Banned in Minnesota -- huh?

[justaguy]

Yes. that is the OP. But its been 4 pages since, and we all know that threads don't tend to follow the OP for very long around here.

Dang. If I lived under a bridge, collecting tolls from travelers and occasionally eating them, while wearing 62 DESS sweatpants, I'd have a well known line to use right about here.

I really hate to say it EJSG19, but I'm on your side.

[EJSG19]

Yes. that is the OP. But its been 4 pages since, and we all know that threads don't tend to follow the OP for very long around here.

Dang. If I lived under a bridge, collecting tolls from travelers and occasionally eating them, while wearing 62 DESS sweatpants, I'd have a well known line to use right about here.

I really hate to say it EJSG19, but I'm on your side.

That makes 2 of us. I'm usually on my own little island when I take up a position opposite the majority.

[Holland&Holland]

Agree to disagree. My point, if I want to buy something and someone makes it and I am not a criminal why can't I make my purchase?

[ex-LT]

:doh:

Agree to disagree. My point, if I want to buy something and someone makes it and I am not a criminal why can't I make my purchase?

I don't know. Why don't you ask bar owners how that ideology worked in regards to smoking bans?

[justaguy]

Yes. that is the OP. But its been 4 pages since, and we all know that threads don't tend to follow the OP for very long around here.

Dang. If I lived under a bridge, collecting tolls from travelers and occasionally eating them, while wearing 62 DESS sweatpants, I'd have a well known line to use right about here.

I really hate to say it EJSG19, but I'm on your side.

That makes 2 of us. I'm usually on my own little island when I take up a position opposite the majority.

You didn't actually believe me when I said I agreed with you, did you? P.T. Barnum was right.

[EJSG19]

That makes 2 of us. I'm usually on my own little island when I take up a position opposite the majority.

You didn't actually believe me when I said I agreed with you, did you? P.T. Barnum was right.

I don't put much faith in anything you say really.

[justaguy]

That makes 2 of us. I'm usually on my own little island when I take up a position opposite the majority.

You didn't actually believe me when I said I agreed with you, did you? P.T. Barnum was right.

I don't put much faith in anything you say really.

You don't mean that.

[Holland&Holland]

:doh:

Agree to disagree. My point, if I want to buy something and someone makes it and I am not a criminal why can't I make my purchase?

I don't know. Why don't you ask bar owners how that ideology worked in regards to smoking bans?

Last time I checked I could still purchase cancer sticks. The fact that I can not smoke them where I want is another issue alltogether.

[Seismic Sam]

I am definitely on the side of laws that require products to be safe and efficacious. After being with 3M Health Care for 24 years, I have seen and heard enough horror stories about idiots building **** that winds up crippling somebody for life to want those laws in place. Firestone 500 tires, Pinto cars, firearms, medical devices, drugs, you name it. The people that make this stuff for a profit have an obligation to not cut so many corners that somebody gets hurt, and there should be laws in place so that if some cheap schmuck does cut corners, he does wind up being held liable and/or doing time.

As far as firearms, yeah, all of us in here can spot a POS and have some idea of what might happen if we put +P+ loads in a cheap pot metal gun, but the AVERAGE person won't know that. Does their ignorance in some way make them responsible for a POS blowing up in their hands and seriously injuring them or killing them? Absolutely NOT!! To change the arena a little bit, does anybody in here feel competent to pick one weight loss drug over another (like Fen-Fen??), or a birth control drug, or any other medication? I think not, which is why having very strict drug laws is a good thing. For those of you who are not older than dirt, the thalidomide incident of 1961 was a nightmare come true, and a drug got out on the market that reliably turned every baby that was exposed to it int he first 30 days of pregnancy into a circus freak. Some of these victims are STILL around, and if you're old enough like me to have seen enough of them, you can still pick them out to this day. Unfortunately, Strad is WAAAYYY too young to blame thalidomide for either his looks or his attitude, so we're out of luck on that opportunity for fun.

Yes, there are arsewipes out there that will take any excuse to try and suppress the production, sale, or ownership of guns by American citizens, but the presence of those arsewipes does not in any way nullify or make less necessary quality standards for ANY product sold today, and particularly those where a person's life may depend on the proper functioning of that product, and that very clearly includes handguns.

A while back I got a blood clot in my leg for my 60th birthday present, (and that's ALL I got... )and the doctor put me on warfarin, which is the active ingredient in rat poison. Suppose I hadn't had the money for the drug, just like not having the money for a gun that is well built and reliable. Does that in some way justify me going to Menard's and spending $2 for a box of rat pellets instead of getting public assistance or borrowing some money from somebody (or even panhandling)?? I say most definitely NOT, and I think it's the same for guns.

So, people should not be allowed to make dangerous or unreliable firearms, and they most definitely should not be allowed to dump them on the open market, and they should be held liable for the crap they make, and in general, get rich off of. I think the whole price point argument is a red herring in this discussion, and simply has no credible relevance with the general need for products to be manufactured which are safe and operate as intended.

[Holland&Holland]

Agreed for the most part however to state that Heritage arms makes a POS .22 LR is, I think stretching things. If they were making a .45 Colt version out of this metal then i am in total agreement. My point is that particular law is ill conceived, does not acheive its goals, and does not actually protect anyone. We have consumer protection laws for that.

[Seismic Sam]

Unfortunately, consumer protection laws are after the fact, while product quality laws are BEFORE the fact. I don't know anything about the Heritage Arms .22 and thus don't have an opinion on it, but there is a considerable difference between keeping dangerous krap off the market to begin with, and holding someone liable after some permanent injury has been done. If you look at the assault weapons ban, it was poorly written by idiots who didn't know an assault rifle from Handy Dandy Garden weasel hand tiller, and it didn't accomplish a lot. the SNS law may have some similar faults (and I would expect that to be par for the course), but unless you have some gun experts and officials from SAAMI who could write an SNS law linking the strength of the materials to the SAAMI maximum pressure for that round, about the best you are going to be able to do is ban the weakest materails from any firearms manufacture, which is still better than nothing.

And along those lines, consider the possible implications of saying "yeah, it's okay to make 22 LR's out of pot metal." It's more than likely that if you were to make the use of pot metal conditional on the caliber, some yahoo (most likely from China) would miss either the restriction on caliber or pressure, or not give a **** about it, and wind up making a pot metal 45LC and selling it. In light of the fact that this could very well happen, I think an outright ban on certain grades and stengths of materials is the only way to keep dumbazz offshore manufacturers from making that mistake.

[PhilaBOR]

"(1) of any material having a melting point (liquidus) of less than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or

(2) of any material having an ultimate tensile strength of less than 55,000 pounds per square inch, or"

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but I work in a plastics molding plant. Your nylon resins melt around 500-600F. I haven't witnessed it personally, but I've heard they run like water when they melt. Regardless, I think you could argue that the melting point of the plastic defined in the spec sheet is the liquidus point. And it's less than 1000 degrees F. Not to mention, even the stronger grades of glass filled nylon don't exceed about 30,000 psi tensile. So, by this definition, every plastic Glock, SIG, H&K, S&W, etc. meets the definition of SNS!

[Rags3000]

Well, having started this topic, I feel like a great-grandfather at the head of a very large table at a family reuinion. How kind of you all to come.

Anyway, I agree that it is a good thing to have an FDA to watch over drugs, foods, and so on, and an FAA to ensure standards in aircraft and pilot training and so on. To that extent, I skew somewhat not-libertarian. However, as we all know, any law can and will be used against you. The FAA has excesses, the DNR sometimes oversteps its bounds, the police do sometimes get carried away -- not often, not usually, but it can happen.

HOWEVER: In the case of these revolvers, I seriously doubt that the real intent of the law was consumer protection. No, face it, some creepy Minnesota version of Chuck Schumer was grandstanding for the press about "getting those Saturday Night Specials off the streets." Which sounded great until some clerk in the creep's office pointed out that they'd have to be specific about what constituted a SNS, and the Schumer-wannabe was alarmed, because he had been assuming that nobody would ever ask for any specifics and that the guns were probably sold at the end of a counter in the gun store and clearly marked "Saturday Night Specials -- cheap gats fer when U git drunk." So he enlisted some engineer to draw up specs that he doesn't understand himself.

And that is how we get this peculiar law. I doubt that even a poorly made .22 LR revolver is going to blow anybody's hand off.

[Widge]

"(1) of any material having a melting point (liquidus) of less than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or

(2) of any material having an ultimate tensile strength of less than 55,000 pounds per square inch, or"

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but I work in a plastics molding plant. Your nylon resins melt around 500-600F. I haven't witnessed it personally, but I've heard they run like water when they melt. Regardless, I think you could argue that the melting point of the plastic defined in the spec sheet is the liquidus point. And it's less than 1000 degrees F. Not to mention, even the stronger grades of glass filled nylon don't exceed about 30,000 psi tensile. So, by this definition, every plastic Glock, SIG, H&K, S&W, etc. meets the definition of SNS!

There is a minor flaw in your argument. Sigs, Glocks, HKs etc etc, obviously don't meet the definition since they are 'freely' available within the State of Minnesota. It is extremely unlikely that the manufacturers, not to mention the FFLs would risk criminal conviction by selling illegal weapons. Not to mention the assorted gun-grabbers and political grandstanders who would be on them like stink on sh!t if they thought there was half a chance of winning.

[DeanC]

every plastic Glock, SIG, H&K, S&W, etc. meets the definition of SNS

Plain and simple; under Minnesota law: No.