PDA

View Full Version : Mixon's Yugo SKS, were did he get it from?


Steyr_223
04-06-2009, 9:27 AM
I checked and nothing from the media.

Any news on where he got the SKS from? Was it a straw purchase? Purchased on the street? Or did Mixon or another crook stole it from the lawful owner or store?

I got a argument with an Anti this weekend. He was uneducated of the laws of firearms transactions and ownership. I educated him on the process for legal purchases, he was unaware of the DROS and 10 day wait. Still could not convince him that an SKS is NOT an AW..


He then ask me how Mixon got his SKS and I realized I did not know...

Untamed1972
04-06-2009, 9:36 AM
I think the point that needs to be driven home to the anti's is "HE DIDN'T GET IT LEGALLY!!!" Therefore more laws WILL NOT do anything to deter criminals who already obtain their weapons illegally.

The real issue needs to be "why are repeat felons, some with violent records being let out of prison?" And "If armed police officers are outgunned by the criminals....where does that leave the unarmed citizen?"

Rascal
04-06-2009, 11:42 AM
+1
All the more reason the be able to protect yourself.

dwtt
04-06-2009, 12:11 PM
The guy was a felon on parole. How can he get a firearm? We all know it wasn't by following the laws, but the Brady Bunch and their ilk will never acknowledge this. Doing so will undercut their claims for more gun bans.

Steyr_223
04-06-2009, 8:59 PM
So no one knows?

Seesm
04-06-2009, 10:06 PM
Some guy sold it to him for a few bucks... FTF transfer but not through a FFL of course. :)

bwiese
04-06-2009, 10:40 PM
Sometime back, one source close to Oakland PD told me the cops knew where most of the guns were coming from, esp those supplied to felons. I'm betting it was apparently at a level the the ATF couldn't/wouldn't deal with due to the 'individual' and "not bulk" nature of the violators - and the fact that the originating purchases at FFLs were completely clean.

There was reluctance to do something about it because it involves "baby mama drama", and involved tons of young unemployed women, often on welfare and with children - but with clean records and valid ID, doing the actual buys.

The Oakland City Council was far to the left and busting welfare moms wasn't on the city's agenda. And since they wanted to distance themselves from the law-&-order mayor at the time (Jerry Brown) it got even more extreme, including overt and under the table attacks on OPD officers.

Bottom line, Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks (amongst others) don't want their voter base busted.

You might remember Trader's gunshop. Every so often you'd see an "obvious problem" looking at a gun. Nothing could be done if the records came back clean during DROS - cuz I don't think they could stand another discrimination suit. ("No 4473s for those in do-rags" does not fly.)

SJgunguy24
04-06-2009, 10:53 PM
Sometime back, one source close to Oakland PD told me the cops knew where most of the guns were coming from, esp those supplied to felons. I'm betting it was apparently at a level the the ATF couldn't/wouldn't deal with due to the 'individual' and "not bulk" nature of the violators - and the fact that the originating purchases at FFLs were completely clean.

There was reluctance to do something about it because it involves "baby mama drama", and involved tons of young unemployed women, often on welfare and with children - but with clean records and valid ID, doing the actual buys.

The Oakland City Council was far to the left and busting welfare moms wasn't on the city's agenda. And since they wanted to distance themselves from the law-&-order mayor at the time (Jerry Brown) it got even more extreme, including overt and under the table attacks on OPD officers.

Bottom line, Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks (amongst others) don't want their voter base busted.

You might remember Trader's gunshop. Every so often you'd see an "obvious problem" looking at a gun. Nothing could be done if the records came back clean during DROS - cuz I don't think they could stand another discrimination suit. ("No 4473s for those in do-rags" does not fly.)

:mad:

That doesn't surprise me at all. They know where and how the dirtbags get the weapons and do nothing. Then blame the guns and try to screw all of the stand up citizens.

Kinda makes you wonder how this "blame everyone else for my problems that I created" piss poor attitude comes from?

Ford8N
04-07-2009, 4:14 AM
Sometime back, one source close to Oakland PD told me the cops knew where most of the guns were coming from, esp those supplied to felons. I'm betting it was apparently at a level the the ATF couldn't/wouldn't deal with due to the 'individual' and "not bulk" nature of the violators - and the fact that the originating purchases at FFLs were completely clean.

There was reluctance to do something about it because it involves "baby mama drama", and involved tons of young unemployed women, often on welfare and with children - but with clean records and valid ID, doing the actual buys.

The Oakland City Council was far to the left and busting welfare moms wasn't on the city's agenda. And since they wanted to distance themselves from the law-&-order mayor at the time (Jerry Brown) it got even more extreme, including overt and under the table attacks on OPD officers.

Bottom line, Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks (amongst others) don't want their voter base busted.

You might remember Trader's gunshop. Every so often you'd see an "obvious problem" looking at a gun. Nothing could be done if the records came back clean during DROS - cuz I don't think they could stand another discrimination suit. ("No 4473s for those in do-rags" does not fly.)

This is the dirty little secret of the anti-gun crowd. They know the truth and are scared to bring up the solution for fear of being called racist. But what really pisses me of is a federal government agency also knows this bit of fact. Then they will not say anything when they are in front of Congress and are called to testify to explain how an exfelon gets possession of a firearm.:mad:

RobG
04-07-2009, 8:32 AM
Sometime back, one source close to Oakland PD told me the cops knew where most of the guns were coming from, esp those supplied to felons. I'm betting it was apparently at a level the the ATF couldn't/wouldn't deal with due to the 'individual' and "not bulk" nature of the violators - and the fact that the originating purchases at FFLs were completely clean.

There was reluctance to do something about it because it involves "baby mama drama", and involved tons of young unemployed women, often on welfare and with children - but with clean records and valid ID, doing the actual buys.

The Oakland City Council was far to the left and busting welfare moms wasn't on the city's agenda. And since they wanted to distance themselves from the law-&-order mayor at the time (Jerry Brown) it got even more extreme, including overt and under the table attacks on OPD officers.

Bottom line, Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks (amongst others) don't want their voter base busted.

You might remember Trader's gunshop. Every so often you'd see an "obvious problem" looking at a gun. Nothing could be done if the records came back clean during DROS - cuz I don't think they could stand another discrimination suit. ("No 4473s for those in do-rags" does not fly.)

This is why more laws do nothing to reduce crime. OPD could give a s^&t where he got the gun. They just want all guns to somehow disappear like a fart in the wind. LE's unwillingness to track down the actual person/s responsible for the supply of guns to criminals is repugnant.

Asphodel
04-07-2009, 9:55 AM
There is a yet larger scale, and, as a generality, its something we 'don't talk about' very often.

For years and years now, I've offered 'Carla's corollary' to the famous 'Murphy's Law'

'The separate and apparently unrelated actions of multiple opportunists may create the effective equivalent of a conspiracy'

I'm not about to accuse any specific political figure, or any specific individual in any public safety command structure, of wilful corruption.

Yet, what else, other than significant corruption, at some levels, could account for some of the socio-economic realities of today?

A 'criminal sub-culture', with some aspects of discrimination based on 'racial' issues, is an extensive reality today, with seemingly large numbers of 'at risk' young people being drawn into a pattern of life in which criminal violence is a 'normalcy'.

How did this criminal sub-culture, the 'gangsta' image, come into being?

As the old saying goes, 'follow the money'.

Who profits from it, and why?

I have my own observations, of course, but what are yours?

(just as an example of my own observations, I was here in California when the 'Black Panther' group arose, and began their agitation amongst the Negro people, in the mid-1960's.

At that time, 'integration', and the full acceptance of Negro people into our culture by a total repudiation of the 'racial discrimination' promoted by allegedly 'conservative' social interests, was rapidly becoming the social normalcy here in California.

I cannot 'prove' that the Black Panther group were in fact an agitprop operation carried out by some governmental entity, but I personally saw and heard material which led me to strongly suspect that such was indeed the case.)

cheers

Carla

Steyr_223
04-07-2009, 11:23 AM
This is why more laws do nothing to reduce crime. OPD could give a s^&t where he got the gun. They just want all guns to somehow disappear like a fart in the wind. LE's unwillingness to track down the actual person/s responsible for the supply of guns to criminals is repugnant.

Correct!

I want to know

1) If this weapon was stolen from a private party? Did they report it? Was it in a safe?
2) Was it stolen from an FFL (San Jose Gun Exchange)?
3) Was it a straw purchase by Mixon's friends or relative? Is so prosecute. Most likely..
4) Was it sold by a bad FFL? Not likely, but they are out there. If so prosecute.

dwtt
04-07-2009, 11:54 AM
Bottom line, Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks (amongst others) don't want their voter base busted.

Jane Brunner is a familiar name. Patrick McCullough ran against her and lost. You guys remember Patrick McCullough, don't you?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/18/MNG0EHB6VK1.DTL

http://www.abetteroakland.com/patrick-mccullough-v-jane-brunner-lwv-district-1-candidate-forum/2008-05-12

Brunner is an entrenched liberal anti-gun procriminal Democrat politician. It's people like her who are helping things get worse in Oakland.

bill104
04-07-2009, 12:34 PM
In My Opinion he got it from the mexican Drug Cartel, this is my opinion and I'm standing by it, spread it around for we all know everything we read on the Internet is the truth.

nicki
04-07-2009, 1:21 PM
Perhaps where the guns came from, there were two shootings remember and who supplied them might be interesting.

The guns started off legal somewhere. If they were stolen, where were they stolen from, whom did they travel through before they got to the parolee?

If we take down a chain of gun runners to criminals, we are honoring the lives of those slain heros.

If we do nothing, their lives were in vein.

As a rule of thumb, I think all recovered guns from criminals should be tracked to see where they came from. We may uncover more crimes and catch other bad people.

Nicki

B.D.Dubloon
04-07-2009, 1:28 PM
I think the point that needs to be driven home to the anti's is "HE DIDN'T GET IT LEGALLY!!!" Therefore more laws WILL NOT do anything to deter criminals who already obtain their weapons illegally.


Let me start of by saying I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY GUN BAN.

But hypothetically, if they did ban AKs, SKS', AR15s, etc. wouldn't that mean that over time there would be less of them in the state and thus less for criminals to get their hands on. And thus less criminals with "AW"s? Wouldn't such a law make it more difficult for felons, etc to get the weapons illegally, and mean less armed felons on the street. I always assumed that the Anti's plan was to dry up the supply which the felons were illegally obtaining from.

BDD

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 1:37 PM
He then ask me how Mixon got his SKS and I realized I did not know...


Was the SKS a C&R rifle? Cash and carry? If so, then he could have easily bought it without the seller knowing if he was a felon or not.

B.D.Dubloon
04-07-2009, 1:45 PM
Was the SKS a C&R rifle? Cash and carry? If so, then he could have easily bought it without the seller knowing if he was a felon or not.

I hope not. If the antis get hold of that they'll try to close up the c&r cash and carry ability and make ALL guns go through a dros.

Rhys898
04-07-2009, 1:53 PM
if it was a yugo it was not a C&R in California. They wont be 50 years old until 2016 or later for any 59/66 and very few plain 59's were ever imported. Also because the 59/66 came with a grenade launcher they were considered DD's unless they had those removed and replaced with a muzzle break. Almost all Yugo 59/66's in the state were sold from retail establishments like big 5 and turners as far as I know.

Jer

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 2:08 PM
I hope not. If the antis get hold of that they'll try to close up the c&r cash and carry ability and make ALL guns go through a dros.


If it means less convicted felons getting a hold of guns (especially legally)... then that is fine by me.

valleyguy
04-07-2009, 2:28 PM
If it means less convicted felons getting a hold of guns (especially legally)... then that is fine by me.

Well, that's not fine with most of us, especially those of us who went to the trouble to get a C&R. It's a big step backwards -- the whole point is that they need an instant check system or pre-approval for those of us who are law-abiding and have been certified to be responsible gun owners. If anything, it is ridiculous that someone like me, with a sparkling clean record, should even have to wait 24 hours (let alone 10 days) to take home a firearm. If they can check my credit history instantly, and if the police can run my wants and warrants nationally instantly, why is it that it takes 10 days to do the same kind of thing for a firearm? It's just one more step to discourage gun ownership.

And gun waits have been shown to keep guns out of the hands of those who need them the most -- battered women who have ex's threatening them have died while waiting on the DROS for the gun they were trying to buy for protection. If I need a gun tonight to defend my life, getting it 10 days from now isn't going to help me.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 2:29 PM
Let me start of by saying I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY GUN BAN.

But hypothetically, if they did ban AKs, SKS', AR15s, etc. wouldn't that mean that over time there would be less of them in the state and thus less for criminals to get their hands on. And thus less criminals with "AW"s? Wouldn't such a law make it more difficult for felons, etc to get the weapons illegally, and mean less armed felons on the street. I always assumed that the Anti's plan was to dry up the supply which the felons were illegally obtaining from.

BDD

No....because they will just get them from out of state and bring them here. Again....they don't care about laws.

Guns have been illegal in Mexico for decades.....hasn't stopped the cartels from getting them though. Banning the legal sale of guns to law-abiding citizens does not stop criminals from getting them....PERIOD!!!

If you're talking some attrition thing.....that would take decades or longer to slowly weed out all of the guns as they surface. In the mean time the criminals are going about their business.

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 2:42 PM
Well, that's not fine with most of us, especially those of us who went to the trouble to get a C&R. It's a big step backwards -- the whole point is that they need an instant check system or pre-approval for those of us who are law-abiding and have been certified to be responsible gun owners. If anything, it is ridiculous that someone like me, with a sparkling clean record, should even have to wait 24 hours (let alone 10 days) to take home a firearm. If they can check my credit history instantly, and if the police can run my wants and warrants nationally instantly, why is it that it takes 10 days to do the same kind of thing for a firearm? It's just one more step to discourage gun ownership.

And gun waits have been shown to keep guns out of the hands of those who need them the most -- battered women who have ex's threatening them have died while waiting on the DROS for the gun they were trying to buy for protection. If I need a gun tonight to defend my life, getting it 10 days from now isn't going to help me.

I think a waiting period over 3 days is worthless. I am guessing the point of the law is to deter someone who got really angry (got in an argument or something) for some reason, so they can not just go out and buy a gun and kill someone.

I think this is a good idea and might prevent a few deaths a year, but if someone does not get a hold of their temper in 3 days, I dbout it would make a difference if the waiting period was 10 days or 1 year.

Steyr_223
04-07-2009, 2:46 PM
Perhaps where the guns came from, there were two shootings remember and who supplied them might be interesting.

The guns started off legal somewhere. If they were stolen, where were they stolen from, whom did they travel through before they got to the parolee?

If we take down a chain of gun runners to criminals, we are honoring the lives of those slain heros.

If we do nothing, their lives were in vein.

As a rule of thumb, I think all recovered guns from criminals should be tracked to see where they came from. We may uncover more crimes and catch other bad people.

Nicki

100% That was my point in the post. No new bans or laws but find the source of weapons in the case, take corrective action. Prosecution only if an existing law was broken. It's the only right thing to do..

Some Guy
04-07-2009, 2:54 PM
to find the source would technically require registration of rifles and c&r is that a fair trade100% That was my point in the post. No new bans or laws but find the source of weapons in the case, take corrective action. Prosecution only if an existing law was broken. It's the only right thing to do..

valleyguy
04-07-2009, 2:55 PM
I think a waiting period over 3 days is worthless. I am guessing the point of the law is to deter someone who got really angry (got in an argument or something) for some reason, so they can not just go out and buy a gun and kill someone.

I think this is a good idea and might prevent a few deaths a year, but if someone does not get a hold of their temper in 3 days, I dbout it would make a difference if the waiting period was 10 days or 1 year.

I even question the ability of it to keep you from doing something in the heat of the moment -- there's no waiting period on butcher knives or axes from Sears, or on baseball bats -- all are equally effective in killing someone quickly.

Dark Paladin
04-07-2009, 2:56 PM
to find the source would technically require registration of rifles and c&r is that a fair trade

Isn't everything currently processed by DROS entered into the CADOJ system already?

hvengel
04-07-2009, 3:16 PM
If it means less convicted felons getting a hold of guns (especially legally)... then that is fine by me.

Convicted felons can't buy or posses guns or ammunition legally so your remark makes no sense other than that perhaps you are saying that the current laws prohibiting felons from having a gun are fine with you.

All of this really misses the reality of the situation. We have two very different groups of people who own guns. The largest group are the law abiding (presumably including those of us who are here) and the other group are criminals. By definition criminals do NOT obey the law; that is why they are called criminals. Now if one of those criminals is going to commit a murder, which is generally considered to be the most criminal act anyone can do, then how can anyone realistically expect these same individuals to obey a law for a lessor crime (IE. a prohibited person possessing a gun)? It is this folly that the gun control crowd engages in and it is nothing sort of a delusional fantasy. Just because they are delusional does not mean that we should go along with the delusion and doing so actually plays into their hands. It is a game I and many others here will not play.

Some Guy
04-07-2009, 3:37 PM
Isn't everything currently processed by DROS entered into the CADOJ system already?

They're not supposed to keep records. Do they? Couldn't tell you. C&R is cash and carry, other states FTF cash and carry. I have no idea where he got it from, however a fundamental part of the 2nd is that the goverment doesnt need to know where my weapons are, how many I have, etc. I think any straw buyer should be prosecuted, but I dont think the government should be able to keep records of any firearms transactions. One thing I do know is a "street" weapon has no 10 day wait and the ones I've seen go for about 50% used value, so I doubt it was a straw.

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 4:25 PM
I even question the ability of it to keep you from doing something in the heat of the moment -- there's no waiting period on butcher knives or axes from Sears, or on baseball bats -- all are equally effective in killing someone quickly.

And that is why the standard issue infantry weapon is a knife or baseball bat, oh wait... A gun makes committing murder much easier, and most people realize this. Which is why a waiting period is good. If they do go on a killing spree, at least it would be with a knife instead of a gun.


As I already mentioned, I would support a 3 day or less waiting period, but as I said, more than that is really pointless. And the 10 day wait on my AK is killing me. :(


Convicted felons can't buy or posses guns or ammunition legally so your remark makes no sense other than that perhaps you are saying that the current laws prohibiting felons from having a gun are fine with you.


No they can't legally buy a gun, but we are making it easy for a felon to get one if it is a C&R. The seller has no way of knowing if he is selling his firearm to a criminal. That is what I meant to say, I worded that poorly.

Will criminals always have guns? Yes. Do some forms of gun control make it harder for criminals to get guns? Yes.



All of this really misses the reality of the situation. We have two very different groups of people who own guns. The largest group are the law abiding (presumably including those of us who are here) and the other group are criminals. By definition criminals do NOT obey the law; that is why they are called criminals. Now if one of those criminals is going to commit a murder, which is generally considered to be the most criminal act anyone can do, then how can anyone realistically expect these same individuals to obey a law for a lessor crime (IE. a prohibited person possessing a gun)? It is this folly that the gun control crowd engages in and it is nothing sort of a delusional fantasy. Just because they are delusional does not mean that we should go along with the delusion and doing so actually plays into their hands. It is a game I and many others here will not play.


Guns don't grow off of trees. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, or at one time were legally bought. Are there guns smuggled into the country? Yes. Will there always be? Yes. Are there ways to limit the amount of illegal guns going into circulation? Yes. Background checks are one of these. Another would be securing our southern border better.

Now, stuff like assault weapon bans, "safe pistol rosters" ect. are obviously really stupid and don't do anything. Especially since the most illegally produced/smuggled types of weapons are real assault rifles ect.

I find it hard to believe that someone would say we should not have background checks. This just makes it so much easier for felons ect. to get guns.


And something like a background does not infringe on the 2nd amendment either, as individuals can still legally own guns and they can still form militias.

ad6mj
04-07-2009, 4:30 PM
I think a waiting period over 3 days is worthless. I am guessing the point of the law is to deter someone who got really angry (got in an argument or something) for some reason, so they can not just go out and buy a gun and kill someone.

I think this is a good idea and might prevent a few deaths a year, but if someone does not get a hold of their temper in 3 days, I dbout it would make a difference if the waiting period was 10 days or 1 year.

If that is the logic behind a waiting period, why should someone that already owns multiple firearms have to wait?

Ford8N
04-07-2009, 4:34 PM
A person should only do ONE waiting period for life. If the purpose of a waiting period is for me to cool off before getting a gun because I'm mad, what if I already have a gun? One gun or a million, I already have a gun. So you can see, the current waiting period is really only to discourage gun owners. Kalifornia sux.

paul0660
04-07-2009, 4:48 PM
This is why more laws do nothing to reduce crime. OPD could give a s^&t where he got the gun. They just want all guns to somehow disappear like a fart in the wind.

Yup. They know, but it does not serve them to let us know.

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 4:55 PM
If that is the logic behind a waiting period, why should someone that already owns multiple firearms have to wait?

Since we do not have gun registration, there is no way to tell who owns a firearm, correct? That is one advantage of registration. But, I do not like the idea of registration (even though it will make tracking illegal guns easier).

I would rather stick with short waiting periods.

ad6mj
04-07-2009, 5:01 PM
Since we do not have gun registration, there is no way to tell who owns a firearm, correct? That is one advantage of registration. But, I do not like the idea of registration (even though it will make tracking illegal guns easier).

I would rather stick with short waiting periods.

Sure there is, you could show it along with your driver's license.

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 5:05 PM
Sure there is, you could show it along with your driver's license.

Really? What do you mean by show "it"? I am in the 8 day waiting period of my first gun (PPT, rifle), so I do not know what happens at the end of the period.

When you say "it", do you mean show another gun that you own? How would one know if it is legal or not?

If there is a way without registration to prove that you have a legal gun, then I would gladly support that as a deterrent for waiting periods.

Dark Paladin
04-07-2009, 5:10 PM
Really? What do you mean by show "it"? I am in the 8 day waiting period of my first gun (PPT, rifle), so I do not know what happens at the end of the period.

I'm on day 3 of 10 for my AK too. But this isn't my first purchase in CA. And from your point of view, very little happens on day 10. You walk up, show them your DROS, they give you your property, make you sign for receipt, and off you go.

Actually. . . now that I think about it. . . instead of gun registration. . . how about just a copy of a previous DROS to prove this isn't your first purchase?

ad6mj
04-07-2009, 5:16 PM
Really? What do you mean by show "it"? I am in the 8 day waiting period of my first gun (PPT, rifle), so I do not know what happens at the end of the period.

When you say "it", do you mean show another gun that you own? How would one know if it is legal or not?

If there is a way without registration to prove that you have a legal gun, then I would gladly support that as a deterrent for waiting periods.

Yes, I was suggesting that a person could show the dealer their gun. By fed law there has to be a background check run. If you are good to go for buying a gun you are legal. If you already have a gun, what's the point of a cooling off period?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/04C77DEF20BD440A8E70CFE5D69B0350/show-us-your-guns.aspx

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 5:17 PM
I'm on day 3 of 10 for my AK too. But this isn't my first purchase in CA. And from your point of view, very little happens on day 10. You walk up, show them your DROS, they give you your property, make you sign for receipt, and off you go.

Actually. . . now that I think about it. . . instead of gun registration. . . how about just a copy of a previous DROS to prove this isn't your first purchase?

That is what I was trying to say in my above post. The only problem would be if someone no longer owns a gun... but I doubt this situation would arise much.


All in all, I like your solution the best. Now, if only we could change the laws... ;)

Dark Paladin
04-07-2009, 5:18 PM
Yes, I was suggesting that a person could show the dealer their gun. By fed law there has to be a background check run. If you are good to go for buying a gun you are legal. If you already have a gun, what's the point of a cooling off period?

How would the dealer know whether the gun you are showing them is legal or not if there is no registration database to verify its status? Seems like a major loophole that the antis would be all over on.

ad6mj
04-07-2009, 5:24 PM
How would the dealer know whether the gun you are showing them is legal or not if there is no registration database to verify its status? Seems like a major loophole that the antis would be all over on.
If the point of a waiting period is to cool down, and not commit an impulsive crime, what difference how the previous gun was acquired?

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 5:46 PM
If the point of a waiting period is to cool down, and not commit an impulsive crime, what difference how the previous gun was acquired?

Perhaps he was mixing up two of the different arguments I was bringing up (being C&R and waiting periods/impulsive crimes).

Dark Paladin
04-07-2009, 6:21 PM
If the point of a waiting period is to cool down, and not commit an impulsive crime, what difference how the previous gun was acquired?

Because the previous gun may not even be the buyer's? What's to stop the buyer from borrowing his friend's firearm to bypass the "first time buyer" check?

Could the buyer use his friend's firearm instead to commit the impulsvie crime? There's certainly that possibility. But to allow the buyer to bypass the waiting period like this and proceed to commit a violent crime is just asking for the antis to shut us down.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate on this one, since my gut feeling says it won't pass muster if someone tries to test it.

My proposed alternative, showing a copy of a previous DROS, serves the purposes of proving that this is not your first purchase (once the dealer confirms that the DROS is valid and is under your name in the DOJ system), AND is a lot less eye catching for the buyer than lugging around a firearm (CCW arguments not withstanding).

ad6mj
04-07-2009, 6:42 PM
Because the previous gun may not even be the buyer's? What's to stop the buyer from borrowing his friend's firearm to bypass the "first time buyer" check?

Could the buyer use his friend's firearm instead to commit the impulsvie crime? There's certainly that possibility. But to allow the buyer to bypass the waiting period like this and proceed to commit a violent crime is just asking for the antis to shut us down.



If a person is going to borrow a gun to take to a dealer to bypass a waiting period AND complete paperwork AND a background check, it's not very impulsive. Most of the country functions just fine without waiting periods.

bluthandwerk
04-07-2009, 6:42 PM
Actually. . . now that I think about it. . . instead of gun registration. . . how about just a copy of a previous DROS to prove this isn't your first purchase?

Hey, I like this idea! Of course since we currently have laws that require you to buy a lock from the FFL unless you have a safe (or are willing to drag in a receipt from your last purchase, etc.), even if you bring a lock with you, I doubt this sort of sanity is likely to prevail...

journeyman
04-07-2009, 6:46 PM
Sometime back, one source close to Oakland PD told me the cops knew where most of the guns were coming from, esp those supplied to felons. I'm betting it was apparently at a level the the ATF couldn't/wouldn't deal with due to the 'individual' and "not bulk" nature of the violators - and the fact that the originating purchases at FFLs were completely clean.

There was reluctance to do something about it because it involves "baby mama drama", and involved tons of young unemployed women, often on welfare and with children - but with clean records and valid ID, doing the actual buys.

The Oakland City Council was far to the left and busting welfare moms wasn't on the city's agenda. And since they wanted to distance themselves from the law-&-order mayor at the time (Jerry Brown) it got even more extreme, including overt and under the table attacks on OPD officers.

Bottom line, Jane Brunner and Desley Brooks (amongst others) don't want their voter base busted.

You might remember Trader's gunshop. Every so often you'd see an "obvious problem" looking at a gun. Nothing could be done if the records came back clean during DROS - cuz I don't think they could stand another discrimination suit. ("No 4473s for those in do-rags" does not fly.)

:( wow seems a little overt

Flogger23m
04-07-2009, 6:46 PM
Hey, I like this idea! Of course since we currently have laws that require you to buy a lock from the FFL unless you have a safe (or are willing to drag in a receipt from your last purchase, etc.), even if you bring a lock with you, I doubt this sort of sanity is likely to prevail...


Thanks for reminding me to bring some money for a lock when I pick up my rifle. :(

And as I already said, this really is a good idea. Bring in your DROS from the older firearm, do the background check. If you can still legally own a gun and can prove that you've had one already, there is no reason to have another waiting period.

Sgt Raven
04-07-2009, 8:39 PM
to find the source would technically require registration of rifles and c&r is that a fair trade


No they can trace any weapon from the manufacture or importer to the dealer, then by the 4473 to the buyer. Then they contact the buyer and see where it went from there. :thumbsup:

Seesm
04-07-2009, 9:27 PM
I am gonna don a "do rag" next purchase to see how they deal with that... :)