'The' Gun Thread (Page 31)

There is no "loop hole" to it, and it is 100% legal. He is not a FFL dealer, he is a private seller, selling a used gun. It's simply the law, private sales are not covered under back ground checks. It has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows.

The buyers are not prohibited people, and they can buy what they want. It is against the law for prohibited people from buying, possesing, or handling a fire arm. They break the law when they buy private.... and a universal back ground check will do ZERO to stop that.

Private sellers are under no legal obligation to check anyone. However, many private sellers do use some things to check like carry permits or purchase cards. Private sellers break the law when they "knowingly" sell to a prohibited person.... and universal background checks will do ZERO to stop that.

It is illegal if they were sold without ID (if that's illegal in your stste)......what's your point?  Do you somehow think that will stop because ANOTHER law gets passed? 

This is not a gun issue, it's an enforcement issue.......there are plenty of laws.

And that will accomplish what?

(mod removed comment)

So sales are arranged, and they go outside. Private sellers stand out side gun shows and sell privately... or they just do it any number of ways. Believe it or not... there are actually corrupt FFL dealers that knowingly sell to criminals... which is against the law.

Again, I'm OK with making them work, because it is the least I can do.... but I am under no illusion that any law will stop criminals from doing criminal activity and buying all the guns they want.... again... see the illegal drug trade for reference.

To Pitt83, who I have to admit has valiantly stuck his hand into a hornets nest and has bravely, articulately argued his pro-gun control position, I have a question...

Assume that the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban was passed without change, and the Toomey Background check bill passed without change...how would that have prevented Newtown?

Newtown is the stated impetus for all of these (Although we know that's not true because Feinstein had her bill drafted and ready to go prior to the Newtown shooting, she just used the Newtown shooting to unveil the draft).  The stated proposal by people like Feinstein, The President and the Vice President is to prevent another Newtown.  I believe the VP stated the same two days ago...

So how would ANY of these proposals, if in place prior to Newtown, have stopped that incident?  The reality is that they wouldn't have...

If the proposed bills are, or would be, or will be, ineffective to accomplish its stated goal, then what is it's real purpose?

I submit there are two real purposes and Newtown has nothing to do with these purposes.  THe first is that there is a group of ultra liberals that are  flat out anti-gun.  As a belief they do not believe in an individuals right to have a firearm and believe that the world would be better off if individual ownership of firearms was eliminated.  I believe that to this group of radical ultra liberals  these legislations are a "good first step" or getting the camels head in the tent so to speak.  The second reason is purely political.  The majority of those that espouse support for such legislation, have artfully used Newtown as a wedge issue, they have proposed legislation that they know has absolutely no chance of passage, and that much of which is probably unconstitutional.  They have packaged the notion of this legislation, with the express help of the press, as reasonable responses to a tragic circumstance.  That these proposals will in fact curtail violence, especially against children, and make our streets safer.   Additionally, artfully and skillfully arguing that being against these reasoned responsible legislative efforts is being for violence and against safety.  The end game is the 2014 elections. 

Of these I believe the greatest reality is the second.

And that is the real shame in all of this... because I was too. "Common sense" is anything but. when you see how incredibly misleading and outrageous their agenda is... then I am not willing to give an inch.... we already gave 20,000 and they still want a mile. The only real way to protect the 2A at this point, is to fight tooth and nail against any gun control that is mentioned... because if you do not do that... then we would probably already have registration.

And while some here want to sit back and claim "anything is better than nothing".... how the heck is "any" law that in unenforcable and only effects law abiding citizens good. If the police can't enforce it... it is a waste of time effort and money.... and the real crime is that REAL effective measure go unused... and the problem is NEVER adressed.

What...wait...you mean like the bogus stat the President and Vice President and Schumer have been bandying about that "40% of all gun sales are at gun shows and thus not subject to background checks?"

You mean using a study that is 20 years old and based upon a sample size of 253 people is misleading.  You mean using a study whose author has specifically said he doesn't know how accurate the statistics are now because it is 20 years old is a distortion?  You mean using a study that was done prior to the passage of the Brady Bill which now requires that all registered gun dealers conduct background checks even if the sale is conducted at a gun show, might be an outright lie?

Hey...we're just trying to have a reasoned honest debate on the issue aren't we....?

If they did they would sit down with the opposing side and figure out something like people do in any discussion. They wouldn't go for such huge and misleading bans that just cause the gun owners to fight it on principal.

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS!

Look, we disagree on this issue but your voice is crucial.  A spirited, public debate really IS the best path to 'reasonable' measures that EVERYONE can live with.  (Aplogies in advance if I don't word this correctly) If you go through with your vow you will simply become one of the Far Left/far Right stereo-types that make 'wedge' issue politics so effective.  Stay Engaged...Stay Vocal....I have learned SO MUCH from this thread by reading inputs from people with vastly differing opinions than my own.   I don't know if my 'decision' has changed, but my AWARENESS of the issues (that I previously had NO knowledge of) has increased tremendously.  Count to 10 or 10,000 if need be, but stay involved.  I HEAR YOU!  Democracy is not served by silence. 

So I will throw out a couple things that I saw on the Toomey website concerning the amendment he intends on adding to the bill that is going to be debated in the Senate.

• Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).

LB, that is for you.  Still, it's scary until I can see the actual verbiage.  As a big 2A supporter I get cautious here because I do not want unstable people doing anything bad but at the same time, I distrust my government so much, I could see this abused and having rights errosion occur more rapidly.

• Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

That supports my concern for the first bullet point.  Who and by what process were they barred to begin with.

• Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.

Too vague.. need more information since there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

• Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner.  The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

This is huge and long overdue.  If you are flying to PA to hunt and the airline reroutes you to Jersey, the minute you take posession of your firearm you will get hammered by police.  It's unfair and crazy.

• Ensures that sales at gun shows are not prevented by delayed approvals from NICS.

Excellent!  There were definitely instances where PICs was down (suspiciously) during large gun shows in PA.  This happened when Rendell was governor but it seemed to clear up once he was gone.

• Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

I like this but toss in NFA items to eliminate the wait please.

• Adds a 15 year penalty for improper use or storage of records.

Who's records?  I'm assuming they mean form 4473 being held with FFLs? 

*  The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.

I want to see the above verbiage.  I have a feeling some with the gun elimination mindset will not approve of this. 

Pitt83 let me ask you one more question, would your thoughts on gun legislation and how it is currently being effectuated change if instead of "guns and ammunition" we were talking about Free speech or the use of the internet?

I can make a pretty compelling argument that speech and ideas are far more dangerous and have caused far more deaths and atrocities then guns have.  So why not limit the right of free speech in the same manner as guns all in the name of safety for the greater good?

I think you and LB both bring a lot to the table on the topic at hand.

How about we also talk about getting rid of the laws that make criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners.

Why shouldn't law abiding citizens be able to buy suppressors without the lengthy wait and $200 tax.

While in the past I was fairly comfortable with firearms like the M16 being excluded from the normal gun purchase I'm starting to rethink that position. Why should law abiding citizen be denied access to select fire small caliber arms?

If we are going to make it more restrictive for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms can we also make it more difficult to be thrown in jail for possessing these legally obtained firearms by lawful owners?

I don't truly believe that the bold is the reason that the NRA are against further regulation. The NRA is a shill for the gun industry. They disguise this fact by holding themselves up as some defender of liberty.

The NRA doesn't give a rat's behind about reducing gun violence, regardless of plans they trot out, plans which, coincidentally, increase the number of guns that would be sold. They care about selling more guns because that's where their money comes from.

I am speaking about the NRA here. Not any one individual, and not the people on this thread.