california ammo law

[skeet]

That is the explosives law in Md..better go check it out though. Add yes 5 lbs of smokeless powder and 5 lbs of black powder. Yep it certainly is retarded. I also know a fellow in Cambridge who was cited by the State fire marshals office for having more than 5 lbs of powder. Never got past the supervisor of the assistant fire marshal. He actually called the guy and apologized for his employee. The license has been in effect for more than 30 yrs. Do you have a license?? Being an officer of the court I assume you do. Did you have powder when you lived in the town home or wherever you lived. Can't remember whether you lived in one or not. I actually know at least 200 people who reload(in Md) and do NOT have that stupid license. Some actually happen to be police officers too.

Now as to the medical ins stuff and control. Do you think that having medical insurance is a right? Do you think you should pay for everyone else's insurance..even though they do not work. I know we as TAX PAYERS pay for the indigent and others..IS that right also? When does enough become too much?? Let's turn this around here.. If the people who choose not to work are able to vote and make us pay for them and their families..where will it stop? At some point we just have to stand back and say NO MORE...or you and the future taxpayers of this country will pay more and more of YOUR earnings to support those that refuse to be responsible for themselves. Probably at some point 100% of your income. It surely IS possible. Heck anyone would almost be a fool to continue to work.. So there will be less and less who choose not to work..meaning more taxes for you. We have to stop this somewhere. Now is the time. Illegals are just that..Why do we have to support them also. to the tune of more than 12 Million people. If they are here legally then they should be either paying for their insurance or Paying for their hospital bills. If they aren't..then refuse service...Oh No..someone may suffer..Medical treatment STILL isn't a right!! Neither political party out there are our friends. Especially the dem..er marxists.. Heck the Republicans are now socialists. Time for term limits..

As for the felons buying guns from individuals..Fabs..they are felons.. Why are they not in jail? Why are they NOT locked up when found in possession of a firearm.. And if you say well maybe they don't belong in jail..well they KNOW it is illegal for them to have a firearm in their possession much less buy one. You are willing and able to pay for your pleasures..like firearm ownership..many others aren't.. Sorry but it seems as though people in your position are ready and able to sell out the constitution to the ideals of regulation. Maybe we should have a fee to use the right of free speech also. We can surely show reasonable cause for that too.

[fabsroman]

Skeet,

I still live in a townhouse and I do not have any powder here. I don't do any reloading here. I do it all at my parents' place and if I buy 5 pounds of powder I try to run through it all in one sitting. Yes, I guess I am in violation of the law briefly because I would have 5 pounds of smokeless and some of the pyrodex pellets laying around, but it wouldn't be for very long. Being an officer of the Court doesn't mean that I get hanged for violating a law, it just means I need to try and observe them as well as possible. Everybody makes mistakes once in a while.

Regarding the guns and felons. I am not saying that there should be any restriction on somebody's right to own a gun, except for felons. Requiring that ALL firearms sales, even private individual to private individual, goes through a FFL and the buyer goes through a NICS check is not really infringing on somebody's right to own a gun. Yeah, it costs $20 for the NICS check, which I really do not think is unreasonable. Look, it is costing us money right now to exercise our right to free speech over the internet via our service provider fee.

The big difference between a NICS check and related fee upon purchase and the annual registration fee is the purpose behind the laws. The first is to prevent felons from getting guns, the second is to make it harder and costlier to own guns. Yes, there is a fee related to a NICS check, but such is life. We could make the NICS check fee free, but you know somebody has to pay for it. So, either the gun purchaser pays for it or society (i.e., all taxpayers) pay for it.

Regarding health care, something needs to be done about it period. Wait until Medicare needs to be canceled or the age extended because the country cannot afford it. Same thing will happen with social security. Funny thing is that here is the opposite argument Skeet. You throw it in my face that I can afford the extra cost for the NICS checks for gun purchases, Well, guess what, I can probably afford the extra cost for health care for quite some time, but at the rate we are going, I might not be able to afford it forever. The way insurance works is to spread the risk across a broad population. The problem with health insurance is that the companies try to eliminate individual high risk people with a pre-existing condition. However, if is is a group policy of 2 or more people, they don't really care about pre-existing conditions. Now, why can't the insurance company spread the risk of a pre-existing condition across ALL of their insureds, instead of just across the people on that specific plan. They do it with group plans, otherwise a 2 person or 3 person group plan with a single person with a pre-existing condition would still be ridiculously expensive. So, why not pass a law making it illegal for insurance companies to charge individual rates that take into account the specific person's pre-existing condition instead of figuring the likelihood of applicants with pre-existing conditions and spreading that risk amongst their entire pool of insureds. Of course, the individual still needs to pay the premium himself/herself. Now, there could be exceptions for self-inflicted conditions like obesity, alcoholism, smoking, etc. However, why should somebody be told that they cannot get health insurance for their 4 month old baby because the baby is in the 99th percentile for weight and is considered to be obese? That is utterly nuts.

My take on people not working is that they should receive government provided health care as long as they qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. If they do not qualify for unemployment benefits they are SOL.

The big issue with health care costs is just that, health care costs are increasing faster than inflation. So, either we need people to die sooner, or health care will eventually be way too expensive and so will health insurance. There has to be a way to control it.

Did I give my example of my wife's OBGYN charging $4,800 for our son's delivery in May when the OBGYN was late to the delivery and the house OBGYN did the delivery and was in the room for all of 10 minutes. Granted, my wife's OBGYN did check up on her a couple of times while she was in the hospital. I would say they spent 2 hours tops with my wife, including the time the house OBGYN spent delivering the baby, and they charged $4,800. That is utterly nuts.

How about the fact that doctors charge insane rates because they know that insurance companies are going to discount them? What happens to the poor guy that needs medical service but doesn't have insurance. Do the doctors reduce the charge in that case. Nope. Next thing you know the poor guy is coming to me because he is getting sued and I am trying to work out some type of agreement with the providers to accept a reduced amount. He is paying me $135 an hour for something that the providers would have willingly reduced for the insurance companies.

Simply put, free markets will not work in today's society. Today's society is way too complicated. Look at the derivative trading that was a part of this entire recession. Hardly anybody understood any of that.

By the way, just in case you didn't notice, you were wrong about there being no law in Maryland that requires retailers of gun powder to obtain the ID of the person buying the gunpowder. FYI - this requirement applies to ALL gunpowder, not just 5 pound kegs. Also, if you knew about the 5 pound limit so long ago and know so many people, LEO's and Fire Marshalls included, that are against it, why not try to get it repealed? I thought about writing my state representative about it, but my state representative is in Montgomery County and as liberal as can be. Planning on moving to Howard County soon, so maybe I'll take up the issue at that time.

At the end of the day, I hope the California law gets repealed at some point, I hope something happens to stem the soaring costs of health care, and I hope something happens to help reduce the national debt. In the meantime, I'll make sure I have plenty of ammo handy.

By the way, the issue with health care costs is that as they increase, less and less people will be able to afford them. So, the risk/cost will not be able to be spread amongst a large pool. The people that will most likely go without insurance are the young/healthy. Guess what, they wouldn't cost the pool very much and most of their premiums would be used to pay for the elderly/sickly. As more and more health people withdraw from the pool because they cannot afford to pay the premium, that means the elderly/sickly will have to pay more or they will also have to drop out. Guess what happens to them then. This is something that HMO's experienced initially. At first, they were making money hand over fist because the people signing up for them were the healthy people that only worried about what the premium cost was because they never had to go to the doctor. I was one of those people at age 21. I went with Kaiser. Well, as those people got older and stuck with the HMO, guess what the HMO's figured out, they were no longer making as much profit, if any, because their treatment costs went up. Then, the premium went up.

If 50% of Americans cannot afford health insurance/health care and the national debt is going to be $20 trillion in 10 years and arguably $50 trillion in 10 years, you have to admit that these are problems that need to be addressed. Of course, we can all take head in the sand approach and just keep stocking up on ammo. Guess where this nation will be after that? We need compromise in a lot of areas.

[skeet]

[QUOTE=fabsroman;332651]Skeet,



Well lets go back a bit..the legislators are tryiung to pass a law to make it ok for a felon to vote after release from prison or whatever ..If he can exercise the voting right why not the right to own a firearm? He has paid his debt to society ..right?? Stupid laws are just that stupid.


If you believe that bull about the nics check etc..then you aren't as smart as I thought you were. The reason for the nics check is control. Pure and simple. The 1968 gun control act had a purpose to begin with..Control of gun sales and who they were sold to. It was already illegal for a felon to own a firearm. But there had been 2 Kennedy's(POLITICIANS... you get it?) killed by lunatics so they had to have a way to control sales. Why should we have to have a nics check for private to private sales?? To be really honest I don't have too much of a problem with these stupid checks except for the underlying reason for them. A little control is better than none in politicians eyes...then they can extend it just a bit with a little regulation or law here and there and before you know it..not just regulation but registration. Have you ever read the 1968 GCA. In some areas it is a word for word copy of the 1938 gun control act passed by Nazi Germany. We all know how that turned out don't we? You being an attorney seem to trust your fellow attorneys in the State and Federal Legislatures. I on the other hand DO NOT. I feel we should have term limits of a max of 8 yrs..no PACs and NO lobbyists. Boy that would put a bunch of attorneys, ex congressmen and Senators out of work. Fabs the reason for these gun powder and ammo laws being in place is because the elected people in place want to stay there and they want to be able to control us. No I'm not a conspiracy theorist. When was the last time Big government did something to really help the American TAX PAYING citizen. And as far as paying for free speech that answer about the internet is not what I meant and you know it. Twisting words to suit your ideas doesn't change what I meant. If they can charge you to exercise one Right..the government can charge for any other right. Sorry my friend..but ridiculous regulation and stupid laws don't really help the people of this country..it just hinders freedoms in a very basic way. Trust the gummit..They know what is BEST for you.

You can have 5 lbs of Smokeless powder...and 5 lbs of black powder in Md.. Why is it possible to buy an 8 lb container in Md? I wasn't asking if you had a license to have powder. I was talking of the other license..your reloading license. As far as the Explosives law...I guess the bull with Homeland security has changed things but that law pertained to Explosives in Md. Smokeless powder was not considered an explosive. It was considered a flammable solid(and not as dangerous as gasoline) and is still treated that way in interstate commerce by DOT regulation. That law meant Black Powder(an explosive although a low yield one) when it was passed oh so many years ago.. If you went to buy BP you had to sign for it..just as you had to sign for dynamite previously. That is when I quit selling BP. Oh BTW how much smokeless powder can you tranport in a private vehicle and how much powder can you have in a private residence?

As far as paying the OBGYN for a delivery when he wasn't there...You are the attorney. Refuse to pay and take it to the ins co. Heck Fabs Getting big government to run health care is a real head up the arse approach. You yourself have said in the past that Social Security is broke..Why is that?? Big giovernment keeps using the money for other head in the sand social programs. and more stupid laws. More laws and more regulation leads inevitably to more and more taxes and less and less people paying. We as a nation need legislators who care more for the nation and it's people rather than themselves and the power they have

[fabsroman]

I'm not going to do the research for the powder transport questions, if that is alright with you.

Regarding term limits, I agree completely with you. Nobody should be able to make a career out of being a politician. Now, what we need is for EVERYBODY in this nation to vote out those that are in power right now. Do you think that will happen. Heck no, because the Republicans will be worried that the Democrats will gain control and the Democrats will be worried that the Republicans will gain control, and I am not talking about the politicians worrying about it, I'm talking about the voters worrying about it.

Regarding lobbying, I am against that too. I don't see why we cannot elect somebody to put these things on the floor of Congress, allow them to vote for it to make it an Amendment, and then make it public how our Representatives and Senators vote on it. Good Lord, that would be some serious change. Mind you, the Supreme Court has recently held that big business can endorse any candidate they want, and advertise on that candidate's behalf, because that is freedom of speech. So, we can't get rid of big business completely.

As far as government wanting to "control" me, good Lord. That gun legislation you wrote about is older than me, and where is the control? If this country turns into a gun grabbing country like Nazi Germany, I think there will be a lot more problems than what records they have on people. Plus, how hard is it really to hide a gun? You don't even need to keep all of them at your residence. So, if we get to that point, at which I am sure you will give them the bullets before the gun, are you really that worried because you would probably die anyway by fighting a completely corrupt government that it out of control and is probably a dictatorship at that point. About the only thing I can really see bringing that about is the national debt and ridiculous inflation.

The reason nothing gets done in government that is beneficial is because of all the fear mongering on both sides of the aisle, and I am talking about voters. Another reason is that because the majority of Americans are uninformed and/or ignorant. Death panels, please.

My issue with health care is that the cost of health care is growing faster than GDP, and at an alarming rate. If that continues, and it is supposed to, this country is doomed and/or nobody but the rich will have health care. A health care bill might not pass now, but wait until Medicare is cut, or eliminated, and more working stiffs are without health insurance. When the number of people without health insurance becomes the majority, you can bet that a health care bill will get passed and it will probably be single payor at that point.

Do you think the cost of health care is going to go down, or remain even.

As far as your smart ass comment about the OBGYN not actually delivering a baby, there is an agreement with all OBGYN's practicing at the hospital that they will take turns being the "house" OBGYN and covering each other's asses, so my OBGYN gets to bill for that. $4,800 is still ridiculous and I am not at all happy about how it went down. If I post about how my wife's OBGYN was late and the reason for it, I will be here all night.

Just so we are clear on this, I am all for common sense legislation. In fact, if I decide to run, I'm not going to run on a platform of "Hope and Change", but on "Common Sense and Long Term Stability".

[skeet]

As far as your smart ass comment about the OBGYN not actually delivering a baby, there is an agreement with all OBGYN's practicing at the hospital that they will take turns being the "house" OBGYN and covering each other's asses, so my OBGYN gets to bill for that. $4,800 is still ridiculous and I am not at all happy about how it went down. If I post about how my wife's OBGYN was late and the reason for it, I will be here all night.

Fabs that wasn't meant to be amart assed comment...Seriously you are the attorney. I think it is wrong that you or the ins co should have to pay for services NOT rendered by a doctor.. Some way some how that is just wrong

As far as medical costs part of the rise in medical costs is because of government regulation and meddling and of course..everybody wanting to sue docs for possible mistakes. If the doc was incompetent i understand...but too many people justwant to cash in. Part of the cost of the OB docs is insurance costs arising from too many lawsuits. When my daughter was born the doctors charge was 400 dollars. Hospital charge was 700 bucks.

Please don't run for office...You seem to like too much regulation..I'd have to send Vinnie...from Philly..to visit you.

[fabsroman]

That's alright, my son Luca, will be all grown up by the time I decide to run for dictator of this country.

Malpractice insurance costs are pretty high for OBGYN's. That I will admit, but malpractice insurance and the cost associated with it isn't really increasing at the rate that medical costs in general are increasing. So, that really isn't the problem. If malpractice insurance costs increase at a rate slower than inflation, then that really isn't the problem that is causing medical costs in total to increase quicker than inflation.

Now, you are one for less regulation, correct. Well, about 12 years ago Maryland passed a law capping the recovery for pain & suffering in any tort case. Back then it was $350,000. Now, I believe it is $500,000. Are you for this regulation or against it. Based upon what you wrote, I would guess you are for it. Me, I'm against it. A jury should be able to award any amount it sees fit, without the General Assembly putting a cap on it to keep auto, homeowner, and medical malpractice insurance premiums lower for the society in general. So, a select few get screwed so the majority of people can have their auto insurance bill be $100 cheaper every year.

So, are you for regulating when a plaintiff can bring a medical malpractice case? If so, you are in favor of MORE regulation. In Court cases there is something called Summary Judgment. If the case has no merit after all the discovery is done, and there is no dispute of material fact that a jury needs to decide, a Judge can throw that case out on Summary Judgment before it ever gets to trial in front of a jury. It happens. I was in on a $10 million auto accident case where it happened. Luckily, I was defending the insurance company and the case got thrown out.

We conservatives say we are not in favor of more regulation, but how about the law passed in Maryland wherein people (i.e., anti hunters) cannot interfere with a lawful hunt on public property? Are you in favor of that regulation? I bet you are, as am I. We just pick and choose the ones that suit us.

How about the seat belt law that reduces medical costs for society in general. Is it more important to reduce those costs to society in general and help save lives, or should people have the freedom to drive without wearing a seatbelt? How about speed limit? Should people be allowed to drive any speed they want. Then you and I would have to worry about the morons that have nothing to lose driving way too fast to get to their next crack deal. Again, regulation is fine when it suits us.

How about the regulation of drugs. Should we regulate those, or should they just be legalized? Should people have the will to choose drugs if they want, without any legal ramifications. The current drug laws are definitely hindering free choice.

The only reason gun regulation can even be shot down, no pun intended, is because of the 2nd Amendment.

Society is a bunch of regulations, starting with the criminal code.