RAY wrote:
> 
> Mike Haas wrote:
> 
> > RAY wrote:
> > >       But none of this has anything to do with the
> > > NRA website's implication that the Haynes ruling
> > > allows common criminals to keep guns without
> > > registering them.
> >
> > 1. NRAWinningTeam.com is not an NRA web site.
> 
> RR:  It has all the trappings of one.  

We're flattered Ray, really, but the site doesn't even 
have a copyrighted NRA logo.

   http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
   http://NRAWinningTeam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html
   http://NRAWinningTeam.com/states/Lindex.html

...a beacon of truth that shines bright in the dark shadow of
Ray's false claims.  He hates it when you visit there.  :-)

>And the NRA has
> not disavowed it.

Do we have to do ALL your research for you, Ray?

Let's use Ray's tactics against him...

GO AHEAD RAY... CALL NRA... ASK THEM IF THEY OWN NRAWINNINGTEAM.COM...

(funny how he's so quick to call unnamed people at CA DOJ, eh? :-)

> 
> > 2. NRAWinningTeam.com does NOT imply that the Haynes ruling
> > allows criminals to keep their firearms.
> 
> RR:  That's EXACTLY the implication it draws.  It's trying
> to drum up sympathy among the ignorant faithful that
> law-abiding citizens have to register their guns in order
> to keep them, but that criminals can keep their guns
> without registering them.  That's a lie.

No, NRAWinningTeam doesn't have to draw implications... the fact that
the law protects criminals from prosecution from that which
CA wants to levy on the heads of all law-abiding gun owners
is ludicrous enough.  Like your false claims, it stands alone.

You started out your diatribe claiming the NRAWinningTeam letters
are bogus, "forged" was the term you used.  But we understand,
Ray... NRAWinningTeam.com left you no options.  You had
to lie.

The AW page has received over 9,000 hits since July 1, Ray.  Thanks
for the controversy!!!  I've heard through the grapevine that the AG's
office may not launch the AW program now, and Gov.'s office is very 
upset those documents leaked just as the gun bills started landing 
on his desk.  Let's hope we've generated enough calls to both
derail the AW confiscation program AS WELL AS convince Davis to
veto both SB23 and AB202, eh Ray?

> 
> > 3. NRAWinningTeam.com states clearly (without implications)
> > that "The Supreme Court has protected criminals against
> > prosecution for both failing to register firearms and possessing
> > unregistered ones with Haynes v. US."  That does not state or imply
> > that criminals are "allowed" anything, just that they can't be
> > prosecuted.
> 
> RR:  So give us the name of one single 'criminal' who was protected
> against prosecution for failing to register firearms

Why shopuld I do that, Ray, when I have cited standing legal
precedent that you can't deny? 

You've had proof stuffed in front of your face.  Is your only defense
"yeah, well, bet you can't come up with *MORE* proof..."???

Pitiful Ray.

> 
> > 4. NRAWinningTeam.com goes on to state "As a result of Haynes v.
> > US, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), a criminal cannot be convicted for
> > failure to register a firearm because to do so would represent
> > a violation of the criminal's Fifth Amendment right against
> > self-incrimination. "  That does not state or imply
> > that criminals are "allowed" anything, just that they can't be
> > prosecuted.
> 
> RR:  "just can't be prosecuted???"  And THAT isn't getting
> away with something?  Are you NUTS?

NRAWinningTeam is simply stating facts, Ray.  You. know.
the text of tha ACTUAL Haynes decision?  You are the one that
keeps producing strawmen here... inventing implications
that you then turn around and shoot down.

Stick with what the page SAYS Ray, don't invent new text because
you can't attack the text which is written there.

> > Any gun can be confiscated from criminals.  However, granted immunity
> > from prosecution for failing to register, they don't, so they
> > fear not confiscation, while the law-abiding registers and loses.
> 
> RR:  That's BS, Mike, and you should know better.  Every day
> on the streets of chicago felons are nabbed, prosecuted and
> put in jail for having unregistered guns.  

More Ray medicine poured down his own throat...

If you expect us to believe that tripe,
show us the list of criminals that were "nabbed, prosecuted and
put in jail for having unregistered guns" each day of last week.

Let's see if you can be taken as literally as NRAWinningTeam.

> See, you yourself
> have even been dupped by the NRA's false implications
> from the Haynes decision.  You have been brainwashed
> by the Big Lie.

Not yet, Ray, but feel free to keep trying.

> 
> > PS: Ray, when I reported the SKS confiscation in 98, you denied that
> > too.
> > Even after looking at the web site, you said you didn't see any more
> > then
> > one NRA member's (Doss) gun being confiscated.  Now we have special laws
> > passed
> > to indemnify the tens of thousands of SKS owners you denied the
> > existence of
> > AND SKSBuyBack.org to boot!  Man, you are good at being wrong!  Few
> > could
> > make a mistake like that and show their face to falsify again.
> > (Of course, I wish I *had* been wrong, but when disagreeing with you,
> > that's
> > unlikely.)
> 
> RR: I was never wrong.  No properly registered gun (Doss' gun
> was never registered) has ever been confiscated from otherwise
> law abiding citizens in this country.  It was true last year.
> And it's still true today.

That wasn't the issue.  Wow are you forgetful.

Doss' gun *was* confiscated.  Lungren knew about it NOT because it had
been registered, but because Doss asked if it
was legal in a letter before he moved here.  Doss didn't have to
register 
it because Lungren said (at that time) it wasn't an assault weapon, and
that it was NOT a Roberti-Roos gun. 'Bring it in' said Dan Lungren...
no registration necessary.  Later, Lungren sent Doss (and at least
thousands of others) a letter saying
that Lungren had changed his mind, and they needed to turn in their gun
and 
then wait to see if Dan wants to felony prosecute them.

The only reason more SKS weren't confiscated then was because Rod Wright
submitted AB48, the SKS Owner Indemnification Act of 1998, which became
law and begat the buyback program.  SKS owners waited for that.

No, none of *those* guns were registered because they didn;t have to
be.  
But they are being confiscated Ray.  What do you think SKSBuyBack.org is
all about?

The confiscation of REGISTERED guns begins when Lockter send out
those letters.  (No one ever said the SKS's were registeres... that was
just another Ray strawman for him to shoot down.)

Geez, pay attention a little better Ray, OK?

Cheers,

Mike Haas


See how disingenious you are Ray?