themselves and others... and probably
call the cops when somebody speeds by their house, after all, they are
selfish.... lol!

But yet you wrote " I routinely set my cc to 72-73 on the highway when the speed limit is 65". Seems that you have no problem that "you don't really give a **** about me or my family" when you are driving above the limits set by your elected officials.

Fact is, I don't talk on my cell phone when driving, I keep to the right except when passing, I'm courteous to other drivers, and I actually actively participate in driving. I'm far safer than 99.9% of the other drivers on the road, even when speeding at 15 over the limit.

And no, I don't speed in a neighborhood, mine or anyone else's. And it does **** me off when someone does.

It's all about making the right judgment calls Know what I mean?


I don't really think 5 mph over is all that bad, and neither do the cops
or the state... Folks that use radar dectectors do it so they can go
insanly over the speed limit and don't tell me different, if they
didn't, they wouldn't have any need for a detector.. that's why I don't
need one...

You said you went 8 over. That's insane to some people, but I guess you get to decide where the line is. OK.


I have gone 8 over, in a 65 mph zone... But I have not decided it was
ok, the State Police did and 95% of the time, that is just flowing with
traffic in the slow lane.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/1/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:25:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.

I used to go to Florida from Southern Md twice a year for years. It is
a shorter ride (950 or so) to St Pete and my fastest trip was a tad
over 14 hours door to door. Usually it was more like 17 or 18 with a
short nap in a truck stop or a rest station along the way (Brunswick
Georgia generally) By then the sun was up and I did the Florida leg.

I had a radar detector but the real aid was the childrens band radio
and choosing your travel time carefully. I did most of the driving at
night but I was a midnight to 8 guy anyway.



The worst part of driving to Florida (or anywhere south of here) is
getting through the southern part of CT, New York and New Jersey.
After that it's a pretty easy drive except for some parts of Maryland.

I used to leave MA at about 11 pm after sleeping in the afternoon or
evening. That would usually get me over the George Washington Bridge in
New York just before the major rush hour traffic.



If you are going through at the wrong time it's worth it to head out 84
which with normal traffic would add about three hours to the trip iirc,
but still better than going through that NE corridor in the afternoon...

Had to share this story
 

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:34:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 8:01 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The
Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a
casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING
FOR MARYLAND."


Ah .. That suggests the purpose is other than simply to prove the gun
was test fired.


Interesting:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ing-technology

"Maryland has already been down the road of requiring that a fired
shell casing be provided for every pistol sold in the state (that
being a simpler type of microstamping). That requirement has not
produced a single criminal conviction in 15 years, and the Maryland
State Police no longer enter the shell casings into a searchable
database both because of the cost and lack of effectiveness of the
technology. In fact, New York recently repealed its shell case
requirement in order to use those funds to hire more state police,
leaving Maryland as the only state that still retains this costly and
ineffective requirement. Repeating the shell casing mistake with a
more expensive, less reliable technology just wastes even more
resources."

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 10:04 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/1/2014 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/1/2014 2:00 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:25:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida.
Made
about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three
years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat.

It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove.

Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll
never do that again.

I used to go to Florida from Southern Md twice a year for years. It is
a shorter ride (950 or so) to St Pete and my fastest trip was a tad
over 14 hours door to door. Usually it was more like 17 or 18 with a
short nap in a truck stop or a rest station along the way (Brunswick
Georgia generally) By then the sun was up and I did the Florida leg.

I had a radar detector but the real aid was the childrens band radio
and choosing your travel time carefully. I did most of the driving at
night but I was a midnight to 8 guy anyway.



The worst part of driving to Florida (or anywhere south of here) is
getting through the southern part of CT, New York and New Jersey.
After that it's a pretty easy drive except for some parts of Maryland.

I used to leave MA at about 11 pm after sleeping in the afternoon or
evening. That would usually get me over the George Washington Bridge in
New York just before the major rush hour traffic.



If you are going through at the wrong time it's worth it to head out 84
which with normal traffic would add about three hours to the trip iirc,
but still better than going through that NE corridor in the afternoon...


Took that route a few times. That's the way we went on the motorcycles
for Rolling Thunder. Left at 5 am from MA and got to Manasas, VA by
mid-afternoon. Nice ride on a bike.

Not so nice a ride in a big, gas powered Class A Motorhome though.
Although the engine was a big GM Vortex something or other, I thought it
was going to blow up sometimes climbing the hills in 2nd or 3rd gear and
the engine racing at about 4K RPM. That's when I realized that rigs
that size really need diesel engines.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 10:34 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:34:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 8:01 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The
Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a
casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING
FOR MARYLAND."


Ah .. That suggests the purpose is other than simply to prove the gun
was test fired.


Interesting:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ing-technology

"Maryland has already been down the road of requiring that a fired
shell casing be provided for every pistol sold in the state (that
being a simpler type of microstamping). That requirement has not
produced a single criminal conviction in 15 years, and the Maryland
State Police no longer enter the shell casings into a searchable
database both because of the cost and lack of effectiveness of the
technology. In fact, New York recently repealed its shell case
requirement in order to use those funds to hire more state police,
leaving Maryland as the only state that still retains this costly and
ineffective requirement. Repeating the shell casing mistake with a
more expensive, less reliable technology just wastes even more
resources."



Maybe Massachusetts no longer requires it either although my most recent
purchase (a couple of months ago) of a Sig Sauer P238 came with one.

Had to share this story
 

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:11:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 10:34 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:34:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 8:01 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The
Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a
casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING
FOR MARYLAND."


Ah .. That suggests the purpose is other than simply to prove the gun
was test fired.


Interesting:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ing-technology

"Maryland has already been down the road of requiring that a fired
shell casing be provided for every pistol sold in the state (that
being a simpler type of microstamping). That requirement has not
produced a single criminal conviction in 15 years, and the Maryland
State Police no longer enter the shell casings into a searchable
database both because of the cost and lack of effectiveness of the
technology. In fact, New York recently repealed its shell case
requirement in order to use those funds to hire more state police,
leaving Maryland as the only state that still retains this costly and
ineffective requirement. Repeating the shell casing mistake with a
more expensive, less reliable technology just wastes even more
resources."



Maybe Massachusetts no longer requires it either although my most recent
purchase (a couple of months ago) of a Sig Sauer P238 came with one.


I looked at the P238 when I bought the P938. Nice little gun - a bit
smaller than the P938. I wanted the 9mm so went with the 938. My wife
loves shooting that little bugger.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to
make the buyer fill out the form.
BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It
is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They
still move around.
If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they
love, registration and background checks mean nothing.
Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass
any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there
is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used.



Not to keep kicking a dead horse but the first part of your comment is
exactly what gun registration is intended for.

I sold a handgun up here in a private sale. When I bought the gun it
was registered with the state identifying me as the owner.

When I sold it, it was up to me to visually confirm that the buyer held
a current and valid MA gun license and it was up to him to confirm I was
the lawful owner. I checked his license, he checked mine, along with
the dealer provided documentation of when I bought the gun.

I then completed a form on-line that included my info and license
number, his info and license number, the gun model and serial number.

Once submitted, the gun was no longer registered to me. It is now
registered to him as the owner as of the date of transfer.

No FFL or fees required.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:58:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:44 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just
remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there.
The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10
year old with a fingernail file could pop it off.



I'd like to see a trigger lock like that. The ones I have (gun
manufacturer supplied) are pretty well made and substantial.
I took the Ruger 10/22 to the range once and forgot the key.
No way could I or anyone else remove the trigger lock unless we
destroyed something (like the rifle).


This thing is made of plastic. If I get a minute I will give this a
look and see what the easiest way to get it off would be. Obviously I
have tools in the garage that will take just about anything off.

The chamber locks supplied by the gun manufacturers are also pretty high
quality. Sure, maybe a heavy bolt cutter or half an hour with a hack
saw would work but again, the purpose of a trigger or chamber lock is to
help prevent accidental discharge of the firearm by the owner or an
inquisitive visitor when stored in your home. They are not designed to
prevent theft.

10 seconds with a side grinder?


The locks are *required* ... again by law. Even if you purchase a used
firearm from a licensed dealer up here, the dealer is required to
furnish a lock.


I still do not see the value. If your kid is going to be a problem
around your gun, the trigger lock does not prevent access to the gun,
they can play with the gun and the lock just becomes a puzzle for him
and his friends.

When I google how to remove a trigger lock I get hits for the various
brands. Most seem to be destructive of the lock but if you stole the
gun, so what? I would also be curious how hard it is to simply pick
the lock. The one I have looks pretty trivial but I did not spend any
time really looking at it.



I'll repeat again. The locks are *NOT* designed to prevent or even
dissuade theft. They are to help prevent accidental discharge.

The ones I have been supplied are not cheap plastic either. The trigger
lock is metal and would take anyone a while to figure out how to get it
off without the key. A kid that found it in the house (if you were
stupid enough to leave it laying around) isn't going to get it off in
10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours.

The range I shoot at provides cheap plastic chamber "locks".
You are supposed to insert them and lay your gun down on the firing
table whenever the range is down while someone is placing targets, etc.

Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and
step back.

Had to share this story
 

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:54:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to
make the buyer fill out the form.
BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It
is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They
still move around.
If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they
love, registration and background checks mean nothing.
Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass
any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there
is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used.



Not to keep kicking a dead horse but the first part of your comment is
exactly what gun registration is intended for.

I sold a handgun up here in a private sale. When I bought the gun it
was registered with the state identifying me as the owner.

When I sold it, it was up to me to visually confirm that the buyer held
a current and valid MA gun license and it was up to him to confirm I was
the lawful owner. I checked his license, he checked mine, along with
the dealer provided documentation of when I bought the gun.

I then completed a form on-line that included my info and license
number, his info and license number, the gun model and serial number.

Once submitted, the gun was no longer registered to me. It is now
registered to him as the owner as of the date of transfer.

No FFL or fees required.


You are both law-abiding citizens. Good. Now, when that gun is made
illegal by the state, the state will know from whom the can expect the
gun to be turned in. Or from whom they need to collect the
gun...paying a 'fair' amount for it, of course.

You each had to have licenses, and one of you had to have a computer.
Your laws are preventing poor folks who can't even afford a voter ID
from buying a gun.

Shame on MA.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 11:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/1/2014 10:34 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:34:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 8:01 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent
shell in the box or case?

To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner.

I have never bought a gun with a case in the box.
I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint
things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the
gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them
up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and
the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up
tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact.

I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less
than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the
rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same?




Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun?

Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a
spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory.

It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock.

Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere?


The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The
Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a
casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING
FOR MARYLAND."


Ah .. That suggests the purpose is other than simply to prove the gun
was test fired.


Interesting:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ing-technology

"Maryland has already been down the road of requiring that a fired
shell casing be provided for every pistol sold in the state (that
being a simpler type of microstamping). That requirement has not
produced a single criminal conviction in 15 years, and the Maryland
State Police no longer enter the shell casings into a searchable
database both because of the cost and lack of effectiveness of the
technology. In fact, New York recently repealed its shell case
requirement in order to use those funds to hire more state police,
leaving Maryland as the only state that still retains this costly and
ineffective requirement. Repeating the shell casing mistake with a
more expensive, less reliable technology just wastes even more
resources."



Maybe Massachusetts no longer requires it either although my most recent
purchase (a couple of months ago) of a Sig Sauer P238 came with one.

Did the FFL who transferred the firearm to you keep the shell casing? If
not, then it isn't needed in your state.


Nope. They are in the box or case and the buyer keeps them.

It seems strange that the manufacturers would bother to include them in
some states and not others regardless if the state uses them.

That's one of the complaints I have about gun laws. They are not
uniform. Every state has it's own set of laws. I can't legally travel
from here to my son's house in SC with a gun in my car because of the
different laws.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 12:13 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:54:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to
make the buyer fill out the form.
BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It
is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They
still move around.
If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they
love, registration and background checks mean nothing.
Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass
any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there
is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used.



Not to keep kicking a dead horse but the first part of your comment is
exactly what gun registration is intended for.

I sold a handgun up here in a private sale. When I bought the gun it
was registered with the state identifying me as the owner.

When I sold it, it was up to me to visually confirm that the buyer held
a current and valid MA gun license and it was up to him to confirm I was
the lawful owner. I checked his license, he checked mine, along with
the dealer provided documentation of when I bought the gun.

I then completed a form on-line that included my info and license
number, his info and license number, the gun model and serial number.

Once submitted, the gun was no longer registered to me. It is now
registered to him as the owner as of the date of transfer.

No FFL or fees required.


You are both law-abiding citizens. Good. Now, when that gun is made
illegal by the state, the state will know from whom the can expect the
gun to be turned in. Or from whom they need to collect the
gun...paying a 'fair' amount for it, of course.

You each had to have licenses, and one of you had to have a computer.
Your laws are preventing poor folks who can't even afford a voter ID
from buying a gun.

Shame on MA.



Pre-ban guns are not confiscated and you can still own them, buy them or
sell them as long as they made before 1998 and have always been owned by
someone living within the state.

Banned guns made after 1998 cannot be legally purchased or acquired by
any means.

Had to share this story
 

On 11/1/2014 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:54:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote:


Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the
express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant.


Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the
tracking of sales/transfers.

Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to
make the buyer fill out the form.
BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It
is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They
still move around.
If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they
love, registration and background checks mean nothing.
Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass
any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there
is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used.



Not to keep kicking a dead horse but the first part of your comment is
exactly what gun registration is intended for.

I sold a handgun up here in a private sale. When I bought the gun it
was registered with the state identifying me as the owner.

When I sold it, it was up to me to visually confirm that the buyer held
a current and valid MA gun license and it was up to him to confirm I was
the lawful owner. I checked his license, he checked mine, along with
the dealer provided documentation of when I bought the gun.

I then completed a form on-line that included my info and license
number, his info and license number, the gun model and serial number.

Once submitted, the gun was no longer registered to me. It is now
registered to him as the owner as of the date of transfer.

No FFL or fees required.


That is not relevant for the 48 states that do not register firearms.



But it could be. :-)