Much scarier than Best N. Korea

Plenty of stories of ranchers and farmers in South Texas seeing plenty of activity on their property. Now it's reaching further.

http://www.caller.com/news/2013/apr/01/cartels-dispatch-agents-deep-inside-us/?partner=popular

good to see the war on drugs has worked so well

one of the folks at the in-laws for Easter on sunday is a real estate agent, and said that there were some people moving away from san antonio because the cartels were sending people there to "find them" presumably for kidnapping or extortion, or they owed something to the cartel.

Almost as scary?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

914Driver wrote: Almost as scary? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

No, not almost as scary. I don't like the method behind it, but frankly I don't want a convicted felon or mentally unstable person to have a gun.

Oddly I don't have a problem with taking guns from people that shouldn't have them. We keep saying we want existing gun laws enforced before they make new ones so it has to start somewhere.

mad_machine wrote: good to see the war on drugs has worked so well

To think that organized crime goes away because drugs would be made legal is pretty laughable. Most countries with lax drug laws have been tightening them as of late.

Just think, instead of funding organized crime who (relatively speaking) doesn't have much influence on politics besides the "Imma kill you in your sleep" kind, you'd be funding corporations who do have a strong influence on politics.

I dunno, bootlegging seems to have died down.

Keith Tanner wrote: I dunno, bootlegging seems to have died down.

Why do you think we legalized pot up here? Revenue stream! We tax the grower, the processor, and the seller (plus sales tax! and B&O tax!) and spend less on enforcement (so the cops can concentrate on real crimes and DUIs) and much, much, much less on court costs and incarceration (thus speeding up the system for all of the real criminals and ensuring they have beds). Funnily enough, they are also predicting a decrease in petty crimes as well.

Wally wrote: Oddly I don't have a problem with taking guns from people that shouldn't have them. We keep saying we want existing gun laws enforced before they make new ones so it has to start somewhere.

This. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and mental illness is one good reason for someone to not be allowed to own a firearm.

The cartel agent in place thing is not exactly new. That was discussed in South Carolina a few years back, there were legal immigrants bringing dope in through the ports and they moved to overland transport after 9/11. Sort of a small time operation compared to the Texas etc versions.

http://www.thestate.com/2007/04/15/36265/drug-trafficking-scs-mexican-connection.html

The story recently is they have quit with the bigger cities and do it mostly through smaller towns because there's just not as many cops available to watch things in Podunkville.

I can remember a time in the not too distant past, when another organization sent its operatives deep into the us. I also remember what happened to their leadership.

We need to send each of these cartel leadership douchenozzles a copy of that story...

914Driver wrote: Almost as scary? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

I think this bothers me the most:

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.

So they have no legal right to be there, so they make up something to force their way into the house. Niiiiiiicccee.....

once Texas becomes it's own country, a lot of this will be greatly reduced.

In reply to Bobzilla:

Yeah but if they can't talk there way in the leave empty handed. It's up to you if they come in or not. It's kinda shady but not illegal. I would often have to do the same thing to repo a car.

mtn wrote: No, not almost as scary. I don't like the method behind it, but frankly I don't want a convicted felon or mentally unstable person to have a gun.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with you on the Felon aspect, but what concerns me is both what and who decides what constitutes a "mentally unstable" person. Where is the line? Is it being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital? Having seen a counselor/therapist/psychiatrist before? Being on antidepressants or anti-anxiety meds? Having been involved in drug or alcohol addiction counseling/12 step?

Felon/not felon is an easy line to draw, mentally healthy/not healthy is not so much. Slippery slope and all of that.

How about the fact that the man's wife had mental health issues and the cops came to take HIS guns away? They (the cops) are still respecting "No," for the moment.

dinger wrote:

mtn wrote: No, not almost as scary. I don't like the method behind it, but frankly I don't want a convicted felon or mentally unstable person to have a gun.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with you on the Felon aspect, but what concerns me is both what and who decides what constitutes a "mentally unstable" person. Where is the line? Is it being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital? Having seen a counselor/therapist/psychiatrist before? Being on antidepressants or anti-anxiety meds? Having been involved in drug or alcohol addiction counseling/12 step? Felon/not felon is an easy line to draw, mentally healthy/not healthy is not so much. Slippery slope and all of that.

Here's the best part. What happens if some disgruntled shiny happy person decides to use the Baker Act (or similar provision) on you? Are you now involuntarily committed or not even after being deemed no harm to yourself or others?

There's way too big of a grey area here.

(conspiracy) FWIW I don't have a problem with the universal background checks. What I do have a problem with is providing the model and serial of the gun. The FBI is required to destroy that record the ATF is not, and I know that first hand after a buddy had a run in with them. Welcome to your backdoor registration. (/End conspiracy)

Aren't there folks in office who think just owning a gun makes you mentally unstable?

Grizz wrote: Aren't there folks in office who think just owning a gun makes you mentally unstable?

And they'll tell you that too... from behind their armed bodyguards.

Keith Tanner wrote: I dunno, bootlegging seems to have died down.

Really? Cause the black market tobacco market is THRIVING, especially in Eastern Canada/Eastern US.

I think alcohol is a special circumstance, but maybe that's just me. I also argue that alcohol is not bad for you overall (one drink a day forever doesn't hurt you, plenty of studies to back that up). Smokes on the other hand? Going up the ladder, cocaine?

Yes, weed may be in a similiar league as alcohol, but I still argue that weed has only one purpose, and that is to get high (unless being used in a medical fashion). I don't (my opinion) believe the only purpose of alcohol is to get "drunk".

The0retical wrote: (conspiracy) FWIW I don't have a problem with the universal background checks. What I do have a problem with is providing the model and serial of the gun. The FBI is required to destroy that record the ATF is not, and I know that first hand after a buddy had a run in with them. Welcome to your backdoor registration. (/End conspiracy)

As I don't feel like looking it up, point out anything to me that allows the atf to do this.....I'm fairly certain the law stated any federal government entity couldn't keep a "registration" of gun owners. They can keep records of the dealer/store that sold the weapon, but not the individual. The stores/dealers must keep records of individuals though.....which in a way is getting around this law.

HiTempguy wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I dunno, bootlegging seems to have died down.

Really? Cause the black market tobacco market is THRIVING, especially in Eastern Canada/Eastern US. I think alcohol is a special circumstance, but maybe that's just me. I also argue that alcohol is not bad for you overall (one drink a day forever doesn't hurt you, plenty of studies to back that up). Smokes on the other hand? Going up the ladder, cocaine? Yes, weed may be in a similiar league as alcohol, but I still argue that weed has only one purpose, and that is to get high (unless being used in a medical fashion). I don't (my opinion) believe the only purpose of alcohol is to get "drunk".

The purpose of both is to alter your state of consciousness. To what degree you alter it is all about how much you choose to use.

Sorry that just has to be one of the silliest distinctions I've seen attempted at differentiating weed and alcohol.

As for black market tobacco, if that is like it is here, it's stolen before it gets a tax stamp then sold for cheaper than at a store (since no tax) so it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.

yamaha wrote:

The0retical wrote: (conspiracy) FWIW I don't have a problem with the universal background checks. What I do have a problem with is providing the model and serial of the gun. The FBI is required to destroy that record the ATF is not, and I know that first hand after a buddy had a run in with them. Welcome to your backdoor registration. (/End conspiracy)

As I don't feel like looking it up, point out anything to me that allows the atf to do this.....I'm fairly certain the law stated any federal government entity couldn't keep a "registration" of gun owners. They can keep records of the dealer/store that sold the weapon, but not the individual. The stores/dealers must keep records of individuals though.....which in a way is getting around this law.

Yea, I was there when the ATF showed up with a list of guns over the last 10 years that my buddy bought, after he purchased 6 1911's on the same day. They were the collectible commemorative Colts from WWI and WWII. The agents had all the serial numbers and make/models and wanted to know why he had bought that many in such a short period of time. So unless they did an exhaustive search of all the FFLs that ever called about him, and obtained the make/model/serial from them they have those records. I'm hunting for a citation on that now.

Edit: Here's the rules regarding the rentention and destruction of inquirys through the NICS system. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/25.9

Note that the FBI is required to destroy the inquiry details in 25.9(1)(b) (iii). If the information is shared with the ATF they are not included under that rule.

Granted rule 25.9(3) states that no other agency can use it to create a registry, however not having a "registry" and retaining the records may be interpreted differently.

Ahh, the wonderful Brady bill.......the kicker is, they do keep records for large quantities in a short time.....that's there to prevent straw purchases. This is the first I've heard of this, but I'm not surprised as the ATF is run by a different set of laws.....

Keith Tanner wrote: I dunno, bootlegging seems to have died down.

Pretty sure it still happens. Just not to the extreme as when prohibition was going on. Heck I have family members that ran stills. My first drink on my 21st birthday was shine my great uncle made.

EDIT: Tiff is cleaning hotel rooms at the moment and some well diggers that are in town are staying at her hotel and they have bottles of moonshine in their rooms.