Idiots at Catalina Island

P

Pacificcoast101

Member
I was watching the bald eagle cameras a couple of days ago when I heard a lot of gunfire. Three men on a sailboat were shooting into the water and at the cliffs near the West End. I called the Sheriffs at Two Harbors, as did a few more people watching the cameras. They took one guy into custody. The rifle was registered to him, so the gave him a ticket and released him. I hope he tries to fight the ticket in court, just so a judge can see this video.

https://youtu.be/b4GkntgM060
 
Well, what do you expect from someone who has a rifle and beer at Catalina? Remember that SoCal is where 3 policemen were out in the desert, drank beer and one shot another. It's party time, lets fire a gun!

One 4th of July I was in Cat Harbor, someone set off fireworks from their boat, which set another (empty) boat on fire. There a lot of nuts in SoCal and they do crazy things. You gotta look out for yourself, and I don't mean pack a gun.

Boris
 
Pacificcoast101":2ivwrruu said:
I was watching the bald eagle cameras a couple of days ago when I heard a lot of gunfire. Three men on a sailboat were shooting into the water and at the cliffs near the West End. I called the Sheriffs at Two Harbors, as did a few more people watching the cameras. They took one guy into custody. The rifle was registered to him, so the gave him a ticket and released him. I hope he tries to fight the ticket in court, just so a judge can see this video.

https://youtu.be/b4GkntgM060
Click to expand...

Hey, at least one of them was smart enough to wear hearing protection.

On the other hand, it shows you that even when you think you are out in the middle of nowhere, whatever stupid thing you do might end up on the internet.
 
Looks and sounds like an AR 15 with a bump stock which would be illegal in Calif. Also the size of the magazine suggests 20 rounds at least. I counted 25 shots in one burst. I am very pro second amendment, but firing in this area, is beyond the pale.

I am amazed that after looking at this video that LA Co. Sheriff's did not take further action. Also Calif Fish and Wildlife commission violations??
Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act the first criminal offense is a misdemeanor with maximum penalty of one year in prison and $100,000 fine for an individual
Click to expand...
(Minimum $10,000 fine) \

Possession of a bump stock in CA as misdemeanor one year in jail and if felony 3 years in jail.

Possession of high capacity magazine (over 10 rounds) same as above.
 
Couple things. I didn’t watch the entire video, but it’s not a freaking machine gun it’s a A.R. 15 semi automatic rifle. I don’t know the laws in California, but it doesn’t seem like they broke any. I’m not saying they’re not idiots, but this is not a machine gun ““ and it’s certainly not a bump stock. Just some fat dumb ass shooting a semi automatic rifle into the water. Let’s not all get our panties in a wad because it’s a guy with a gun.
Just because the Republic of California has decided that you don’t need more than 10 rounds in the magazine you’re not a “gun crazed whack job” if you have a 30 rd magazine.
If we all keep thinking like this, we’ll end up like Canada where they can decide overnight that whatever gun you own is now “illegal and dangerous“. I’ll take my constitution and my second amendment thank you very much
 
Here is a longer version, real time of that same incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxspGG89Ag

AR=15 I would buy, not sure it is fast enough for a bumpstock, could be either that or a fast finger. Definitely a larger capacity mag than 10 rounds.

I am all for personal gun rights, AND for lawful carry and use. Common sense does not even enter the picture here. I too, hope that a judge sees that video.

Harvey
SleepyC:moon

January_2010_344.thumb.jpg
 
Regarding the name "Easy Victor". Just wondering what your meaning is behind the name? I'm a retired pilot and I'm not sure I'd want to be riding in a vessel named Easy Victor! :shock: Colby
 
Peter & Judy":3td2ex97 said:
In the US you call that a rifle, in Canada we would call that a machine gun.
Click to expand...

In Canada your Grandads 1915 A. H. Fox double barrel 12 ga. is borderline machinegun. :thdown

Teddy Kennedy's car has killed far more people than all my guns!! :mrgreen:

I don't know cali. law but, It's a stupid thing to do (shoot at a rock face)
From the angle of the rifle they weren't shooting at the eagles as the video title tries to suggest. From the length below the mag. well it appears to be a 30 round mag. if that's illegal in cali. so be it.
If you have to "Register" a weapon in cali. shame on you californicators.

Maybe the Real people of california need to take their state back?
Shame Shame :roll:

You can't Legally cure stupid.
 
I'm hoping that someday the courts will re-evaluate current law and change the prevailing misconception that there is a 2nd Amendment right to be stupid. The 2nd Amendment states that firearm possession is based on belonging to a "well regulated Militia." The reason given is that right to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a free State." Does anybody believe that these Yahoos were operating as part of a well regulated militia and that their conduct was necessary for the security of a free state?

The police should have jettisoned the guns and clips pursuant to the Founding Father's original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Mark
 
Mark:

Agree this was a jackass doing stupid and dangerous. More damaging to the responsible gun owners community than anyone else.

However you need to review your constitutional law, including the intent of the framers in drafting the 2A. The 2A was borne in the context of the colonists fighting off British imperialism. The clear intent and purpose was to insure Americans maintained the ability to defend against The vagaries of a tyrannical government going forward. The 2A has nothing to do with hunting or burglary protection (though it does facilitate these).
Many other Bill of rights protections ( group assembly, religion, free speech, etc). come from the same historical place.

Many people are uncomfortable with guns and thusly wish the 2A didn’t exist. They attempt to explain it away in all sorts of different Ways. ( only applies to muskets, etc). But it does exist, as the US SC has consistently reaffirmed through the years. Your solution to ban guns is to repeal the 2A. The constitution identifies the procedures required to do so.
 
The clear intent and purpose was to insure Americans maintained the ability to defend against The vagaries of a tyrannical government going forward.
Click to expand...

So this means that we should take up arms to blast tRump and his corrupt underlings away? :mrgreen: Sorry, but I've heard this argument before. Good luck with fighting America's armed forces! I'm all for gun ownership for hunting and self protection, and even for history buffs. But I find the statement above somewhat out of context in today's government!
 
westward":1dpf8cd1 said:
...The clear intent and purpose was to insure Americans maintained the ability to defend against The vagaries of a tyrannical government going forward. ...
Click to expand...

Yet when POTUS said he had "total authority" over states, all you heard was "[crickets]" from the 2A enthusiasts.
 
westward":2w3866iz said:
The 2A was borne in the context of the colonists fighting off British imperialism. The clear intent and purpose was to insure Americans maintained the ability to defend against The vagaries of a tyrannical government going forward.
Click to expand...
My reading of history is somewhat different. One has to put oneself in the shoes of the authors of the 2A. I don't think "British imperialism' was their #1 concern when they wrote the 2A. The 2A was ratified in 1791 long, long after the revolutionary war. In the intervening years, the early citizens of the USA were attempting to make a federal system of government work. They had the Articles of Confederation which were not working.....hence the Constitution. Remember also that at that time the USA was much more a semi-loose group of semi-independent states (nee "colonies"). These states were far more worried about states rights being usurped by the new federal government than some imagined invasion from Britain. The 2A was really founded in the fear of a national military force lording it over the states.

If you read the 2A from this perspective, it's pretty clear the intent was to insure that the federal government could not totally dominate the military might of the states (notwithstanding the ineffectiveness that the state militias had demonstrated). The 2A was more about the tension between the federal government vs the state governments than about the USA vs Britain.

P.S. Note the word "militia" found in the 2A makes a lot more sense when viewed from this historical perspective.
 
I just heard from the Catalina Island Conservancy. All three men aboard the sailboat had firearms. The rifle in question had been modified to become automatic, which is illegal in California. All three men were arrested when the arrived back in Long Beach. 
 
I'm amazed at the courage (stupidity?) of the lifeguard boat. Those idiots on the sailboat might just have trained their sights on the lifeboat crew (yelling something about liberty I might imagine). I think I'd be keeping a goodly distance, following the crazies movements, while I called in a water borne SWAT team.
 
I think I'm up on my Constitutional law and history. Tosca had it right that the 2nd Amendment didn't come along until well after all fears of the British causing problems was gone. That theory has been debunked by those who believe in facts. Tosca's theory that it was States fearing a federal government is also suspect. Even if true, it would be for States to determine what constitutes a well regulated militia, and the Yahoos in question on Catalina are not part of one under any definition.

The historical context is better explained by the concerns of a military expert of the era, a Mr. George Washington. As the "General" of a radical insurgent "army," he encountered untrained Yahoos wielding firearms. In several instances, the Yahoos instigated skirmishes that did not comport with Washington's military tactics, but which he had to deal with when the Yahoos turned and ran. He later advocated that firearm possession should be regulated as by a militia and dependent on adequate training. Not based on a fear that we the people would take away the people's rights. Not some dimwitted right to shoot at cans or rock walls. Not the fear of somebody taking your stuff. Those justifications were fabricated later. It was certainly never intended for the Yahoos to make the determination as to why they need an AK-47.

And my first post had C-Dory/boating content. I used the word "jettison."
 
westward":17thhbc4 said:
The clear intent and purpose was to insure Americans maintained the ability to defend against The vagaries of a tyrannical government going forward.
Click to expand...

But how to insure American citizens maintain the ability to defend against the vagaries of a tyrannical NRA and the wacko gun nuts that they enable? Like perhaps this idiot in this boat with his modified full-auto, or the endless stream of paramilitary nut jobs that go on murderous rampages through our schools?
 
Back
Top