Gun permit holders published (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pitt83 - 2012-12-26 7:12 AM powerman - 2012-12-26 8:55 AM Not the issue here. How did this guy who SERVED A MURDER SENTENCE get a gun? Something is seriously not working with what we have now!pitt83 - 2012-12-26 6:44 AM gr33n - 2012-12-26 8:29 AM Somehow, this guy in Rochester who served 17 years for murdering his grandmother with a hammer got a hold of a Bushmaster 223. So yeah, we need to seriously rethink either what types of guns we sell or who they're sold to and how.DanielG - 2012-12-26 2:23 PM gr33n - 2012-12-26 7:57 AM These background checks, does anyone ever get turned down as a result of one ? For the military clones? Oh hell yeah. It's a pretty intense background check. 6 months is about normal and it's local LE, ATF, FBI, State and just about every other database there is. Or are you talking about normal firearms, NICS checks? There are quite a few turned down for those as well. Something like 500 million NICS checks since 1998 and about 500 thousand denied. What was interesting was how few are ever prosecuted for either lying on the form or for trying to obtain a firearm as a prohibited person. I believe during Clinton's years there were 17 arrested out of tens of thousands who did it. I meant in general, thanks. Interesting. To state the obvious there's a break in the chain somewhere as people that shouldn't have guns keep coming up with them somehow. In that situation, anyone that wants to be a sniper can use a regular old bolt action .30-06 and do much more damage. I seem to remember one in Texas. But obviuoly the color black and a bayonet lug are bigger things to consider. My guess is that he did not walk into a store, fill out paper work, and answer "NO" to whether he was a convicted felon. I am waiting on a background check just buying a stripper lower... I can't just waltz into a Wal-Mart and buy a AR-15... regardless of what the media loves to claim. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I think the point is - the weapon he used WAS sold and purchased legally somewhere along the line - but somehow this lunatic was able to get his hands on it. I'm not sure what the answer to that problem is... We have regulations on the transfer of ownership of vehicles - perhaps tighter regulation on the transfer of gun ownership, with strict penalties for breaking those regulations, might help. Admittedly, a car is a lot larger and more visible than a gun, and easier to tell if the registration is expired, etc..... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-12-26 9:17 AM pitt83 - 2012-12-26 7:12 AM powerman - 2012-12-26 8:55 AM Not the issue here. How did this guy who SERVED A MURDER SENTENCE get a gun? Something is seriously not working with what we have now!pitt83 - 2012-12-26 6:44 AM gr33n - 2012-12-26 8:29 AM Somehow, this guy in Rochester who served 17 years for murdering his grandmother with a hammer got a hold of a Bushmaster 223. So yeah, we need to seriously rethink either what types of guns we sell or who they're sold to and how.DanielG - 2012-12-26 2:23 PM gr33n - 2012-12-26 7:57 AM These background checks, does anyone ever get turned down as a result of one ? For the military clones? Oh hell yeah. It's a pretty intense background check. 6 months is about normal and it's local LE, ATF, FBI, State and just about every other database there is. Or are you talking about normal firearms, NICS checks? There are quite a few turned down for those as well. Something like 500 million NICS checks since 1998 and about 500 thousand denied. What was interesting was how few are ever prosecuted for either lying on the form or for trying to obtain a firearm as a prohibited person. I believe during Clinton's years there were 17 arrested out of tens of thousands who did it. I meant in general, thanks. Interesting. To state the obvious there's a break in the chain somewhere as people that shouldn't have guns keep coming up with them somehow. In that situation, anyone that wants to be a sniper can use a regular old bolt action .30-06 and do much more damage. I seem to remember one in Texas. But obviuoly the color black and a bayonet lug are bigger things to consider. My guess is that he did not walk into a store, fill out paper work, and answer "NO" to whether he was a convicted felon. I am waiting on a background check just buying a stripper lower... I can't just waltz into a Wal-Mart and buy a AR-15... regardless of what the media loves to claim. So, the solution therefore is to eliminate / ban weapons such as this from production, sale and ownership. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jgaither - 2012-12-26 7:06 AM My response is somewhat the same as when Anonymous posted all the Westboro Baptist church members addresses.... "so what". It's all public record, so if someone really wanted it they'd be able to get it anyway. If someone wants to know if I have a gun, I'm more than happy to tell them. I'm not hiding anything nor am I paranoid enough to think someone is coming after me. It isn't "public records" though... these are records collected by a government agency then released. This is a very troubling privacy problem. I'm not wearing a tin foil hat.... my adress is a matter of public record, and if someone wants to know it, they can find it. So what indeed. But when I fill out paperwork to the government, and that is released... then you have to look at what is appropriate. With all these shootings... a common theme is we need registration, we need licenses, we need permitting.... what, so the government can release all that info? I happen to believe we do need more info... but the news paper just highlighted the inherent problem with that and why we do not have a national registry for fire arms. Even those that have concealed carry permits... they volluntarily put themselves on a list. So what? Well now I'm not going to get a permit because I do not want to deal with the headaches... great, victory for gun control advocates.... but concealed carry people are not the problem. You just got rid of more of the good, and the ones that are the problem have not changed a thing and are not stopped either. Edited by powerman 2012-12-26 8:25 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The background check process sounds pretty flawed to me. Does it involve an interview ? If yes who conducts it- the gun seller ? These days its pretty easy to assume a false identity. How many forms of identity are checked abd again by who ? How extensive is the paperwork ? And what would typically trigger a denial- as little as a speeding ticket ? Where is the line ? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pitt83 - 2012-12-26 7:23 AM So, the solution therefore is to eliminate / ban weapons such as this from production, sale and ownership. Again, a bolt action .30-06 hunting rifle is far deadlier than a .223. We fought an entire war with them. Your ban does not prevent this guy from doing the same thing with a hunting rifle. Edited by powerman 2012-12-26 8:33 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jsnowash - 2012-12-26 7:22 AM I think the point is - the weapon he used WAS sold and purchased legally somewhere along the line - but somehow this lunatic was able to get his hands on it. I'm not sure what the answer to that problem is... We have regulations on the transfer of ownership of vehicles - perhaps tighter regulation on the transfer of gun ownership, with strict penalties for breaking those regulations, might help. Admittedly, a car is a lot larger and more visible than a gun, and easier to tell if the registration is expired, etc..... And, I would actually agree with transfers going through a FFL and a background check... but here is the problem: 1. That would require a national fire arm registry to be able to track all guns. 2. All guns in private hands right now would have to be registered 3. The federal government does not regulate private sales... even cars... I can sell any car to anyone with no paper work... as the new owner, if I want to drive that car on a pubic road, then I have to register it... but if all it is going to do is sit in my collection in my garage... I do not have to register anything. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Jsnowash, I've been looking for info on where the weapon came from and there are no articles on Google yet about that so I think you're premature in assuming it was purchased legally. Pitt, I also think you missed what Powerman was saying. This guy set fire to his house, then shot first responders as they arrived from a concealed position. If he had a bolt-action 30.06 or 7mm, he could've easily done that. Assault rifles are not good sniping weapons. They're for closer-contact generally. Banning assault weapons is a symbolic act that will have no effect. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-12-26 8:23 AM jgaither - 2012-12-26 7:06 AM My response is somewhat the same as when Anonymous posted all the Westboro Baptist church members addresses.... "so what". It's all public record, so if someone really wanted it they'd be able to get it anyway. If someone wants to know if I have a gun, I'm more than happy to tell them. I'm not hiding anything nor am I paranoid enough to think someone is coming after me. It isn't "public records" though... these are records collected by a government agency then released. This is a very troubling privacy problem. I'm not wearing a tin foil hat.... my adress is a matter of public record, and if someone wants to know it, they can find it. So what indeed. But when I fill out paperwork to the government, and that is released... then you have to look at what is appropriate. With all these shootings... a common theme is we need registration, we need licenses, we need permitting.... what, so the government can release all that info? I happen to believe we do need more info... but the news paper just highlighted the inherent problem with that and why we do not have a national registry for fire arms. Even those that have concealed carry permits... they volluntarily put themselves on a list. So what? Well now I'm not going to get a permit because I do not want to deal with the headaches... great, victory for gun control advocates.... but concealed carry people are not the problem. You just got rid of more of the good, and the ones that are the problem have not changed a thing and are not stopped either. Correct me if I'm wrong, (and this may be different from state to state) but I believe that it is available for release under the freedom of information act based on the fact that government (public) funds are used for firearm registration and part of the release of information is to promote accountability by government officials. Additionally exempting gun owners from release of information would create a "special class" which I think most are wary to do. Granted it takes some significant effort to get the information and MUCH more than anyone is reasonably willing to exert, but I believe it's still available to the most persistent of individuals. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gr33n - 2012-12-26 7:24 AM The background check process sounds pretty flawed to me. Does it involve an interview ? If yes who conducts it- the gun seller ? These days its pretty easy to assume a false identity. How many forms of identity are checked abd again by who ? How extensive is the paperwork ? And what would typically trigger a denial- as little as a speeding ticket ? Where is the line ? You are just going by a lot of assumptions. What do you feel is an appropriate interview...bright lights and water boarding? You fill out a form. You asnwer "NO" to all the ways you are prohibited from buying.... felony, felony charges, restraining order, domestic violence conviction, drug user, alcoholic, mentally deficient (legally).... they take your ID... state, D.L., military, or concealed carry permit... and run it through the data base. It is what it is. The only question you answer "yes" to is that you are the owner of the fire arm and are not buying it for someone else. Edited by powerman 2012-12-26 8:41 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2012-12-26 9:35 AM Jsnowash, I've been looking for info on where the weapon came from and there are no articles on Google yet about that so I think you're premature in assuming it was purchased legally. Pitt, I also think you missed what Powerman was saying. This guy set fire to his house, then shot first responders as they arrived from a concealed position. If he had a bolt-action 30.06 or 7mm, he could've easily done that. Assault rifles are not good sniping weapons. They're for closer-contact generally. Banning assault weapons is a symbolic act that will have no effect. I'm not saying that HE purchased it legally (he couldn't have) - but how else would it have been out in circulation if it wasn't purchased legally by someone somewhere along the line? Black market, or something along those lines? (I'm asking honestly - I don't really know where guns would come from if they do not enter the market originally from a legal purchase...) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() pitt83 - 2012-12-26 9:23 AM powerman - 2012-12-26 9:17 AM My guess is that he did not walk into a store, fill out paper work, and answer "NO" to whether he was a convicted felon. I am waiting on a background check just buying a stripper lower... I can't just waltz into a Wal-Mart and buy a AR-15... regardless of what the media loves to claim. So, the solution therefore is to eliminate / ban weapons such as this from production, sale and ownership. So they can use something that works better at longer range? Good plan. Edited by DanielG 2012-12-26 8:45 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jgaither - 2012-12-26 7:35 AM powerman - 2012-12-26 8:23 AM jgaither - 2012-12-26 7:06 AM My response is somewhat the same as when Anonymous posted all the Westboro Baptist church members addresses.... "so what". It's all public record, so if someone really wanted it they'd be able to get it anyway. If someone wants to know if I have a gun, I'm more than happy to tell them. I'm not hiding anything nor am I paranoid enough to think someone is coming after me. It isn't "public records" though... these are records collected by a government agency then released. This is a very troubling privacy problem. I'm not wearing a tin foil hat.... my adress is a matter of public record, and if someone wants to know it, they can find it. So what indeed. But when I fill out paperwork to the government, and that is released... then you have to look at what is appropriate. With all these shootings... a common theme is we need registration, we need licenses, we need permitting.... what, so the government can release all that info? I happen to believe we do need more info... but the news paper just highlighted the inherent problem with that and why we do not have a national registry for fire arms. Even those that have concealed carry permits... they volluntarily put themselves on a list. So what? Well now I'm not going to get a permit because I do not want to deal with the headaches... great, victory for gun control advocates.... but concealed carry people are not the problem. You just got rid of more of the good, and the ones that are the problem have not changed a thing and are not stopped either. Correct me if I'm wrong, (and this may be different from state to state) but I believe that it is available for release under the freedom of information act based on the fact that government (public) funds are used for firearm registration and part of the release of information is to promote accountability by government officials. Additionally exempting gun owners from release of information would create a "special class" which I think most are wary to do. Granted it takes some significant effort to get the information and MUCH more than anyone is reasonably willing to exert, but I believe it's still available to the most persistent of individuals. Right... and I have no problem with the Fredom of Information Act and the point of it.... it just creates other problems in this case. And as usual... most information is generally used for stats. And looking at gun ownership stats can have good causes... but to just go out and print all this information just because you can... well I do not see the point. Even if a"list" was generated... then I think it is reasonable to leave out adresses... how about zip codes... 312 fire arm owners in this zip code? |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-12-26 3:40 PM gr33n - 2012-12-26 7:24 AM The background check process sounds pretty flawed to me. Does it involve an interview ? If yes who conducts it- the gun seller ? These days its pretty easy to assume a false identity. How many forms of identity are checked abd again by who ? How extensive is the paperwork ? And what would typically trigger a denial- as little as a speeding ticket ? Where is the line ? You are just going by a lot of assumptions. What do you feel is an appropriate interview...bright lights and water boarding? You fill out a form. You asnwer "NO" to all the ways you are prohibited from buying.... felony, felony charges, restraining order, domestic violence conviction, drug user, alcoholic, mentally deficient (legally).... they take your ID... state, D.L., military, or concealed carry permit... and run it through the data base. It is what it is. The only question you answer "yes" to is that you are the owner of the fire arm and are not buying it for someone else. No sorry I wasn't being facetious, I really don't know how it works. With your explanation to me the process seems a little light. If I understand correctly this is not against a national data base ? If not even more gaps.... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Like Powerman said, he could've bought it by lying on his form and using fake ID. One of the stories going around is that they don't have background check at gun shows in Ohio where he lived when he killed his grandma. I can't speak to this one. But maybe someone from Ohio can confirm. They'll surely find out the origins as these weapons all have serials on the key parts (upper receiver, lower receiver, bolt). |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jsnowash - 2012-12-26 7:42 AM GomesBolt - 2012-12-26 9:35 AM Jsnowash, I'm not saying that HE purchased it legally (he couldn't have) - but how else would it have been out in circulation if it wasn't purchased legally by someone somewhere along the line? Black market, or something along those lines? (I'm asking honestly - I don't really know where guns would come from if they do not enter the market originally from a legal purchase...)I've been looking for info on where the weapon came from and there are no articles on Google yet about that so I think you're premature in assuming it was purchased legally. Pitt, I also think you missed what Powerman was saying. This guy set fire to his house, then shot first responders as they arrived from a concealed position. If he had a bolt-action 30.06 or 7mm, he could've easily done that. Assault rifles are not good sniping weapons. They're for closer-contact generally. Banning assault weapons is a symbolic act that will have no effect. they do.. and there are strawman buyers that buy for others that can't, and straight up corrupt Federal Firearm (dealer) License holders that sell to anyone... all of which is illegal. It is also illegal to "knowingly" sell to someone that can't buy. At work, guns are sold privately... but we happen to "know" who can't have them for various reason just because it is knowledge at work... so if I sold something to any of them, I would knowingly be breaking the law. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() jsnowash - 2012-12-26 9:42 AM I'm not saying that HE purchased it legally (he couldn't have) - but how else would it have been out in circulation if it wasn't purchased legally by someone somewhere along the line? Black market, or something along those lines? (I'm asking honestly - I don't really know where guns would come from if they do not enter the market originally from a legal purchase...) Lots of ways. One of the most popular is theft from a National Guard armory, stolen from police cars. Other ways are theft from houses, ripping off pawn shops and gun stores, straw man purchases, there are more. Oddly enough every single one of those is illegal, as is possession by the guy in question. He would receive the same sentence, federally, for possession of a single round of ammunition as for an AR-15, BTW. Edited by DanielG 2012-12-26 8:49 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gr33n - 2012-12-26 7:47 AM powerman - 2012-12-26 3:40 PM gr33n - 2012-12-26 7:24 AM The background check process sounds pretty flawed to me. Does it involve an interview ? If yes who conducts it- the gun seller ? These days its pretty easy to assume a false identity. How many forms of identity are checked abd again by who ? How extensive is the paperwork ? And what would typically trigger a denial- as little as a speeding ticket ? Where is the line ? You are just going by a lot of assumptions. What do you feel is an appropriate interview...bright lights and water boarding? You fill out a form. You asnwer "NO" to all the ways you are prohibited from buying.... felony, felony charges, restraining order, domestic violence conviction, drug user, alcoholic, mentally deficient (legally).... they take your ID... state, D.L., military, or concealed carry permit... and run it through the data base. It is what it is. The only question you answer "yes" to is that you are the owner of the fire arm and are not buying it for someone else. No sorry I wasn't being facetious, I really don't know how it works. With your explanation to me the process seems a little light. If I understand correctly this is not against a national data base ? If not even more gaps.... It's cool? That is exactly how I took it... my responce was just going to the extreme. It is a national data base... but there is not a national registry.. and that has been fought for a while. "One" reason for the 2A is to control a "tyranical government". If the "tyranical government" has a list where all the guns are and who to go arrest... well that does not work. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-12-26 8:45 AM Right... and I have no problem with the Fredom of Information Act and the point of it.... it just creates other problems in this case. And as usual... most information is generally used for stats. And looking at gun ownership stats can have good causes... but to just go out and print all this information just because you can... well I do not see the point. Even if a"list" was generated... then I think it is reasonable to leave out adresses... how about zip codes... 312 fire arm owners in this zip code? That's kind of what I'm saying. I don't see the point of printing it either. "So you printed it and told EVERYONE about. Now what?" What exactly have they accomplished. In my opinion, nothing...... except getting some people upset. As far as why not leave off addresses etc......... is because it could prevent accountability for government officials who might improperly grant gun registration or permitting. A lot of John Smith's out there. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Btw, the NRA has been the lead group lobbying for tough prosecutions on illegal ownership, illegal sales, better background check systems, etc. They fought the ACLU for inclusion of criminal records in the NICS. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() See, and some of these things are issues I think could stand to be tightened up without really infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Closing the gun show loophole, stricter penalties on "straw man" purchases, longer waiting periods to do more thorough background checks, regulating transfer of ownership, etc. -- I think those kinds of regulations could help keep guns IN the hands of law-abiding, rule-following citizens and, while it might not entirely keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys", it might at least make it a little harder for them to get ahold of one. If a man who murdered his grandmother with a hammer can walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun, I think that's a problem... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hey, if I'm a burglar, I'm happy to see that list posted!!! You can't fix stupid. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Left Brain - 2012-12-26 8:58 AM Hey, if I'm a burglar, I'm happy to see that list posted!!! You can't fix stupid. Exactly! So why are gun owners up in arms about this? Ohhhh pun intended. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-26 8:05 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-26 8:58 AM Exactly! So why are gun owners up in arms about this? Ohhhh pun intended. Hey, if I'm a burglar, I'm happy to see that list posted!!! You can't fix stupid. ![]() Legitimate question..... right off the rails with ridiculous emotional hyperbole. Nice try though. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mr2tony - 2012-12-26 9:05 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-26 8:58 AM Exactly! So why are gun owners up in arms about this? Ohhhh pun intended. Hey, if I'm a burglar, I'm happy to see that list posted!!! You can't fix stupid. ![]() Actually, if I was a burglar I'd be sitting around waiting for them to leave.......so I could go get their guns. If you are a permit holder chances are you have more guns too. Guns are easy to get rid of and bring good money for heroin junkies where I am. I realize I look at things a bit differently than you, Tony, I just know what I deal with every day...it's never as black and white as you'd like to think. |
|