The Blitz gasoline can - what went wrong - what needs to be fixed

jim beam wrote in news:kmv07h$au$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

and a brain.

"Steve W." wrote in news:kn0iej$qiu$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Of course you can. It appears you need to look up the difference between "can" and "may".

Perhaps you meant "cannot *legally* sell" -- which of course is very different from "cannot sell".

Prohibited. Not prevented.

And of course all persons with criminal intent will comply with those requirements, right?

and "may".

from "cannot

requirements, right?

There you go, getting all technical...

I KNOW that criminals don't obey the laws and that any "extra" laws will be ignored as well. Others don't seem to grasp that reality though.

I no longer have to worry, went fishing Sunday and my gun safe fell overboard...

My personal thought is that as long as you're not a convicted violent felon or a nut-case who is a danger to anyone you shouldn't be restricted from making or owning any type of firearm.

I don't have a problem with background checks BUT the way it should work is simple. You fill out the form, they call it in, if it comes back clear you get to take your purchase and they shred the form. The dealer would record the serial numbers in/out BUT with no names/addresses or other info. Should also be that if you are in a state that issues handgun permits that the permit is valid across the country and it exempts you from background check unless it is revoked.

Bad news on finding a simple one-piece Blitz replacement cap:

The Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation 855-708-6333 yellow *water* jug caps arrived in the mail today - and they are far too small.

indeed.

with bells on.

i love how the journo's are getting all bent out of shape over rosen's first amendment rights, but when it comes to the rest of us and our second amendment rights, they're happily dog-piling the effluent about the constitution's irrelevance. truly ironic.

further thoughts:

1. i don't see why states should get to make their own restrictions to a federal constitutional right.

1. what are politicians afraid of in the first place?

the political mandate derives /from/ a free and armed populace, not in spite of.

Well, the *theory* was that Hopkins bought all the molds from the now-defunct Blitz company *except* the gas-can molds, but, the (bad) roll of the dice was that the caps *might* fit.

Clearly they're not even close. :(

I'm still waiting for my replacement caps from the other order.

What they really need are consumer use-model specifications.

They have mandated that the gas stays in the can. That's half the spec.

Now they need to mandate that a consumer can get the gas *out* of the can!

I would *never* have expected a container that was used to hold a toxic and dangerous chemical to be the same as one used for potable water. Pipe and fittings for flammable gas and liquids are intentionally made so they can't be confused.

If they're intended for gasoline containers, I'd give them a *much* better chance of fitting. If they're meant for other liquids, not so much.

Just to expand on that a bit, these rights aren't provided by the Constitution, rather by nature. The Government didn't "give" these rights so does not have the authority to take them away.

Wrong.

Sure, but that wasn't the point.

It's not me that's saying that, it's J. Scott Kappas, Esq. and I'm quoting from the 2013 edition of the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States."

From the bottom of page 18:

Travelers to D.C. are prohibited from carrying any firearms into the District in a concealed or open manner. Any ammunition possession is also banned. D.C. law was recently modified to allow the transport of firearms and ammunition through the District. The firearms must be unloaded, cased, and locked in the trunk, or, in a vehicle without a trunk, secured in a locked container (other than a glove compartment or console box.) They mst also be separated from any extraneous ammunition. The traveler may not stop anywhere in the District of his "passing through" status will cease to exist and his firearms may be subject to seizure.

(end quote)

Also see here

Places Off

- Limits Eve n With A Permit/License Note: If you stop in DC for any reason while transporting firearms you are no longer covered by Federal Law ( Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 § 926A) but fall under DC law and can be arrested and your firearms Confiscated

(end quote)

the actual law is given on pages 5 and 6 of the link given above.

So apparently DC grudgingly recognizes McClure-Volkmer but does the absolute minimum to comply. The way I read the quote above, even stopping for gas may in the eyes of District authorities put one outside the protection of McClure-Volkmer.

nate

Same story. The old style spouts fit the old style cans, they will not fit the epa type. EPA knew we would be trying that.

Harry K

Tell that to the countries not ruled by our Constitution

Harry K

te:

Thanks for that. I knew that in transporthing _through_ a state they still have to comply with the laws governing _how_ they are to be secured. I didn't nknow DC had that "gotcha" in there.

Harry K

Why is it my job to tell them anything? If they don't care about their rights, why should I?

Yes. It's an interpretation of the law made by law enforcment overreach. It was never the letter or the intent of the law.

I agree, but I'm not particularly interested in becoming a test case, when driving around DC is so easy (easier than driving through in many cases.) Maryland isn't much better, unfortunately, and is harder to avoid. Obviously, when carrying a handgun through a firearm-unfriendly state, the easiest way to avoid trouble with the law is to keep it cased, in the trunk, and don't stop.

nate