PDA

View Full Version : "Easy Access: $5,000 and One Hour Buys 10 Guns" - Gun Show "Loophole" Article


ChuckBooty
04-09-2009, 4:48 PM
Omar Samaha, Whose Sister Was Killed at VTech, Found Out How Simple It Is to Buy a Gun
By NARIA HALLIWELL

RICHMOND, Va., April 9, 2009—

The two-year anniversary of Virginia Tech, the largest massacre by a sole gunman in the country's history, is only one week away.

In the two years since, what has changed, what has been fixed, and what has stayed exactly the same?

Watch the story Friday on "20/20" at 10 p.m. ET

Immediately following the tragedy, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and other authorities called on lawmakers to close the so called "gun show loophole" -- by which anyone can buy a gun from a private dealer with no background check and no questions asked. Two years later, that loophole is still very much open, in Virginia and 32 other states around the country.

So just how easy is it to buy a gun at a gun show?

The Challenge: To Buy a Gun in One Hour

For over a year, ABC News has followed Omar Samaha on a very personal quest to hold those lawmakers to their word. Omar's sister Reema was one of 32 shot and killed at Virginia Tech. We went with Omar to a gun show in Richmond, Va. -- one of hundreds held every weekend across the state of Virginia and the country. We gave Samaha $5,000 and one hour to see how many guns he could buy, and how many questions he would be asked.

By 9:30 in the morning, the parking lot was already packed full of cars. Groups of men, couples and even families with children in tow streamed toward the quickly growing line out front. Samaha, 25, joined the crowds and while waiting on line, he was approached by a seller and given the opportunity to make a quick purchase. He bought a Glock handgun, with no background check, and no questions asked.

A Painful Purchase

"He was just sitting right outside the door, I went up to him. 'How much do you want for it?'

"'$450 bucks.'

'Here's the cash.'

'Thanks. See you later.'

"That was it."

For Samaha, the Glock handgun was a particularly painful purchase. It was the same kind of gun used to kill his sister Reema when she was a freshman at Virginia Tech. Just holding the gun in his hand was difficult.

"I don't want to think about how gruesome it was and how somebody used this type of weapon on my sister and so many other innocent people. It's devastating," he said.

Samaha walked back into the gun show, and within minutes he was out again, this time carrying a Colt AR 15, a semi-automatic assault weapon very similar to an M16. We asked if there were any questions asked.

"Nothing," he said. "I just went up, gave him cash. He's like, 'Cash is all you need.'"

Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun. He could have purchased many more handguns, but he wanted to abide by Virginia State law, which allows the purchase of one handgun per month, and two assault weapons.

No Background Check Required

Samaha was never asked to fill out any type of background check. At one point he was asked to show identification. When Samaha said he didn't have any, the seller quickly relented, not wanting to lose a sale.

"He's like, 'Give me $100 more and I'll let you go and take the risk.' I got two guns for $600 without any identification check," Samaha said.

Not only did Samaha buy 10 guns in one hour with incredible ease and no questions, he could have turned around and sold those same guns right in the parking lot. In fact, while standing next to his trunk full of guns, Omar was approached by a man who thought he was a seller. Omar knew the gun show loophole existed, but he was still shocked by how easy it was for him to buy guns with no questions asked.

"Anybody can do it," Samaha said. "And it's for real. It's that easy. Anyone. Someone who's adjudicated mentally ill, someone who's a known felon. Someone who has a history of crime. I think people don't realize how easy it really is."

Lobbying Lawmakers

In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports in their investigations that private sellers at gun shows are a major source of gun crime in the country. In the two years since Reema's death, Samaha has fought hard to get the loophole closed in his home state of Virginia.

He has lobbied lawmakers, spoken publicly about his sister and even launched an online campaign about the dangers of guns on campus. A law to close the gun show loophole has come up twice in the Virginia State legislature, and twice the body has voted against the bill, even though it was one of the key recommendations to come out of Kaine's Virginia Tech Review Panel.

Gun Show Loophole

When Virginia lawmakers voted against closing the loophole, Samaha was shocked. "It really made me wonder what kind of people we have making our laws," he said.

Among those who voted twice against closing the gun show loophole is state John S. Edwards, a Virginia Democrat who represents the district that includes Virginia Tech. After repeated attempts to reach Edwards, the state senator did not respond to calls from ABC News.

Gun rights groups don't want to see the loophole closed because they fear that background checks will hurt business at gun shows, and also threaten privacy rights. They also argue that the Virginia Tech shooter didn't buy his gun at a gun show. Seung Hui Cho bought his gun legally at a gun store even though he had a documented history of mental illness. That breakdown in the system was addressed immediately following Virginia Tech, but families of the victims argue that with the gun show loophole still open, it is just too easy to buy a gun with no questions asked.

For Samaha, it's not about the right to own a gun, it's about how easy it is for guns to end up in the wrong hands.

"We're not trying to keep guns out of the hands of good citizens. If you can pass a background check, which anyone can do in a matter of minutes, then you can buy guns," he said.

'None of Them Could Have Stopped Him'

Former ATF agent Gerald Nunziato was with Samaha at the gun show in Richmond, Va. With years of experience fighting gangs and drug organizations, Nunziato was all too familiar with the guns that Samaha bought.

"My experience as an agent in Detroit and Miami is that these guns [shotguns] would be sawed off at the barrel," he said. "They're a very high-powered scatter gun that's used a lot by drug gang members 'cause they're easy to get in and out of your car."

Even though Samaha immediately turned in all the weapons he bought at the gun show to the Richmond Police Department, Nunziato pointed out that if Samaha had wanted to, he could have caused a lot of damage with the guns he purchased.

"There were three or four police cars in the parking lot [at the gun show]. None of them could have stopped him [Samaha] with the firepower he bought," said Nunziato.

For Samaha, it's all about honoring his sister Reema's memory and working to prevent another tragedy from happening again.

"I think I'm doing something she would do," he said. "I think she would be proud of me and tell me to keep going."

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745&page=1

I DO have a problem with selling guns to someone without first making sure they're not a wanted murderer. What do you propose (if anything) would fix this? Maybe require a single DROS, included with the admission price, to get into a gun show as a "buyer"?

AlexBreya
04-09-2009, 4:53 PM
"Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun."

Does the handgun count as 3?

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 4:56 PM
I DO have a problem with selling guns to someone without first making sure they're not a wanted murderer.

That is a problem.

I suppose if the gun show promoter or the government cared enough they could arrange for someone to be at the show with a NICS terminal to run background checks with no other records kept for private sales.

jumbopanda
04-09-2009, 4:57 PM
Aww man, why did he turn them in to the Police?

jamesob
04-09-2009, 4:59 PM
someone could pay some gangbanger 5 grand to off somebody in less time than that. and your right the numbers don't jive.lol

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 4:59 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745&page=1

I DO have a problem with selling guns to someone without first making sure they're not a wanted murderer. What do you propose (if anything) would fix this? Maybe require a single DROS, included with the admission price, to get into a gun show as a "buyer"?

That, or make the sale conditional on a DROS. I'm sure it wouldn't be all that difficult to set up a central location at the gun show to run DROSs on purchasers. It's not rocket science. In my opinion anyone who sells weapons at a gun show is a dealer, and should have to abide by at least some of the same rules dealers go through (not a full FFL, but at least some). No different than any other private transfer - in CA at least you'd still have to go through an FFL for the transfer.

ChuckBooty
04-09-2009, 5:05 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if someone from the NRA or any other 2A organization could have a "sit down" with the Obama administration and tell them that we're willing to set this up in exchange for backing off of the AWB? It'd be a win-win situation...Obama/Biden get to strut around and pacify the Left by telling them that they've passed some "tough gun control legislation", WE get to ensure that criminals don't get guns AND we keep our AR/AK's. Plus the friggin' PRICE on these rifles might actually become reasonable once again.

hawk1
04-09-2009, 5:10 PM
Are you guys fricken sick? What the hell, have you really forgotten how things should be done? Gunshow loophole my ***. It's legal in that state, and you guys want to help set up a DROS type system for them! I think I'm going to puke...:(

DarkHorse
04-09-2009, 5:11 PM
I think there is a little confusion here. DROS is a CA requirement. Other states don't necessarily have a DROS-type system for firearms purchases. I believe they simply fill out the 4473 and have the NICS (for dealer sales, obviously).

In case anybody wonders, the I in NICS stands for Instant. In a free state, it takes a 5 minute phone call to run the check, then you get to walk out w/your goods.

MontClaire
04-09-2009, 5:11 PM
that is sweet if you can buy gun with no checks-just hand over the cash. sweet state VA! what other states are like that?

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 5:13 PM
My thought from the article was 'Damn...I wanna go to a gun show in VA!!!" :)

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 5:14 PM
In case anybody wonders, the I in NICS stands for Instant. In a free state, it takes a 5 minute phone call to run the check, then you get to walk out w/your goods.

Yes indeed. Except it takes about 2 minutes. And it's free. In many states if you have a CCW, you don't even have to do the NICS check.

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 5:14 PM
that is sweet if you can buy gun with no checks-just hand over the cash. sweet state VA! what other states are like that?

Is that how it is in AZ too?

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 5:19 PM
that is sweet if you can buy gun with no checks-just hand over the cash. sweet state VA! what other states are like that?

Allmost all of them.


Is that how it is in AZ too?

Yep. If you are a resident.

tgriffin
04-09-2009, 5:20 PM
3+4+1 = 10 :detective: :toetap05: :nuts:

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 5:22 PM
3+4+1 = 10 :detective: :toetap05: :nuts:

It's called "liberal math"! LOL

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 5:23 PM
Yep. If you are a resident.

Time for a trip to AZ!

ChuckBooty
04-09-2009, 5:34 PM
Time for a trip to AZ!

Yeah...I'm a CA resident but I'm active military. I've been thinking about changing my Home of Record state back to AZ (where I originally joined from). Then driving out and getting an AZ drivers license and having at it. But then I get lazy.....:sleeping:

deleted by PC police
04-09-2009, 5:49 PM
I have some problems with this article. First of all The first guy wasn't he bought a gun show from wasn't even in the Gunshow. How can that be a gunshow loophole.

Second what is a "private dealer"??? A Dealer with an FFL has to do paperwork for all sales in all states or will soon find himself not being a dealer. A private citizen however in most states can sell a firearm privatley be it at his home or at a gunshow so it's not a gunshow loophole.

hawk84
04-09-2009, 5:54 PM
"Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun."

Does the handgun count as 3?
Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun. He could have purchased many more handguns, but he wanted to abide by Virginia State law, which allows the purchase of one handgun per month, and two assault weapons.


i think it adds up to 10 if you correct their punctuation

chuck762
04-09-2009, 5:58 PM
That, or make the sale conditional on a DROS. I'm sure it wouldn't be all that difficult to set up a central location at the gun show to run DROSs on purchasers. It's not rocket science. In my opinion anyone who sells weapons at a gun show is a dealer, and should have to abide by at least some of the same rules dealers go through (not a full FFL, but at least some). No different than any other private transfer - in CA at least you'd still have to go through an FFL for the transfer.

So you want to turn every state into california? Person to person sales are legal in a lot of states. Are you willing to register every home built firearm also such as the 80% Ar and Ak receivers too?
You probably don't know or don't remember but in cali it was legal to do transfers without involving a FFL. Now it is just a distant memory like plenty of other gun rights we used to have.

Sorry, but you can keep that idea. When I finally leave this state I want to be able to enjoy the things that are forbidden here.

DarkHorse
04-09-2009, 6:07 PM
I have some problems with this article. First of all The first guy wasn't he bought a gun show from wasn't even in the Gunshow. How can that be a gunshow loophole.

Second what is a "private dealer"??? A Dealer with an FFL has to do paperwork for all sales in all states or will soon find himself not being a dealer. A private citizen however in most states can sell a firearm privatley be it at his home or at a gunshow so it's not a gunshow loophole.

The "Gunshow Loophole" is the same thing as an "Assault Weapon." It is a misnomer, an attempt at redirection by the gun-grabbers to make it seem like a bad thing that should be "fixed." The term was created to garner public support for a cause that otherwise would be untouchable.

In reality, the "Gunshow Loophole" is Private Party firearms purchases. As has been mentioned, in many states there is no requirement to do paperwork on private firearms purchases, whether conducted at a gunshow or in your neighbor's living room. If the Brady Bunch got their way, closing the "Gunshow Loophole" would mean that every firearms transaction would have to go through an FFL.

A "Private Dealer" is a regular person selling a personally owned firearm, nothing more.

Don't be fooled. This is not JUST about transactions at gun shows. It is about every single gun purchase. Ever. Ever...

deleted by PC police
04-09-2009, 6:08 PM
Oh yeah didn't the V-Tech killer buy his guns from a ffl? So what does v-tech and gun show loophole have to do with anything?

DarkHorse
04-09-2009, 6:13 PM
Oh yeah didn't the V-Tech killer buy his guns from a ffl? So what does v-tech and gun show loophole have to do with anything?

Yes, he did. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other, logically speaking.

Guess why you can't buy magazines, barrels, slides, etc . on eBay anymore? Because the VA-Tech dude purchased some magazines there, and some of those MAY have been used during the shooting. I bought 10+ mags on eBay before that happened, and I never shot anybody.

The media is making this connection in order to gain support for "closing the loophole." That's it.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 6:15 PM
So you want to turn every state into california? Person to person sales are legal in a lot of states. Are you willing to register every home built firearm also such as the 80% Ar and Ak receivers too?
You probably don't know or don't remember but in cali it was legal to do transfers without involving a FFL. Now it is just a distant memory like plenty of other gun rights we used to have.


No, I don't want to turn all the other states into CA. I never implied that. Our laws have gone too far in many respects. I do, however, think some measures are common sense, and in the long run will protect our right to bear arms. I happen to believe that some people are unfit to bear arms - those with criminal records, or those with mental illnesses, etc. It is irresponsible in my opinion to allow them access to weapons, because they're not responsible gun owners.

An instant background check that doesn't keep records is not against the 2A, and neither is a reasonable waiting period. There's no implication in 2A that people need instant access to weapons, nor is there that irresponsible citizens should have access to firearms, so those are common sense measures to ensure the rest of us can continue enjoying our rights.

Riodog
04-09-2009, 6:29 PM
No, I don't want to turn all the other states into CA. I never implied that. Our laws have gone too far in many respects. I do, however, think some measures are common sense, and in the long run will protect our right to bear arms. I happen to believe that some people are unfit to bear arms - those with criminal records, or those with mental illnesses, etc. It is irresponsible in my opinion to allow them access to weapons, because they're not responsible gun owners.

An instant background check that doesn't keep records is not against the 2A, and neither is a reasonable waiting period. There's no implication in 2A that people need instant access to weapons, nor is there that irresponsible citizens should have access to firearms, so those are common sense measures to ensure the rest of us can continue enjoying our rights.

There are a 'lot' of people that shouldn't be driving cars either. Why don't you work on that loop-hole?

TARD'S THAT OWN CARS".

Your 'common sense' measures look stupid to others.
Rio

chuck762
04-09-2009, 6:31 PM
No, I don't want to turn all the other states into CA. I never implied that. Our laws have gone too far in many respects. I do, however, think some measures are common sense, and in the long run will protect our right to bear arms. I happen to believe that some people are unfit to bear arms - those with criminal records, or those with mental illnesses, etc. It is irresponsible in my opinion to allow them access to weapons, because they're not responsible gun owners.

An instant background check that doesn't keep records is not against the 2A, and neither is a reasonable waiting period. There's no implication in 2A that people need instant access to weapons, nor is there that irresponsible citizens should have access to firearms, so those are common sense measures to ensure the rest of us can continue enjoying our rights.

How many times have i heard the old "common sense" argument that has done nothing but restrict my rights. It was used by slick willie for hs 94 AWB. Fineswine has and still does use it along with anyone who tries to convince the masses it is a good idea and won't infringe on any of our rights.

Criminals will acquire firearms no matter how many hoops law abiding citizens have to jump through. Are you going to stop people from building 80% receivers also? I am sure criminals have done that.

Any time you fill out the 4473 there is a permanent record. How does filling out the 4473 make sure "irresponsible" people don't get a firearm? If you don't have a record it won't such as the guy in NY. Does it stop the stupid careless guy who has a clean record from accidentally shooting someone?

Sorry but your idea of common sense does not make me feel any safer or better about the continuation of our right to bear arms.
Please keep your idea out of the free states.

ChuckBooty
04-09-2009, 6:33 PM
Cars and car owners are not controversial...guns and gun owners are (unfortunately). If we concede to, at least an instant background check being done for all firearm sales I think that it'd be touted as a victory by the anti's and the left and could lead to them leaving the semi auto rifles alone.

4thSeal
04-09-2009, 6:41 PM
Its not a loophole if there is no law requiring any form of background check ...

I believe there should be a background/citizenship check ( instant or 30min or less ) on any gun purchase or transfer wether private or dealer, yes criminals (Felons) can get weapons by other illegal means but they should not beable to goto a gun show or dealer drop some cash and walk out.

Other than that I see no reason to have any other regulations on purchases.

gd-bh
04-09-2009, 6:41 PM
Hmmm..I don't know about anyone else, but it sure seems like at least one state understands what "shall not be infringed" means. I honestly don't see anything wrong here, other than it makes some people "uncomfortable", thus it must be bad.

chuck762
04-09-2009, 6:42 PM
Cars and car owners are not controversial...guns and gun owners are (unfortunately). If we concede to, at least an instant background check being done for all firearm sales I think that it'd be touted as a victory by the anti's and the left and could lead to them leaving the semi auto rifles alone.

Or like sharks smelling blood they claim we are weakening and try to force even more laws on us. Anti gunners will not stop. They will try and do what ever they can to eliminate our right to own firearms. They will keep chipping away at it just like they have been doing. First it is the cheap and easily concealable "saturday night special. Then it was assault weapons. Cop killer bullets. Hi cap mags, Semi auto pistols, ect, ect.
Given em an inch and they will take a mile.

ChuckBooty
04-09-2009, 6:44 PM
Or like sharks smelling blood they claim we are weakening and try to force even more laws on us. Anti gunners will not stop. They will try and do what ever they can to eliminate our right to own firearms. They will keep chipping away at it just like they have been doing. First it is the cheap and easily concealable "saturday night special. Then it was assault weapons. Cop killer bullets. Hi cap mags, Semi auto pistols, ect, ect.
Given em an inch and they will take a mile.

You're right. But this would simply be a law requiring a background check on firearm purchases....I wouldn't support ANY legislation limiting ANY type of firearm.

chuck762
04-09-2009, 6:52 PM
You're right. But this would simply be a law requiring a background check on firearm purchases....I wouldn't support ANY legislation limiting ANY type of firearm.

But you are willing to give them the background checks in hopes they won't try to ban anything else. You really trust the antis that much?

Got news for ya. Even if we let them have it they wouldn't stop wanting to ban guns.

B Strong
04-09-2009, 6:52 PM
Was Omar Samaha a resident of Virgina when these sales went down?

If not, the feds should treat him no differently than they would a California resident buying cash and carry firearms at the Reno show.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 6:52 PM
There are a 'lot' of people that shouldn't be driving cars either. Why don't you work on that loop-hole?


I agree that there are plenty of people who shouldn't be driving cars. However, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, so I'd rather work on keeping our right to bear arms viable than work on car legislation.

RRangel
04-09-2009, 6:53 PM
I have some problems with this article. First of all The first guy wasn't he bought a gun show from wasn't even in the Gunshow. How can that be a gunshow loophole.

Second what is a "private dealer"??? A Dealer with an FFL has to do paperwork for all sales in all states or will soon find himself not being a dealer. A private citizen however in most states can sell a firearm privatley be it at his home or at a gunshow so it's not a gunshow loophole.

Exactly, they misrepresent the truth and manufacture terms like "private dealer" and "gun show loophole" to demonize gun shows and citizens selling their property. They will not come out and say that they would like to eliminate all private sales everywhere just like in California. That gun banners will not tell the truth says everything you need to know. They do not like guns in any form whether from a background check or not. When you give them an inch they will take a mile, and that's a fact. Our state is a prime example of this.

Then we have those like grahlaika who think American citizens are not worthy of being free, and that we need to obey our leftist masters and have "common sense". As if for a majority of this nations history citizens didn't have the right to buy and trade guns freely. This is all part of the plan for America to "change". Closing the gun show loophole is a solution looking for a problem, but it is the foot in the door for gun banners.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 7:03 PM
Criminals will acquire firearms no matter how many hoops law abiding citizens have to jump through. Are you going to stop people from building 80% receivers also? I am sure criminals have done that.


Of course that's true, and there's no way to stop criminals from committing crimes. There are other measure to be taken there, and they involve law enforcement. Do we have to simply hand them weapons because we believe they'll go out and get them anyways? Is that the answer? Give up and not do anything to try and at least slow criminals down, or maybe cool off some hothead with a grudge who wants to take out a bunch of his co-workers? Of course not, and I hope you don't believe that either. If you do, then there are other issues with your point of view.

What we're talking about doesn't prevent accidents, and it's not meant to. There are other things we can do to help prevent gun accidents. Training and awareness is one of them. Gun safes is another. Harsher punishments for carelessness is yet still another. I'm actually glad I was asked to provide proof that I have a gun safe when I purchased my OLLs last week - it's not a bad thing.

And as far as common sense being a precursor to rights being taken away, well part of it is paranoia on your part, part of it is self-fulfilling prophecy. The absolute position on not accepting ANY common sense measures was bound to lead the anti's to go extreme on their end. Extremism begets extremism. Who's to say whether or not supporting waiting periods and background checks and being amenable to common sense legislation wouldn't have prevented the restrictions on assault weapons and such? We'll never know, but at least we know where are are now. And we have to take some responsibility for that.

chuck762
04-09-2009, 7:21 PM
Of course that's true, and there's no way to stop criminals from committing crimes. There are other measure to be taken there, and they involve law enforcement. Do we have to simply hand them weapons because we believe they'll go out and get them anyways? Is that the answer? Give up and not do anything to try and at least slow criminals down, or maybe cool off some hothead with a grudge who wants to take out a bunch of his co-workers? Of course not, and I hope you don't believe that either. If you do, then there are other issues with your point of view.

What we're talking about doesn't prevent accidents, and it's not meant to. There are other things we can do to help prevent gun accidents. Training and awareness is one of them. Gun safes is another. Harsher punishments for carelessness is yet still another. I'm actually glad I was asked to provide proof that I have a gun safe when I purchased my OLLs last week - it's not a bad thing.

And as far as common sense being a precursor to rights being taken away, well part of it is paranoia on your part, part of it is self-fulfilling prophecy. The absolute position on not accepting ANY common sense measures was bound to lead the anti's to go extreme on their end. Extremism begets extremism. Who's to say whether or not supporting waiting periods and background checks and being amenable to common sense legislation wouldn't have prevented the restrictions on assault weapons and such? We'll never know, but at least we know where are are now. And we have to take some responsibility for that.

How will your instant check stop a hothead from buying a gun? Unless he has a criminal record it wouldn't do a thing so It sounds like you are for waiting periods also. The more you write the more I can see you really believe all the crap this state has spoon fed you when it comes to guns.

The only thing an instant check would stop is a felon from buying a gun legally. Won't stop the other ways they acquire them will it. What else does your instant check stop, oh wait, you want a waiting period too.

Paranoia? Hardly. How old are you? Are you even old enough to have been a gun owner before 1994? Sounds like you are reading from the brady handbook.

We know it wouldn't have stopped any restrictions. In case you haven't noticed there are people who hate guns. Not just dislike them but have a deep hatred for them and their owners. They would rid this country of gun ownership if they could. Sadly some of them are in power and several represent this state.
Any time they can add another hoop to jump through or another restriction they are all for it. You don't think a check is a big deal but may gun owners do.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 7:30 PM
How will your instant check stop a hothead from buying a gun? Unless he has a criminal record it wouldn't do a thing so It sounds like you are for waiting periods also. The more you write the more I can see you really believe all the crap this state has spoon fed you when it comes to guns.

I already wrote that I'm not against waiting periods, so yes that's what would deter a hothead from making a really stupid choice.

I haven't been spoon fed anything. I make my own decisions, and I have my own thoughts. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me an idiot. We have a difference of opinion, and it doesn't mean I'm any less supportive of my 2A rights than you are.

You keep telling me why I'm wrong, but I still haven't heard any real reason why recordless background checks or waiting periods are in any way against our 2A rights. So let me know. I really do want to know.

bondmid003
04-09-2009, 7:35 PM
There definitely should be a backround check for all handgun purchases, I have no problem with that. However, CA is probably not the best state for VA to emulate. I thought FL's laws were pretty fair

chuck762
04-09-2009, 7:53 PM
I already wrote that I'm not against waiting periods, so yes that's what would deter a hothead from making a really stupid choice.

I haven't been spoon fed anything. I make my own decisions, and I have my own thoughts. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me an idiot. We have a difference of opinion, and it doesn't mean I'm any less supportive of my 2A rights than you are.

You keep telling me why I'm wrong, but I still haven't heard any real reason why recordless background checks or waiting periods are in any way against our 2A rights. So let me know. I really do want to know.

First. where do you get the idea there is no record kept? Fill out the yellow form and there is a record. It does not get destroyed. It is a federal form and not a state form. It is an instant check in that you usually get to take it home that day but there is a record.

Waiting periods do not stop any crime. If I want to kill someone I can do it without a gun.
Hers is a taste of what can be done with out a firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

How does a waiting period stop someone like me from committing a gun crime? I already own several firearms. Oh shucks, I was going to go on a shooting spree with my new shiny gun but since I have to wait I won't because I don't like the ones I already have.

A waiting period to me is just harassment and an excuse to charge another fee for my right to own a gun.

You are willing to compromise your 2A rights. I am not so yes, there is a huge difference of opinion.

Are you for enacting magazine capacity laws in free states? I mean since the 2A doesn't mention hi cap mags it really isn't infringing on any rights is it?
No need for a regular magazine catch either right?
Is one gun a month is ok too since who would need more than that?

What I get from your idea of gun ownership and common sense laws sounds like it turns free states into mini versions of california.

otteray
04-09-2009, 7:53 PM
There definitely should be a backround check for all handgun purchases, I have no problem with that.

That way, the gangbangers down in south county or Salinas trading a weapon for some blow or heroin can be confident that everything is done legally and won't trade if the person has purchased another firearm within the last 30 days or is a felon.

Sunwolf
04-09-2009, 7:53 PM
Seems like someone is taking all the lies and "reasonable gun laws"to heart.Accepting restrictions on a freedom in order to prevent other restrictions on the freedom is a non sequiter.Appeasement never ends well.

Asphodel
04-09-2009, 8:10 PM
Alright, does everyone have their tin foil hat ready?

Yes, I know its not really a 'conspiracy', cunningly directed by the 'neue welt ordnung' folks, but it may as well be.

Think, for a moment, about the sheer number of people whose pay-cheques depend on crime.......on an on-going supply of fresh new criminals, and as many recidivists as they can find to 'recycle'.

I'm speaking, of course, of the police agencies, at the higher command levels (not the beat cop who just wants to go home alive at the end of their shift), the criminal justice system generally, and the jail/prison system generally.

What about the towns in which the local government worked hard at obtaining a prison facility, to provide employment for their residents, when 'the mill' or 'the plant', whatever their local employer firm might have been, had closed down?

Sure, the generality of these folks probably don't think about it in these terms, but they're as dependent on a continuing supply of criminals as a sawmill is on a continuing supply of logs.

Now, you might think that recruiting large numbers of suspects, defendants, and inmates, on a continuing basis, wouldn't be easy. After all, anyone can see the videos of the 'super-max' prisons on the internet, the videos of Arizona sheriff Arpaio's 'hell on earth' jail facility, etc., ad nauseam.

Some might object to the term 'brain-washing'......so, lets just say 'indoctrination'......doesn't it take a pretty fair level of indoctrination to get some young person to join a criminal gang, or otherwise decide to commit crimes, when he/she knows perfectly well that a few minutes of 'glory' are likely to be followed by endless months and years of 'hell on earth'?

Doubtless, some burglars, etc., really believe that they can 'get away with' their crimes.......but, realistically, the young people most 'at risk' for a life of crime must know that their chances are not at all good......particularly when they so very obviously display gang affiliation, making themselves suspects even before they get around to committing a crime.

Well, as I said, it may not be an actual conspiracy, but its the effective equivalent of one.........notice the sheer extent of violence in entertainment, video games, etc., and then the propaganda campaign against self-defence for the potential victims, including 'gun control' to disarm those who would defend themselves against criminals.

Add to those influences an economic depression, with legitimate honest jobs becoming scarcer, and pay scales down.

The poor young fool who has been propagandised into really and truly believing that he can't have any self-esteem without having a shiny new Cadillac car and a shiny gold whatever-it-is thingamie on his teeth can't get those with a job at the hamburger stand, can he?

Pretty obvious, when you think about it, isnt' it?

cheers

Carla

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 8:18 PM
First. where do you get the idea there is no record kept? Fill out the yellow form and there is a record. It does not get destroyed. It is a federal form and not a state form. It is an instant check in that you usually get to take it home that day but there is a record.

I didn't say there's no record kept currently, just that I'd be OK with a background check IF there was no record kept. I agree that there shouldn't be a record because that defeats the primary purpose of 2A.

Waiting periods do not stop any crime. If I want to kill someone I can do it without a gun.
Hers is a taste of what can be done with out a firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

How does a waiting period stop someone like me from committing a gun crime? I already own several firearms. Oh shucks, I was going to go on a shooting spree with my new shiny gun but since I have to wait I won't because I don't like the ones I already have.

Clearly it won't affect someone who already has access to weapons, and I already agreed with you that if someone wants to commit a crime they will. A waiting period does deter someone who doesn't have a weapon and who is in a temporary disturbed frame of mind to either cool off and think about the choice they're about to make, or to at least minimize the damage they could do against their intended target and other collateral targets. Again, there's no reason to simply hand people guns just because we accept defeat against crime. Shouldn't we at least be trying to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on weapons?

You are willing to compromise your 2A rights. I am not so yes, there is a huge difference of opinion.

Again, how does a waiting period or a background check IF it's paperless compromise our 2A right? If there are no other restrictions, if the principal purpose for having 2A is maintained, then those are not compromises.

The general public should have an expectation that legal gun owners won't be a threat to them. They should see us as guardians of their freedoms against tyranny, not as a menace that needs to be stamped out. I recognize that there are plenty of people out there who hate us, who want to take our guns away because they don't care to see our point of view. Aren't we doing the same if we refuse to at least try and see their point of view?

Are you for enacting magazine capacity laws in free states? I mean since the 2A doesn't mention hi cap mags it really isn't infringing on any rights is it?
No need for a regular magazine catch either right?
One gun a month is ok too since who would need more than that.

Nope, nope, and nope. Never said I was for any of that, in fact I already wrote I'm against those restrictions. You're reading stuff into what I'm writing again when its not there.

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 8:19 PM
You keep telling me why I'm wrong, but I still haven't heard any real reason why recordless background checks or waiting periods are in any way against our 2A rights. So let me know. I really do want to know.

Waiting periods are useless whether they infringe on our rights or not.

As to your question regarding recordless background checks, ask yourself this. If that is "reasonable" and their sole concern is keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons, why haven't the anti's (either the Brady bunch or gov't agencies) made that available?

Perhaps something like I mentioned eariler, a booth at a gun show where people could go to perform the background check with no information collected as to whether a sale actually occurred or what was sold?

The answer is because they want control/information on guns and their owners. Gun control isn't about GUNS, it's about CONTROL.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 8:27 PM
Waiting periods are useless whether they infringe on our rights or not.

As to your question regarding recordless background checks, ask yourself this. If that is "reasonable" and their sole concern is keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons, why haven't the anti's (either the Brady bunch or gov't agencies) made that available?


I don't agree waiting periods are useless. I do think they serve some good.

As far as recordless background checks are concerned, let me turn that around for you - why do we need to have the anti's make that available to us? Why can't we push that for ourselves because we share a concern about prohibited persons getting their hands on guns? That way we'd control the process, and we could make sure it remains recordless. I mentioned in a different thread the notion of policing ourselves, and that would be a perfect way of accomplishing that. Or are we OK with prohibited persons getting access to guns?

paladin4415
04-09-2009, 8:33 PM
So....before I can really speak my mind in public. I need to undergo a government background check and wait several days so I can "cool off" before speaking my mind. How does that sound to you?
Buying as many weapons as I want is my RIGHT, and being private about it is my RIGHT. We have way, way to much government involvement in our lives as it is, and they often do it in guise of "public safety". When it is really "public control".

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 8:44 PM
So....before I can really speak my mind in public. I need to undergo a government background check and wait several days so I can "cool off" before speaking my mind. How does that sound to you?
Buying as many weapons as I want is my RIGHT, and being private about it is my RIGHT. We have way, way to much government involvement in our lives as it is, and they often do it in guise of "public safety". When it is really "public control".

Ditto that! That's exactly what I was thinking. As of right now no one is required to get permission from anyone or pay fees to the gov't to exercise any other of there constitutional rights. RKBA should be no different.

chuck762
04-09-2009, 8:51 PM
I didn't say there's no record kept currently, just that I'd be OK with a background check IF there was no record kept. I agree that there shouldn't be a record because that defeats the primary purpose of 2A.

There is and always will be a record kept. They want to know who bought a firearm. No anti or politician would allow a check to be made on a firearms sale and no record kept.

Clearly it won't affect someone who already has access to weapons, and I already agreed with you that if someone wants to commit a crime they will. A waiting period does deter someone who doesn't have a weapon and who is in a temporary disturbed frame of mind to either cool off and think about the choice they're about to make, or to at least minimize the damage they could do against their intended target and other collateral targets. Again, there's no reason to simply hand people guns just because we accept defeat against crime. Shouldn't we at least be trying to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on weapons?


I don't think a waiting period has stopped anyone intent on killing. There have been several cases where people just waited till they picked up the gun.

Yes we should make it harder, by keeping them behind bars.
How about not plea bargaining them out in a few years for violent crimes among other things. How about making it easier for people to carry concealed. That seems to lower crime rates. Nut jobs have yet to try a shooting spree at say a police station where everyone is armed.


Again, how does a waiting period or a background check IF it's paperless compromise our 2A right? If there are no other restrictions, if the principal purpose for having 2A is maintained, then those are not compromises.

How about you piss off some gang banger and he says he is coming back to kill you, You are not yet a gun owner but decide you now want one. Oops, you have to wait 10 days. Sorry you ended up dead because punk banger did come by and carry out his threat.
There was a case like this on Ar15. The guy needed a firearm but Florida law says he had to wait on a handgun so he couldn't get one after threats on his life were made.


The general public should have an expectation that legal gun owners won't be a threat to them. They should see us as guardians of their freedoms against tyranny, not as a menace that needs to be stamped out. I recognize that there are plenty of people out there who hate us, who want to take our guns away because they don't care to see our point of view. Aren't we doing the same if we refuse to at least try and see their point of view?

You can try and understand their point of view all you want. How would a waiting period and check change their views? Do you think if we agreed to accept compromises and implement your idea that they would suddenly change their minds?



Nope, nope, and nope. Never said I was for any of that, in fact I already wrote I'm against those restrictions. You're reading stuff into what I'm writing again when its not there.

If you are against those then why for a check? I know you think it might keep them off our backs but there is no way it would happen.

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 8:54 PM
I don't agree waiting periods are useless. I do think they serve some good.

You are free to believe that if you choose.

As far as recordless background checks are concerned, let me turn that around for you - why do we need to have the anti's make that available to us? Why can't we push that for ourselves because we share a concern about prohibited persons getting their hands on guns? That way we'd control the process, and we could make sure it remains recordless.
Because we lack the means. The FBI "owns" the NICS system. Do you really believe they will allow you or I access to it to perform checks without providing additional information? Again, if you do believe that, why haven't they done so?

I mentioned in a different thread the notion of policing ourselves, and that would be a perfect way of accomplishing that. Or are we OK with prohibited persons getting access to guns?

Policing ourselves is fine. In my case, and in my circle of friends, we simply do not sell guns to people that we know nothing about. Others do not see the need to limit themselves in that way and until private sales are made illegal, I'll support their right to do that.

Monte
04-09-2009, 8:56 PM
The "Gunshow Loophole" is the same thing as an "Assault Weapon." It is a misnomer, an attempt at redirection by the gun-grabbers to make it seem like a bad thing that should be "fixed." The term was created to garner public support for a cause that otherwise would be untouchable.

In reality, the "Gunshow Loophole" is Private Party firearms purchases. As has been mentioned, in many states there is no requirement to do paperwork on private firearms purchases, whether conducted at a gunshow or in your neighbor's living room. If the Brady Bunch got their way, closing the "Gunshow Loophole" would mean that every firearms transaction would have to go through an FFL.

A "Private Dealer" is a regular person selling a personally owned firearm, nothing more.

Don't be fooled. This is not JUST about transactions at gun shows. It is about every single gun purchase. Ever. Ever...

This. +1. Amen. Ditto. Etc.

It's scary how quickly many of us have become used to the restrictions that we now have, and it's even worse how willing some are to accept just a few more "common sense" restrictions.

Racefiend
04-09-2009, 8:59 PM
How are anyone's rights being infringed by requiring a NICS check at a gunshow? It doesn't limit the firearms you can own, and it doesn't make you wait any longer, other than a few minutes to get checked, to buy your firearm. You set up a NICS booth at the gun show, print out a certificate, and then you go and buy anything you want. Seller just checks ID to match against the certificate and badabing badaboom. Heck, this could be great for dealers, as you just have dealers record the certificate number and they don't even have to waste time running NICS checks on their customers.

Most of the "common sense" gun laws never make any sense, but IMO this one is actually common sense. You close an avenue for prohibited persons to purchase guns, and do not infringe in the slightest, other than a few minute inconvenience, the 2nd ammendment right of the law abiding citizen.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 9:02 PM
If you are against those then why for a check? I know you think it might keep them off our backs but there is no way it would happen.

Personally I'd like to know if I ever sell a firearm that I didn't just sell it to a criminal who might very well turn around and kill someone I know or any other innocents for that matter. It won't prevent that criminal from getting his guns somewhere else, but at least he won't get it from me or from anyone else who sells weapons legitimately.

I simply don't see a paperless background check as a restriction on my right to bear arms. It doesn't mean anything, and if it helps me buy whatever firearm I want without restriction then that's a bonus.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 9:07 PM
The FBI "owns" the NICS system. Do you really believe they will allow you or I access to it to perform checks without providing additional information? Again, if you do believe that, why haven't they done so?


Look, I already said I don't like the current system. I realize the process isn't paperless, and THAT's a violation of our 2A rights. Why should we be defeatist and accept what's given to us? Why not fight for legislation that would allow us to run our own background checks so we can be in control of the process, thus maintaining a critical portion of the premise behind 2A?

56Chevy
04-09-2009, 9:09 PM
Are you guys fricken sick? What the hell, have you really forgotten how things should be done? Gunshow loophole my ***. It's legal in that state, and you guys want to help set up a DROS type system for them! I think I'm going to puke...:(
I thought it was just me. What does "shall not be infringed" mean?:rolleyes:

Sunwolf
04-09-2009, 9:38 PM
I don't agree waiting periods are useless. I do think they serve some good.

As far as recordless background checks are concerned, let me turn that around for you - why do we need to have the anti's make that available to us? Why can't we push that for ourselves because we share a concern about prohibited persons getting their hands on guns? That way we'd control the process, and we could make sure it remains recordless. I mentioned in a different thread the notion of policing ourselves, and that would be a perfect way of accomplishing that. Or are we OK with prohibited persons getting access to guns?

Sounds like a lawyer working for the Violence Policy Center.

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 9:46 PM
Look, I already said I don't like the current system. I realize the process isn't paperless, and THAT's a violation of our 2A rights. Why should we be defeatist and accept what's given to us? Why not fight for legislation that would allow us to run our own background checks so we can be in control of the process, thus maintaining a critical portion of the premise behind 2A?

Very well. Write your senators and suggest that. See what Boxer or Feinstein has to say to you about paperless background checks and "undocumented" firearms sales.

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 9:54 PM
Sounds like a lawyer working for the Violence Policy Center.

LOL what are you, 12? Resorting to calling me names just because you don't agree with what I say? I could care less - I've been called far worse. Doesn't make it true. Believe what you want. :beatdeadhorse5:

grahlaika
04-09-2009, 9:57 PM
Very well. Write your senators and suggest that. See what Boxer or Feinstein has to say to you about paperless background checks and "undocumented" firearms sales.

Maybe I will. Sounds like a lot of you already gave up fighting for our rights and are willing to just take whatever we get.

chuck762
04-09-2009, 10:05 PM
Personally I'd like to know if I ever sell a firearm that I didn't just sell it to a criminal who might very well turn around and kill someone I know or any other innocents for that matter. It won't prevent that criminal from getting his guns somewhere else, but at least he won't get it from me or from anyone else who sells weapons legitimately.

I simply don't see a paperless background check as a restriction on my right to bear arms. It doesn't mean anything, and if it helps me buy whatever firearm I want without restriction then that's a bonus.

In a free state you would have the option of selling your firearm through a dealer so that solves your worry about a bad guy buying it.
I would like the option of not having to go through a dealer. But living here we don't have a choice.

In fantasy land there wouldn't be a paper trail but in reality you know no one would go for it.

chuck762
04-09-2009, 10:08 PM
Maybe I will. Sounds like a lot of you already gave up fighting for our rights and are willing to just take whatever we get.

What rights are you fighting for? You are talking about trying to give the shaft to people in other states. No wonder shooters in other states hate california.

Hoop
04-09-2009, 10:15 PM
WE get to ensure that criminals don't get guns AND we keep our AR/AK's.

Until they pass a ban next year.

NCIS checks at gun shows will just push more sales outside of them. Unless they streamlined gun laws between the states - to the point where I could walk into a nevada gun show, pass a check and walk out with a firearm - I won't be in favor of checks at gun shows.

Wizard99
04-09-2009, 10:15 PM
Since there are about twice as many deaths per year in the US from automobiles than firearms. Wouldn't it be "common sense" to require all automobile sales to go through a dealer and require background checks to make sure you have a liscense and insurance and a garage to store your car. And a ten day "cooling off" period.
Substitue car, electronics, dvd's or anything else in place of gun in the "common sense" firearms laws that you support and see if they still make sense.

Restricting peoples RIGHTS because somebody may use those rights to commit a crime is like the precrime division.
When people commit a crime their is a punishment meeted out. Sometime part of that punishment is a restirction or loss of rights. These "common sense" firearms laws punish the law abiding citizen because they may commit a crime. Even when no crime has been committed.

remington
04-09-2009, 10:19 PM
I completly agree with chuck762. I remember in the mid 80's, I was teenager and I would go to the gunshows here in cali and buy/sell/trade any time i could. I dont think I was even of legal age to buy a gun. Did not matter handguns, shotguns, rifles.

However, this is the process (or lack of it) that strains our cause IMO. I would rather see this "loophole" closed and support DROS (NCIS) for these purchases. I admit, its a pain in the *** in this state. My uncle lives in Nevada and goes to ACE Hardware in Logandale to get his guns, cash and carry on long guns. If the NRA or we had had choose to close the loophole or back off on AWB which would we choose? People in other states would hate us more, that is for sure.

It bothers me that in these situations a person could buy a gun then go wacko 10 minutes later. Or, they steal my guns and then go sell them with no problems to "honest" people. Maybe I am alone, but DROS me every time and DROS everyone all the time, just let me buy what the hell I want.

dustoff31
04-09-2009, 10:22 PM
What rights are you fighting for? You are talking about trying to give the shaft to people in other states. No wonder shooters in other states hate california.

That's why I felt totally comfortable telling him to contact Feinstein or Boxer. Can you imagine one of them getting a letter suggesting that normal people should be allowed to conduct background checks and sell guns to each other with no paperwork or gov't involvement? Their heads would explode!

12voltguy
04-09-2009, 10:24 PM
:)
as said, there is no such thing as a gun shop loop hole
in that state you can sell a gun any day of the week FTF just like selling a hammer at a yard sale, just they call it a loop hole when at a gun show:rolleyes:

sounds like a anti gun guy just joined the site last month.....:TFH:
he just don't "GET IT" so yall can forget about talking to him, or calling him names. Will have no effect, will not changehis point of view one bit....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20631&stc=1&d=1239344754

chuck762
04-09-2009, 10:27 PM
That's why I felt totally comfortable telling him to contact Feinstein or Boxer. Can you imagine one of them getting a letter suggesting that normal people should be allowed to conduct background checks and sell guns to each other with no paperwork or gov't involvement? Their heads would explode!

If that's all it took to get their heads to explode then I am all for it. ;) I'll even pay for the stamp!

gunsmith
04-09-2009, 11:23 PM
I cant read this thread, lets compromise?
NO!!!
freedom isn't a loophole...ITS FREEDOM!!!!
i BOUGHT A BOOK once...no background check, was that a freaking loophole.???
barf

retired
04-10-2009, 12:02 AM
Frisco.:p;)

TheBundo
04-10-2009, 12:06 AM
Hmmm..I don't know about anyone else, but it sure seems like at least one state understands what "shall not be infringed" means. I honestly don't see anything wrong here, other than it makes some people "uncomfortable", thus it must be bad.

Infringe means to violate, invalidate, defeat. How does a few minute delay do any of those things? It can take a few minutes to pay, make change, etc., right? What is the issue with an Insta-check that constitutes infinging?

TheBundo
04-10-2009, 12:08 AM
I cant read this thread, lets compromise?
NO!!!
freedom isn't a loophole...ITS FREEDOM!!!!
i BOUGHT A BOOK once...no background check, was that a freaking loophole.???
barf

Is it infinging on your right to buy alcohol if you get ID'ed? NO, it's just a brief delay to make sure the law is being followed

CnCFunFactory
04-10-2009, 12:13 AM
My thought from the article was 'Damn...I wanna go to a gun show in VA!!!" :)

+100 on that!:thumbsup:

Sam
04-10-2009, 12:37 AM
For Samaha, the Glock handgun was a particularly painful purchase. It was the same kind of gun used to kill his sister Reema when she was a freshman at Virginia Tech. Just holding the gun in his hand was difficult.

"I don't want to think about how gruesome it was and how somebody used this type of weapon on my sister and so many other innocent people. It's devastating," he said.



Yeah, because it's the gun's fault! Now I am forced to look at all kitchen knives and cars with disgust.

Of course none of us want firearms to find their way into the hands of felons.

lioneaglegriffin
04-10-2009, 12:38 AM
None of them could have stopped him [Samaha] with the firepower he bought," said Nunziato.
WTF? apparently he doesn't know cops have rifles now.

lioneaglegriffin
04-10-2009, 12:39 AM
Is it infinging on your right to buy alcohol if you get ID'ed? NO, it's just a brief delay to make sure the law is being followed

+1 also you need ID to buy a dirty magazine.

Sam
04-10-2009, 12:45 AM
An instant background check that doesn't keep records is not against the 2A, and neither is a reasonable waiting period.

What does a waiting period accomplish? What if I need to protect my family now, not in 10 days? If a criminal needs a gun now does he go to a dealer and wait? What is reasonable? That word is VERY subjective. Caution: entering slippery slope.

lioneaglegriffin
04-10-2009, 12:53 AM
What does a waiting period accomplish? What if I need to protect my family now, not in 10 days? If a criminal needs a gun now does he go to a dealer and wait? What is reasonable? That word is VERY subjective. Caution: entering slippery slope.

what if you could get a note from a shrink (to ok that your stable and whatnot) to do a same day purchase and walk? i think that covers suicide and spazing out. but there are no guarantees i guess. i don't see this being viable in a Watts riot situation though. hmmm..... how about a 9 hour waiting period. i dunno, whatever.

TheBundo
04-10-2009, 1:21 AM
There certainly shouldn't be a waiting period for a person that already owns guns. Las Vegas has a system that addresses that issue

gbp
04-10-2009, 3:17 AM
The "quote" Gun Show Loophole is not just about guns, it is also about the ability to sell your personal property and to dispose of your personal property however you wish. without the government or politicians telling you what is right and who you can sell to. in the long run there is more at stake than just guns here. S$%^t spreads to other areas of your life

SPROCKET
04-10-2009, 6:10 AM
Ditto that! That's exactly what I was thinking. As of right now no one is required to get permission from anyone or pay fees to the gov't to exercise any other of there constitutional rights. RKBA should be no different.

Umm... like voting? Last I checked, we keep felons and non-citizens from voting. We also have to sign a log to verify we were present at the polling place. Should whoever walks in the door be able to vote with no means to verify their eligibility?

How's about right to assemble? Cities issue permits to keep random groups of morons from blocking the streets on a whim.

Frankly, keeping prohibited people from purchasing firearms is something the Pro 2A community should be out in front. As long as there is no permanent record, it's not an infringement. No more so than verifying someone is eligible to vote.

deleted by PC police
04-10-2009, 6:13 AM
Is it infinging on your right to buy alcohol if you get ID'ed? NO, it's just a brief delay to make sure the law is being followed

Actually it is infringing on your freedom. The morality police have decided that there is some magic number where it's ok for you to drink alcohol. I've been drinking since I was a kid and you know what? I wasn't the one drinking my brain away when I turned 21. This is my body, I have the right to put whatever I want in it.

deleted by PC police
04-10-2009, 6:14 AM
Umm... like voting? Last I checked, we keep felons and non-citizens from voting. We also have to sign a log to verify we were present at the polling place. Should whoever walks in the door be able to vote with no means to verify their eligibility?

How's about right to assemble? Cities issue permits to keep random groups of morons from blocking the streets on a whim.

Frankly, keeping prohibited people from purchasing firearms is something the Pro 2A community should be out in front. As long as there is no permanent record, it's not an infringement. No more so than verifying someone is eligible to vote.

They have never verified who I am to vote. They just ask me a name. I could just look down at their open book and pick one.

Nodda Duma
04-10-2009, 6:34 AM
Are you guys fricken sick? What the hell, have you really forgotten how things should be done? Gunshow loophole my ***. It's legal in that state, and you guys want to help set up a DROS type system for them! I think I'm going to puke...:(

+1000

If some sick, twisted individual is hell-bent on killing people, there is no law in the world which will prevent that person from doing so. You know what will prevent him? A good guy at the scene with a conscience and the means to take the thug down. Gun show purchases have no bearing on this, except that gun control laws make it more difficult on the good guy to fulfill his part

-Jason

Alphahookups
04-10-2009, 7:02 AM
They should close this loophole(which it is). If our rebuttal to gun control is that felons can't legally get guns, yet they can walk into a gunshow and buy them no questions asked, we aren't technically lying, but we are lying to ourselves.

I don't care about waiting periods, but background checks can be done on the spot...at least do those. WTF?

remington
04-10-2009, 7:14 AM
Alpha, that my point as well. We are all quick to say felons cant buy guns, but its not entirley true. The NRA could be proactive on this and I dont see it as a compromise. Politically, a move like that would would weaken the anti 2A folks and the NRA bashing. Wether you hate readin what I am writing or not, that day is coming. So we can either have Diane F, Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, the Brady Bunch or some else be the heros or we can clearly send a message that we support legal responsible ownership. The benifit is the Dems and Reps then not only have the support of the NRA but also other Lefties. It could broaden our position of strength and unity in the house and senate and take the wind our of the sails the pelosi and brady factions. Divisive thoughts I know. But either way its coming.

Sunwolf
04-10-2009, 7:34 AM
The minute I hear "reasonable" in a conversation about laws I know that "reasonable" tyranny is next.I`m sure the Gestapo thought what they were doing was " reasonable."

12voltguy
04-10-2009, 7:53 AM
They should close this loophole(which it is). If our rebuttal to gun control is that felons can't legally get guns, yet they can walk into a gunshow and buy them no questions asked, we aren't technically lying, but we are lying to ourselves.

I don't care about waiting periods, but background checks can be done on the spot...at least do those. WTF?

it's not a loop hole
you can buy a gun in most states exactly the same as the gun shows
you can buy one from an add in thre paper go to persons house or meet in a paking lot, same as the gun show. or buy one at a yard sale, used to be this way in ca less then 20 years ago. not a loop hole

a gun show is just another day in the week & like a huge yard sale, it's not a special law for gunshows.............DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

and don't think if you give up one law for them avoiding a new AW ban, doesn't work that way.


since I think many of you do not remember 1986, or are too young.


how many different ammo ban atempts have you seen in last 5-10 years?
micro stamping etc?

before 1986 when you bought ammo at a store, you have to show I.D. & sign a book........they took away this law, all we had to do was give into what is called the NFA ACT OF 1986
that is the law stopping us from buying MGs made after 1986 !

ever wonder why a $100-1500 full auto ar-15, the m16 is $15,000 just because it has an auto sear and different trigger group?

it's not the cost of parts.

if they stopped selling cars to us made after 1986, these cars would go up in price, supply & demand:rolleyes:


now they want to make us sign for ammo again, no ammo shipped, limit on how much we can buy...........



this person couldf have bought all those guns from people without the gun show any day of the week.
THERE IS NO LOOP HOLE AT GUN SHOWS!

it's just not restricted to sell your guns in many states.

next the will be calling for book burning........

rynando
04-10-2009, 8:36 AM
A waiting period does deter someone who doesn't have a weapon and who is in a temporary disturbed frame of mind to either cool off and think about the choice they're about to make, or to at least minimize the damage they could do against their intended target and other collateral targets.

Prove it. Give us something real to back that claim up. I’d like to see a very long list of people who drove to a gun store, bought a gun and then went directly off to shoot someone.

I'll get you started. (http://www.leavemethewhite.com/caps/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=27)

R

IGOTDIRT4U
04-10-2009, 8:40 AM
Are you guys fricken sick? What the hell, have you really forgotten how things should be done? Gunshow loophole my ***. It's legal in that state, and you guys want to help set up a DROS type system for them! I think I'm going to puke...:(

Yeah, I have to agree, Hawk.

At least Virginia has it right. Privacy comes first. No registration = no confiscation. Once you let them register everything, you lost control over the 2A.

chuck762
04-10-2009, 9:05 AM
Is it infinging on your right to buy alcohol if you get ID'ed? NO, it's just a brief delay to make sure the law is being followed

Last time I bought a six pack I didn't have to fill out a form and have the government approve of me buying it and keep a record of it. Comparing buying a beer and a gun is apples to oranges. Although alcohol is responsible for quite a few deaths along with guns. Perhaps we should have a waiting period on it, and a limit on how much you can buy.

Have any of you that are for forcing this check on everyone else either old enough to remember when we didn't have to put us with the crap or have you even lived anywhere else but in cali? I am guessing no to both.


Quit trying to turn ever other state into cali.
If you think the libs and the anti gun people would stop all their hatred and calling for bans because a so called loop hole were closed are pretty naive.

chuck762
04-10-2009, 9:17 AM
They should close this loophole(which it is). If our rebuttal to gun control is that felons can't legally get guns, yet they can walk into a gunshow and buy them no questions asked, we aren't technically lying, but we are lying to ourselves.

I don't care about waiting periods, but background checks can be done on the spot...at least do those. WTF?

Criminals don't need to go to shows to buy a firearm. Why buy it when you can take it for free.
How many posts just on this site have I read about someone who had their guns stolen from their house (and many were unsecured).
Did anyone have to have an instant check before breaking in?

Do you think the fed AWB stopped any gun crime? Do you think the cali ban has stopped any crime? Do you think our waiting period and check has stopped anyone from getting a gun?
Didn't stop that punk in frisco from shooting 4 cops did it?
Didn't stop another gang banger in the frisco area from shooting a father and son did it.
Didn't stop the north hollywood a#$holes from getting their guns and shooting it out on the streets did it?

Go through the news reports and see how many people that have committed a gun crime in cali and you will see most were already restricted from owning a gun but yet, they somehow got one. Don't we have a check and waiting period here?

remington
04-10-2009, 9:23 AM
I get the loophole terminology. Its legal, so therefore not a loop hole. But, we all get a bit nervous when we hear of a new mass killing. Was the gun legally purchased? Are they a felon? What gun did they use? Is it legal? Was it legally sold? How will this impact us? How will this impact the 2A? The first thing I do, is come to this website before even watching the news. So, a guy can buy a bushmaster (in another state), while under a restraining order, previuos convictionsm, time served with no restrictions? We are simply fooling our selves when we posture that its was illegal because they were a felon?

So, with that being said. It is possible but illegal for felon to buy a gun. How can we enforce the law that felons can't buy guns unless we mandate DROS? I dont have an answer for that. Its a question.

DROS does not equal registration for long guns. When I do a DROS, no where other than on the paper documents (4473) does is it indicate serial number, or even make, model , caliber and so on. All the DOJ knows is you bought a longun, could be single shot 410 or a Stag-15. The don't know. If they (ATF) request or inspect they can get that information on the 4473. But, in California, unless you registered your AW, your long guns are not stored in a databse somewhere. Do DROSing or doing a NCIS does not need to be registration. And, just I am clear, I don't support and never will support registration. I don't want anyone knowing what I got. All the state and feds should do is insure I am not a felon, blah blah blah. What I am buying is none of their business and should not impact the decision to approve me in any way.

chuck762
04-10-2009, 9:41 AM
Here is what the antis really want and some of you are willing to give it to them.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30111025/

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 9:47 AM
Here is what the antis really want and some of you are willing to give it to them.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30111025/

Not me.

remington
04-10-2009, 9:48 AM
Yeah, I read that last night. Holders days are numbered. I am not sure how to read the 2A comment. Could just be that the ATF/DOJ is going to do something else regarding the border or something, or manage exportation. Or maybe he means AWB? I dont doubt alot of the guns in Mexico come from the US. They are sold by the goverment to the Armies in latin america and the corrupt folks steal and sell them. Not our issue. Dont know what to make of that. Pelosi needs medication to increase her inteligence. Registration would not have stopped any these recent events. Wongs were registered I believe. Registration is the biggest lie the Anti 2A folks push as a solution.

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 10:14 AM
No, I don't want to turn all the other states into CA. I never implied that. Our laws have gone too far in many respects. I do, however, think some measures are common sense, and in the long run will protect our right to bear arms. I happen to believe that some people are unfit to bear arms - those with criminal records, or those with mental illnesses, etc. It is irresponsible in my opinion to allow them access to weapons, because they're not responsible gun owners.

An instant background check that doesn't keep records is not against the 2A, and neither is a reasonable waiting period. There's no implication in 2A that people need instant access to weapons, nor is there that irresponsible citizens should have access to firearms, so those are common sense measures to ensure the rest of us can continue enjoying our rights.

I completely agree. Could not have said it better.


Criminals will acquire firearms no matter how many hoops law abiding citizens have to jump through.



Obviously. But I find it hard to believe you are willing to make it so easy for a violent felon to get a gun. If a violent felon can't just buy a gun off someone like that, it closes a large source for getting firearms. Most of the time criminals buy at gun shows from another individual, the seller has no idea they are selling it to a criminal. This alone would shut down a lot of criminal's potential sellers/source for firearms.

Will people still sell legally acquired guns purposely to felons without an FFL? Yes. But at amount of people selling guns to criminals would decrease.

Don't mix a concept like this up with assault weapon bans or CCW bans, as they are completely different. An instant background check that could cost only a small fee, or even be free, is an easy thing to do. It take us 30 minutes longer at the gun show, but I think it is completely worth it to keep gun crime down.

The thought that I can, right now go and stab or shoot someone, go to jail for a few years, and then get released, drive to a gun show and buy a gun and repeat the same thing is disturbing to me.

You can call infringing on freedom all you want, but giving criminals easy access to weapons is infringing on my right to safety.



Hmmm..I don't know about anyone else, but it sure seems like at least one state understands what "shall not be infringed" means. I honestly don't see anything wrong here, other than it makes some people "uncomfortable", thus it must be bad.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


This is the second amendment. How does a background check that prevents felons from easily buying a firearm infringe on your right as an individual to own a gun or form a militia? And, if you want to include Heller, then how does it infringe your right to self defense?

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 10:18 AM
What does a waiting period accomplish? What if I need to protect my family now, not in 10 days? If a criminal needs a gun now does he go to a dealer and wait? What is reasonable? That word is VERY subjective. Caution: entering slippery slope.

Dunno what to tell ya. In this hypothetical situation, why did you wait to get a gun until you had a need for it? Some of our fellow members just spent the better part of the last few weeks giving me lectures on how people are inherently evil, on how we can't prevent crime, how it's OK to give criminals free access to guns, etc. etc. In their words, if your family is in immediate danger and there's no time to call for help, then you're out of luck and it's your own damn fault for not having armed yerself.

Would it comfort you to know that the criminal in question got his weapon without a background check in one of the free states? Think of it this way - your family will die knowing they did so protecting 2A. So really you're giving your life for a good cause. Hooray for freedom!

I'm exaggerating of course to prove how silly some of these arguments get, and how blown out of proportion comments from folks like me end up. I still haven't seen any opinions on why a paperless background check or a waiting period violate our 2A right to bear arms.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 10:44 AM
You can call infringing on freedom all you want, but giving criminals easy access to weapons is infringing on my right to safety.


Where'd you find this mythical "right to safety"?

.

Alphahookups
04-10-2009, 10:47 AM
Criminals don't need to go to shows to buy a firearm. Why buy it when you can take it for free.
How many posts just on this site have I read about someone who had their guns stolen from their house (and many were unsecured).
Did anyone have to have an instant check before breaking in?

Do you think the fed AWB stopped any gun crime? Do you think the cali ban has stopped any crime? Do you think our waiting period and check has stopped anyone from getting a gun?
Didn't stop that punk in frisco from shooting 4 cops did it?
Didn't stop another gang banger in the frisco area from shooting a father and son did it.
Didn't stop the north hollywood a#$holes from getting their guns and shooting it out on the streets did it?

Go through the news reports and see how many people that have committed a gun crime in cali and you will see most were already restricted from owning a gun but yet, they somehow got one. Don't we have a check and waiting period here?

I'm not sure how you went from us supporting background checks to every damn law under the sun.

All we are saying is that instant background checks would be a good thing. Waiting period, maybe a few days(but there can be exceptions for example people that already own firearms) is acceptable....but everything else should be off the books.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 10:47 AM
I see the Brady Boys are in here again, redefining "infringe".

Might I introduce you to a dictionary, boys?

.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 10:50 AM
As long as there is no permanent record, it's not an infringement. No more so than verifying someone is eligible to vote.

So you say.

You might also note that _no other_ innumerated right is coupled with "shall not be infringed", especially not voting.

striker3
04-10-2009, 11:01 AM
How does a background check that prevents felons from easily buying a firearm infringe on your right as an individual to own a gun or form a militia? And, if you want to include Heller, then how does it infringe your right to self defense?


When you start having to ask permission to exercise a right, that is infringment.

Yes, submitting to a background check is asking permission. Who do you think decides what type of person would be eligible to pass the background check? That is right, those in power. It would be up to them to decide what would make someone fail a background check. Think it doesn't happen? Tell that to the thousands of US Veterans that were arbitrarily denied by Clinton, without any legal proceedings, the right to purchase firearms. Over 8 years ago, and they are still fighting for their basic rights.

No, power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government. Those advocating giving more power to the federal government need to go back and re-study American histroy and government once agian. Obviously the school systems failed you.

If you do not feel comfortable selling to private citizens out of fear of what they may do, that is your choice. Do not project your fears onto me, I do not fear what someone may do with a tool. As long as I do my due diligence, my conscience will remain clear as I know that a killer will kill, regardless of the tool available. My due diligence is ensuring that the person is a legal state residence and states that they are not prohibited from owning a firearm, that is it.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 11:01 AM
Infringe means to violate, invalidate, defeat. How does a few minute delay do any of those things? It can take a few minutes to pay, make change, etc., right? What is the issue with an Insta-check that constitutes infinging?

No - infringe means to weaken, to commit an infraction, to transgress, to trespass or encroach.

"Shall not be infringed" means more than not violated - it means to leave it UNTOUCHED, unhindered, unencumbered....


–verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe

GuyW
04-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Is it infinging on your right to buy alcohol if you get ID'ed?

Where is it written that you have a right to buy alcohol?

rjf
04-10-2009, 11:08 AM
What part of this is hard to understand?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

All people in the US are granted by their Creator the right to keep and bear arms. Everyone, even criminals. Of course back then they took the convicted criminal out of the equasion via execution. The good old days?

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 11:12 AM
If you do not feel comfortable selling to private citizens out of fear of what they may do, that is your choice. Do not project your fears onto me, I do not fear what someone may do with a tool. As long as I do my due diligence, my conscience will remain clear as I know that a killer will kill, regardless of the tool available. My due diligence is ensuring that the person is a legal state residence and states that they are not prohibited from owning a firearm, that is it.

That's a valid ideological argument, but the practical reality is that we live in a community, and as such we have at least a token responsibility, as responsible citizens, to help protect those around us as well, don't we? Isn't that why we have laws and law enforcement in the first place? Wouldn't a tool that helps you with that due diligence be useful to you in that regard? You would still have the choice to sell the weapon to your buyer even if it comes up with some negative remarks, but at least you'd have a tool beyond just taking someone at their word.

Oh, and I call shenanigans on your conscience remaining clear regardless of what the killer to whom you sold you weapon does with it. If, God forbid, he does kill someone with it, especially someone close to you, I guarantee you lots of sleepless nights and remorse about your decision to just take him at his word. Ideology tends to break down when we hit the wall of reality.

Wizard99
04-10-2009, 11:13 AM
Prove to me that requiring a NICS check for all firearms transfers actually reduces gun crime!!!
All transfers, with few exceptions, have a NICS check in California. Most other states only require NICS at a dealer.
So if your right, and it would reduce gun crime, you should be able to show that gun crime in California is less than in other states. I don't believe any study has shown this. If there was than the Brady's would be marching around with it.
The bigger problem with NICS is that if you required it for all transfers then it becomes just like the California hand gun list. The gun grabbers then don't have to ban anything. They just have to modify the NICS requirements to prohibit more people. Felon, no firearms, crazy, no firearms, domestic violence, no firearms, TRO, no firearms, depressed, no firearms, owe back taxes, no firearms, etc......

It is always easier to modify existing law to tighten the restrictions than to create it from whole cloth. We have seen this exact thing happen with the hand gun list in CA. First it was a simple saftey drop test, then magazine disconnects and LCI's. Next microstamping and then smart guns.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 11:16 AM
You folks might read the Heller case as to what the US Supreme Ct says "infringe" means:
"
"..shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..." [Heller at page 40], citing (approvingly) the Georgia Supreme Ct in the holding of the Heller case.
.

chuck762
04-10-2009, 11:32 AM
I completely agree. Could not have said it better.




Obviously. But I find it hard to believe you are willing to make it so easy for a violent felon to get a gun. If a violent felon can't just buy a gun off someone like that, it closes a large source for getting firearms. Most of the time criminals buy at gun shows from another individual, the seller has no idea they are selling it to a criminal. This alone would shut down a lot of criminal's potential sellers/source for firearms.

Will people still sell legally acquired guns purposely to felons without an FFL? Yes. But at amount of people selling guns to criminals would decrease.

Don't mix a concept like this up with assault weapon bans or CCW bans, as they are completely different. An instant background check that could cost only a small fee, or even be free, is an easy thing to do. It take us 30 minutes longer at the gun show, but I think it is completely worth it to keep gun crime down.

Do you pay a small fee to exercise any of your other rights?

It is the same because it is just another steeping stone to eliminating the 2ns amendment.


The thought that I can, right now go and stab or shoot someone, go to jail for a few years, and then get released, drive to a gun show and buy a gun and repeat the same thing is disturbing to me.

You can call infringing on freedom all you want, but giving criminals easy access to weapons is infringing on my right to safety.


So getting killed with a gun makes it any different than with a knife? Who says Mr criminal is going to go to a gun show and buy a gun there?
You can see how well a check works here in cali. We have both a background check and the 10 day wait and prohibited people are still getting guns, ie: frisco cop killer who was recently release from jail. Kind of kills the check stops bad guys from getting guns theory doesn't it?




A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


This is the second amendment. How does a background check that prevents felons from easily buying a firearm infringe on your right as an individual to own a gun or form a militia? And, if you want to include Heller, then how does it infringe your right to self defense?

wth is wrong with this thing??

chuck762
04-10-2009, 11:38 AM
I'm not sure how you went from us supporting background checks to every damn law under the sun.

All we are saying is that instant background checks would be a good thing. Waiting period, maybe a few days(but there can be exceptions for example people that already own firearms) is acceptable....but everything else should be off the books.

It isn't about supporting every other law. Just to show that even with all the restrictions we already ahve that the laws do not stop anyone from getting a gun or killing people.

It is about giving in to the anti gunners and starting a snowball effect. They wouldn't stop their attacks on the 2A with a instant check system. It is that simple. They would still be crying out for more laws.
Look at this place. We already have a mag capacity law and yet there are some who are calling for something even tighter along with wanting us to register our preban mags. It just doesn't stop.

Maybe acceptable to you but there are plenty, myself included that think it is wrong.

And can you prove where a instant check or even our 10 day wait did any good? Has it stopped any crime?


I love how some of you are willing to compromise my rights and the rights of everyone else so you can feel better about being a gun owner.

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 11:39 AM
So if your right, and it would reduce gun crime, you should be able to show that gun crime in California is less than in other states. I don't believe any study has shown this. If there was than the Brady's would be marching around with it.

Statistics are always questionable, especially with a complex issue like this. The fact is that some of the states with the least restrictive gun laws top the list of gun crimes, at least according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state). And, no, I don't believe everything I read on the internet LOL. I just don't know how statistics can be used in this case to prove one side or another. The answer isn't that simple.

EDIT: As an aside, I really DO appreciate those of you who took the time to put together cogent arguments on your position without simply throwing insults my way. When I ask a question, it really is because I want to hear the answer, and not because I'm trying to set some sort of verbal trap. I want to understand all sides of the issue so I can get to a 'right' answer for myself on this.

Wizard99
04-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Statistics are always questionable, especially with a complex issue like this. The fact is that some of the states with the least restrictive gun laws top the list of gun crimes, at least according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state). And, no, I don't believe everything I read on the internet LOL. I just don't know how statistics can be used in this case to prove one side or another. The answer isn't that simple.

And California is 5th when you rank them by gun homicides per 100,000 people, and CA has some of the strictest gun laws.
When you rank states by gun homicides per 100,000. What you see is that socioeconomics have a greater impact on gun homicides than gun laws.
Economic standing, education, and values have a great impact on gun homicides. State regulation of acess to firearms appears to bear little if any impact.

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 12:02 PM
Where'd you find this mythical "right to safety"?

.

Ok, so we don't have a right to safety. Lets legalize murder then. :rolleyes:

There is a reason why we have laws against murder, torture and rape.


When you start having to ask permission to exercise a right, that is infringment.


In a way we're not asking permission to exercise our 2nd amendment with a background check.

We still decide if we want to buy a gun and when. And then we go ahead with the process. If you turn out to be a violent felon, then you can't.

And a background check does not regulate militias in any way.

But I can see your point.


...what type of person would be eligible to pass the background check?


Violent felons should not be allowed to own a gun, period. We should try and make it as difficult as possible for them to get one.


Five minutes of my time is completely worth the cost if it prevents a violent felon from getting a gun. I'd rather have less armed criminals out there, which makes it much safer for me and others. And, if you pass the background checks, you'll still be able to get CCW ect. This way we have more armed law abiding citizens against less armed criminals. That is a win win situation for me.

Especially considering that most Americans only use guns for recreational purposes.



It would be up to them to decide what would make someone fail a background check. Think it doesn't happen? Tell that to the thousands of US Veterans that were arbitrarily denied by Clinton, without any legal proceedings, the right to purchase firearms. Over 8 years ago, and they are still fighting for their basic rights.


I am not sure why you are bringing up veterans now. I don't recall saying anything about blocking veterans rights to own a firearm. Of course, if they are mentally unstable or a violent felon, they should have the same restrictions as normal civilians.


No, power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government.


I did not even bring this issue up.


If you do not feel comfortable selling to private citizens out of fear of what they may do, that is your choice. Do not project your fears onto me...

I have a hard time believing you even read my post. I did not once say that people should not sell their firearms to other people.

The only "fear" I am protecting onto you is that you might unknowingly sell your firearm to a violent felon. If there is a system that can check your buyer and make sure he is not a violent felon, then I don't care if you sell him your gun. I don't care if it is cash and carry. I just want to limit the availability of firearms to those who have no good intentions.

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:05 PM
I do, however, think some measures are common sense, and in the long run will protect our right to bear arms. I happen to believe that some people are unfit to bear arms - those with criminal records, or those with mental illnesses, etc. It is irresponsible in my opinion to allow them access to weapons, because they're not responsible gun owners.

An instant background check that doesn't keep records is not against the 2A, and neither is a reasonable waiting period. There's no implication in 2A that people need instant access to weapons, nor is there that irresponsible citizens should have access to firearms, so those are common sense measures to ensure the rest of us can continue enjoying our rights.

Okay. You've actually used the terms "common sense" and "reasonable waiting period". You have to be aware that those terms have been hijacked by the victim-disarmament crowd. Using the terms of the people who stand for Bad Things isn't going to help make your case. Nothing personal. But if you want to persuade people to your point of view, using the language of their oppressors doesn't usually work all that well.

My own personal opinion is that the Second Amendment doesn't list any exceptions and that every citizen in any state should enjoy the protections of the complete Bill of Rights. That means that background checks and waiting periods are illegal according to the highest law in the land.

And you intend to enjoy only some of your rights. Your right to walk into a gun shop and walk out with the firearm of your choice no longer exists in California. Many of the rest of us feel that that situation does, indeed, violate our rights.

12voltguy
04-10-2009, 12:12 PM
if if if........IF I HAD WHEELS I WOULD BE A WAGON;)............you can't argue with these people that want strictor laws

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 12:14 PM
Okay. You've actually used the terms "common sense" and "reasonable waiting period". You have to be aware that those terms have been hijacked by the victim-disarmament crowd. Using the terms of the people who stand for Bad Things isn't going to help make your case. Nothing personal. But if you want to persuade people to your point of view, using the language of their oppressors doesn't usually work all that well.

Well, I know that NOW! LOL. Thank you for the feedback!

I don't really know how else to express an opinion without using words that make sense to me, and those are the words that made sense to me. I know I won't convince everyone that I'm not a gun-grabber, or an anti, or a Brady, or an agitator, or any of the other assumptions people have made about me. People will think what they want. It was just very surprising to me since everyone who knows me knows how much of an individual rights advocate, and a 2A supporter I am.

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 12:20 PM
Prove to me that requiring a NICS check for all firearms transfers actually reduces gun crime!!!


This is a good point. I think it would only help reduce crime a little, but I think it is worth it.


They just have to modify the NICS requirements to prohibit more people. Felon, no firearms, crazy, no firearms...

Well, I am not arguing in support of that. Only against violent felons and mentally unstable people.

Please note that I say violent felons. Someone who gets caught downloading lots of movies, music ect. should not have their right to own a gun taken away.



Do you pay a small fee to exercise any of your other rights?

I'd suggest rereading my post again. But, if you need me to say it again for you, I said the background check can be free.


So getting killed with a gun makes it any different than with a knife? Who says Mr criminal is going to go to a gun show and buy a gun there?


No, it is not any different if a murder is committed with a knife, gun or car. But it is a fact that guns are the most effective killing tool out of the three. This is why infantry uses guns and not knives or baseball bats. This is why I think they should be regulated a little bit.


You can see how well a check works here in cali. We have both a background check and the 10 day wait and prohibited people are still getting guns, ie: frisco cop killer who was recently release from jail. Kind of kills the check stops bad guys from getting guns theory doesn't it?


As I already mentioned, it will help prevent some gun crime/violence, but not a whole lot.




All people in the US are granted by their Creator the right to keep and bear arms.

No, my right to keep and bear arms are granted to me by the US Constitution. Nothing else.

Not everyone believes in the "Creator" that you do.



Well, I know that NOW! LOL. Thank you for the feedback!

I don't really know how else to express an opinion without using words that make sense to me, and those are the words that made sense to me. I know I won't convince everyone that I'm not a gun-grabber, or an anti, or a Brady, or an agitator, or any of the other assumptions people have made about me. People will think what they want. It was just very surprising to me since everyone who knows me knows how much of an individual rights advocate, and a 2A supporter I am.

I agree with this.

People can call me a gun grabber for wanting to limit the flow of firearms into violent felon's hands, or they can call me a crazy gun nut for saying that I think it is ok to own a semi auto AK clone with a suppressor.

I'll just call it as I see it. :p

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:21 PM
And as far as common sense being a precursor to rights being taken away, well part of it is paranoia on your part, part of it is self-fulfilling prophecy.

The term "paranoioa" actually only applies if someone is not out to restrict your rights, grahlaika. Every time gun owners give up something, the other side goes for more. They don't stop. They never stop.

And again your choice of terms isn't making your ideas seem attractive. Try not assuming that people who don't agree with you are insane; that might help.

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:28 PM
How are anyone's rights being infringed by requiring a NICS check at a gunshow? It doesn't limit the firearms you can own, and it doesn't make you wait any longer, other than a few minutes to get checked, to buy your firearm. You set up a NICS booth at the gun show, print out a certificate, and then you go and buy anything you want. Seller just checks ID to match against the certificate and badabing badaboom. Heck, this could be great for dealers, as you just have dealers record the certificate number and they don't even have to waste time running NICS checks on their customers.

Most of the "common sense" gun laws never make any sense, but IMO this one is actually common sense. You close an avenue for prohibited persons to purchase guns, and do not infringe in the slightest, other than a few minute inconvenience, the 2nd ammendment right of the law abiding citizen.
As was pointed out above, we don't control NICS. At the moment, there's a controversy that NICS should deny you if you are a veteran that has ever admitted to or been diagnosed with PTSD.

It's all "common sense" until someone sees that they have a tool here and they go farther than what you call common sense. Grahlaika believes in "reasonable waiting periods". What he calls "reasonable" doesn't match what I think is reasonable. And Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer and various others have admitted that their idea of "reasonable waiting period" is the same as "forever and ever, amen."

Forget "reasonable". There is simply no such thing. "Reasonable" means "we'll decide for you" to politicians.

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:29 PM
Maybe I will. Sounds like a lot of you already gave up fighting for our rights and are willing to just take whatever we get.

Sounds like you're willing to compromise the ones we still have left.

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 12:36 PM
No - infringe means to weaken, to commit an infraction, to transgress, to trespass or encroach.

"Shall not be infringed" means more than not violated - it means to leave it UNTOUCHED, unhindered, unencumbered....


–verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

–verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in- 2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe


So how does a background check weaken, touch or breach your right as an individual to own a firearm or form/be apart of a militia?

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:40 PM
I'm not sure how you went from us supporting background checks to every damn law under the sun.

All we are saying is that instant background checks would be a good thing. Waiting period, maybe a few days(but there can be exceptions for example people that already own firearms) is acceptable....but everything else should be off the books.

And it was....once upon a time.
But then there was the "reasonable" NFA 34.
And the "reasonable" Sullivan Act in New York.
The "reasonable" GCA 68.
The "reasonable" federal "assault weapon" ban.

Every time gun owners get "reasonable", they get hosed.

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Well, I know that NOW! LOL. Thank you for the feedback!

I don't really know how else to express an opinion without using words that make sense to me, and those are the words that made sense to me. I know I won't convince everyone that I'm not a gun-grabber, or an anti, or a Brady, or an agitator, or any of the other assumptions people have made about me. People will think what they want. It was just very surprising to me since everyone who knows me knows how much of an individual rights advocate, and a 2A supporter I am.

Sorry, pal; I don't know you or your positions on things. Only what I've read in this thread, and I don't agree with any of it. I won't judge you for being a "gun-grabber, or an anti, or a Brady, or an agitator". It really doesn't matter. It's what you say that's incorrect. And I don't care who you are when you say it.

Bugei
04-10-2009, 12:51 PM
So how does a background check weaken, touch or breach your right as an individual to own a firearm or form/be apart of a militia?

Because it provides the government with a method to deny you the right. I mentioned that it looks like some folks want NICS to deny any veteran who ever admitted to or was diagnosed with PTSD. That's just an example. What if they want to change the age limit, say, or restrict people with parking tickets? Easy-peasy; it's all right there in NICS, if they want to.

Would they? They're trying.

They are not allowed to have such a tool. It's not legal, according to the highest law in the land. Everything else is irrelevant.

Gun control is illegal. No exceptions.

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 12:57 PM
...I do not fear what someone may do with a tool. As long as I do my due diligence, my conscience will remain clear as I know that a killer will kill, regardless of the tool available.

Something else that doesn't make sense to me about this. If we are to agree that people are generally evil, and that given a chance they WILL go out and do harm to advance their own station in society, if we agree that killers WILL kill regardless of what hey have available, then where's the MAY part in all of this? On top of that, 30% of criminals go back to a life of crime within 6 months of being released from prison, 70% within three years. Most of them escalate their crimes. Why would you be OK selling a criminal a gun again, or take someone at their word that they're not a criminal? Isn't that dangerously close to being an accessory to the actions they WILL take?

In my opinion, convicted criminals, especially those who commit the worst offenses, lose their rights to be equal to the rest of us. They chose to take egregious action against other members of society, and thus to reject that society, let's do them the favor of accepting their rejection. So, no, I don't accept the fact that criminals have the right to guns. The right may be granted by the Creator, but you can certainly piss it away through your actions.

How many of our gangs are run from inside prisons? How many of our prisons are a training ground for more hardened criminals? How many child molesters and rapists go back to raping after they get out of prison? Far too many. Sorry, but I have no leniency toward someone who has already proven that they WILL commit crimes. Throw away the key or execute them I say. The last thing I want them to have is access to a gun if they come out...

THAT, to me, IS reasonable. Doing anything else is what I would consider not only unreasonable, but downright insane.

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 1:10 PM
Because it provides the government with a method to deny you the right.


Let me ask you this question:

Are you ok with the government denying the right to own a firearm to a violent felon? I am. Again, aside from being mentally unstable or whatnot, there should be no reason to deny one the right to own a firearm. What makes someone "mentally unstable"? I am not sure, we would have to see what does and what does not. If half the population is deemed "mentally unstable" then obviously the background checks have gone too far.



Gun control is illegal. No exceptions.

I disagree. As does Heller. And the second amendment does not say anything about gun control. All it does is provide the right to personally own a gun or join a militia.


Something else that doesn't make sense to me about this. If we are to agree that people are generally evil, and that given a chance they WILL go out and do harm to advance their own station in society, if we agree that killers WILL kill regardless of what hey have available, then where's the MAY part in all of this? On top of that, 30% of criminals go back to a life of crime within 6 months of being released from prison, 70% within three years. Most of them escalate their crimes. Why would you be OK selling a criminal a gun again, or take someone at their word that they're not a criminal? Isn't that dangerously close to being an accessory to the actions they WILL take?

In my opinion, convicted criminals, especially those who commit the worst offenses, lose their rights to be equal to the rest of us. They chose to take egregious action against other members of society, and thus to reject that society, let's do them the favor of accepting their rejection. So, no, I don't accept the fact that criminals have the right to guns. The right may be granted by the Creator, but you can certainly piss it away through your actions.

How many of our gangs are run from inside prisons? How many of our prisons are a training ground for more hardened criminals? How many child molesters and rapists go back to raping after they get out of prison? Far too many. Sorry, but I have no leniency toward someone who has already proven that they WILL commit crimes. Throw away the key or execute them I say. The last thing I want them to have is access to a gun if they come out...

THAT, to me, IS reasonable. Doing anything else is what I would consider not only unreasonable, but downright insane.

Again, I agree with this post. There are a few forms of gun control I would like to see, but I disagree with the majority of gun control laws.

Bugei
04-10-2009, 1:30 PM
Let me ask you this question:

Are you ok with the government denying the right to own a firearm to a violent felon? I am. Again, aside from being mentally unstable or whatnot, there should be no reason to deny one the right to own a firearm. What makes someone "mentally unstable"? I am not sure, we would have to see what does and what does not. If half the population is deemed "mentally unstable" then obviously the background checks have gone too far.




I disagree. As does Heller. And the second amendment does not say anything about gun control. All it does is provide the right to personally own a gun or join a militia.



You have to understand this. Or perhaps not, just as you prefer. Let's say I'd like you to understand this.

Show me in the Second Amendment where it lists any kind of felon, any minor, anyone adjudicated to be mentally incompetent. Show me the exception. What authority gives you or anyone else the right to modify a recognized right?

You can't. It's not there.

What constitutes a felony can be redefined at will through legislation. Same with prohibitions for mental problems. What cannot be redefined is "shall not be infringed."

Heller had some things right and some things wrong. But it takes more than a Supreme Court decision to make something that's wrong into something that's right. Remember Dred Scott?

Take any path you choose. But registration or waiting periods? They're illegal. And anytime you agree with those things, you are simply agreeing while someone removes your liberty.

Your reading of the Second Amendment and mine aren't anywhere near each other. No mention of gun control? Because the founding fathers didn't believe in it. Join a militia? Good idea, except that the moment you do you'll find yourself being investigated for it. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

It's a free country...except where prohibited by law.

Racefiend
04-10-2009, 2:12 PM
As was pointed out above, we don't control NICS. At the moment, there's a controversy that NICS should deny you if you are a veteran that has ever admitted to or been diagnosed with PTSD.

It's all "common sense" until someone sees that they have a tool here and they go farther than what you call common sense. Grahlaika believes in "reasonable waiting periods". What he calls "reasonable" doesn't match what I think is reasonable. And Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer and various others have admitted that their idea of "reasonable waiting period" is the same as "forever and ever, amen."

Forget "reasonable". There is simply no such thing. "Reasonable" means "we'll decide for you" to politicians.

I agree, a waiting period is, by definition, an infringement. After all it is an XXX day ban on a non-prohibited person from owning a firearm (or another firearm, as the case may be). I won't argue that one.

Arguing that a NICS check is an infringement on the 2nd is only valid if you believe that violent felons and mentally defective people have the right to the second. That is a valid argument. However, if you agree that they should not have the right to own firearms, than you cannot call a NICS check an infringement, as it in now way prohibits a non-prohibited person from owning a certain firearm, when they can have that firearm, or how they can use it (keeping and bearing arms).

The PTSD argument, I cannot comment on. I am not a psychiatrist, therefore I do not know whether PTSD poses a danger to society. I will say this: IMO the mentally ill prohibition to the 2nd should be made so that the psychiatrist has the final word on whether a mentally affected person poses a threat to society if they were to fail to take their medication. If someone were a threat, even with medication, they should be locked up. If they pose no threat under medication, they should be let back into society. However, if, in the case that they stop taking their meds, they would pose a threat, they should be prohibited from owning a gun.

The slippery slope argument has some validity. After all, any law can lead to another law, which can lead to infringement of rights. The only real solution to this is, if someone is that paranoid, is to oppose ALL laws. I (and I'm sure you) don't think this is a good solution. However, a solution is already built into our country. We fight unconstitutional laws through the judicial system. Opposing a constitutional law based on the fact that another may be added that is unconstitutional is having no faith in the checks an balances that the framers built into our constitution. If that's the case, you should be against ALL laws. An instant NICS check in and of itself will not stop all crime, but what will? It will help it some, and if it doesn't infringe the 2nd, it's a good thing.

The argument that the gun grabbers won't care if we support any gun law is completely valid. Many of the "gun grabbers" have the ultimate goal of banning ALL guns. Whether gun owners support 0 gun laws, 10, or 100, it won't stop them from trying to reach that goal. So it really makes no difference whether you support a gun law that fits within the constitution or not, to them. The "give them an inch, they take a mile" argument isn't really true. They're going to try and take that mile regardless.

There are also many "gun grabbers" that really do support law abiding citizens owning guns, or are on the fence, but want to keep them out of criminals' hands. However, many see "gun nuts" as just that, nutty, because so many oppose ANY and ALL gun laws, regardless of whether they fit within the constitution or not. They join things like the brady campaign to help keep guns away from criminals, since we don't really support those kinds of laws. This perpetuates the "us vs them" mentallity, so much so that many times it hinders good debate. Maybe if we actually supported the constitutional laws, and fought the unconstitutional ones, we wouldn't seem so damn "nutty" to them, and it would me so much easier to convert them. After all, those that believe people have the right to own firearms, but also back gun related anti-crime bills would not have any reason to join the brady bunch. Instead, the NRA would be a better fit to their ideals.

However, like I said before, if you agree that violent felons, etc should have the rights of the 2nd ammendment, then all of my points are moot.

otteray
04-10-2009, 2:47 PM
No, my right to keep and bear arms are granted to me by the US Constitution. Nothing else.

Not everyone believes in the "Creator" that you do. :p

The Bof R does not grant the right; where the heck do you get that from?
It says that that the existing right shall not be infringed.
Where does it say we are granted, by the government, the right to keep and bear arms?

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 2:53 PM
The Bof R does not grant the right; where the heck do you get that from?
It says that that the existing right shall not be infringed.
Where does it say we are granted, by the government, the right to keep and bear arms?

US Constitution. Are you telling me that your creator gave me my rights? :rolleyes:

And the government enforces (or is supposed to) my rights. Not your creator. Your creator has nothing to do with me or my rights.

But, if your reply meant something else aside from implying that some creator gave me my rights, then this response isn't for you.

If the US Constitution does not grant a right, then I guess I don't have a right to own a gun. :(

CavTrooper
04-10-2009, 2:56 PM
that is sweet if you can buy gun with no checks-just hand over the cash. sweet state VA! what other states are like that?

Most of them.

CavTrooper
04-10-2009, 2:57 PM
Are you guys fricken sick? What the hell, have you really forgotten how things should be done? Gunshow loophole my ***. It's legal in that state, and you guys want to help set up a DROS type system for them! I think I'm going to puke...:(

+100000000000000000000

GuyW
04-10-2009, 3:01 PM
I disagree. As does Heller. And the second amendment does not say anything about gun control.

Baloney - Heller says that ANY gun control is unconstitutional, except for concealed carry (and that's suspect) and "dangerous AND unusual arms" (IIRC).

All it does is provide the right to personally own a gun or join a militia.



Not hardly - according to Heller, the 2nd means that a citizen can bear arms "against confrontation" both in public and within the home (private property), and implicitly has the right to use deadly force, and to own ammunition for the gun(s)....and I'm probably missing a couple more...
.

CavTrooper
04-10-2009, 3:05 PM
US Constitution. Are you telling me that your creator gave me my rights? :rolleyes:

And the government enforces (or is supposed to) my rights. Not your creator. Your creator has nothing to do with me or my rights.

But, if your reply meant something else aside from implying that some creator gave me my rights, then this response isn't for you.

If the US Constitution does not grant a right, then I guess I don't have a right to own a gun. :(

OMFG.

Seriously?

striker3
04-10-2009, 3:09 PM
Oh, and I call shenanigans on your conscience remaining clear regardless of what the killer to whom you sold you weapon does with it. If, God forbid, he does kill someone with it, especially someone close to you, I guarantee you lots of sleepless nights and remorse about your decision to just take him at his word. Ideology tends to break down when we hit the wall of reality.

Once again, you are projecting only your own fears onto someone else. You do not know me. I have already made choices that have caused lives to be lost. Regardless of that, my conscience is clear. If it wasn't, I could not have stayed in the Marines the last 10 years.

All a background check system does is give the government another tool to deny a basic right. As I said earlier, they have already done it with Veterans, those who have placed their lives on the line to defend those same rights. If they will throw them to the curb, what will they do to peasants such as you would like everyone to be?

To go further, I do not even think that felons should be prohibited from owning firearms. Have you ever heard of the saying "Paying their debt to society" in reference to jail? That is exactly what it is. They committed a crime, they paid their debt. Where in the Constitution does it say that their rights should be restricted for life? If they are released, that is the government saying that they are once again fit to be a member of society, and it should be as a full fledged citizen, not a half-assed one. If they are not fit to have full rights, they should not be released, and if they are so far gone as to never be expected to be a member of society again, they should be executed.

I will never condone the loss of our rights in the name of saving a few lives. I have given up years of my life defending what this country stands for, and good friends have given their whole life in defense of the same. Those sacrifices will not be in vain.

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 3:12 PM
US Constitution. Are you telling me that your creator gave me my rights? :rolleyes:


It's true, but there's no reason to turn this into a religious discussion I don't think. The Founders believed that individual rights exist, and the Constitution is the means by which those individual rights are to be protected. Whether you believe in a Creator or not is irrelevant as long as you recognize that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects them. That's the basis for our system of law - the government doesn't grant rights because they already exist.

Here's a snippet from that other document the Founders wrote up:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

With the BofR, the Founders enumerated those other rights not mentioned in the Declaration.

GuyW
04-10-2009, 3:13 PM
If the US Constitution does not grant a right, then I guess I don't have a right to own a gun.

Flaunting your ignorance is not an effective debate tactic.

The English common law and Magna Carta established (in reality and political philosophy) that free Englishmen had the right to own and bear arms.

By the time of the Revolution, it was an established article of secular political faith that Americans already had the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Founders also attributed those rights to the Creator.

Heller (if you read it, which seems unlikely per your comments) states that the 2nd Am recognizes a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.
.

striker3
04-10-2009, 3:17 PM
US Constitution. Are you telling me that your creator gave me my rights? :rolleyes:

And the government enforces (or is supposed to) my rights. Not your creator. Your creator has nothing to do with me or my rights.

But, if your reply meant something else aside from implying that some creator gave me my rights, then this response isn't for you.

If the US Constitution does not grant a right, then I guess I don't have a right to own a gun. :(

Do you seriously not understand basic American history and government? Try reading the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, maybe someday you can graduate to the Federalist Papers...THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY RIGHTS!...otherwise they would be called privileges, not rights.

grahlaika
04-10-2009, 3:30 PM
Once again, you are projecting only your own fears onto someone else. You do not know me. I have already made choices that have caused lives to be lost. Regardless of that, my conscience is clear. If it wasn't, I could not have stayed in the Marines the last 10 years.

You're right, I don't know you, just as you don't know me. Let's agree that neither of us will assume to know what the other intends to think about something, and we'll instead behave like adults and ask. I don't like the accusations of being an agitator any more than you like me to assume to know whether or not you'd lose any sleep over a choice you've made.

All a background check system does is give the government another tool to deny a basic right. As I said earlier, they have already done it with Veterans, those who have placed their lives on the line to defend those same rights. If they will throw them to the curb, what will they do to peasants such as you would like everyone to be?

I never claimed to agree with the government making those decisions. My claim was that I'd like a background check as a tool available to gun sellers to help them make a decision based on more than simply taking someone's word. Just because someone has a right to bear arms doesn't mean I don't have the right to refuse to sell them one. As a seller, I'd like to make a more informed decision about it.

To go further, I do not even think that felons should be prohibited from owning firearms. Have you ever heard of the saying "Paying their debt to society" in reference to jail? That is exactly what it is. They committed a crime, they paid their debt. Where in the Constitution does it say that their rights should be restricted for life? If they are released, that is the government saying that they are once again fit to be a member of society, and it should be as a full fledged citizen, not a half-assed one. If they are not fit to have full rights, they should not be released, and if they are so far gone as to never be expected to be a member of society again, they should be executed.

I guess we'll have a difference of opinion there, and not much either of us can do about it. I never claimed to restrict gun rights for all felons, just the violent ones. We're all fond of fighting the left with statistics to defend our 2A rights, and in this case statistics don't lie. Violent offenders don't reform, and thus should not be allowed back into society. That's the whole point of some of the three-strikes laws (although I don't agree with the implementation completely).

I will never condone the loss of our rights in the name of saving a few lives. I have given up years of my life defending what this country stands for, and good friends have given their whole life in defense of the same. Those sacrifices will not be in vain.

I agree with you 100% on this. I too have served, and I believe in those sacrifices.

Racefiend
04-10-2009, 7:46 PM
US Constitution. Are you telling me that your creator gave me my rights? :rolleyes:

And the government enforces (or is supposed to) my rights. Not your creator. Your creator has nothing to do with me or my rights.

But, if your reply meant something else aside from implying that some creator gave me my rights, then this response isn't for you.

If the US Constitution does not grant a right, then I guess I don't have a right to own a gun. :(


I know where you're going with this, especially since I'm not religious. But I think you're missing the point. The constitution says that by being human, you have rights that no one can take away. Attribute it to God, to evolution, whatever. The constitution is not granting them to you, it is only protecting them.

Flogger23m
04-12-2009, 4:37 PM
Baloney - Heller says that ANY gun control is unconstitutional, except for concealed carry (and that's suspect) and "dangerous AND unusual arms" (IIRC).
.

I recall that Scalia (?) or one of the others said that yes there can be some gun control. I do know that they said unusual arms should be restricted, and I remember him questioning whether an M16 should be legal. But I might be wrong.



Not hardly - according to Heller, the 2nd means that a citizen can bear arms "against confrontation" both in public and within the home (private property), and implicitly has the right to use deadly force, and to own ammunition for the gun(s)....and I'm probably missing a couple more...
.


True, though this is not stated originally. But I think it is a good improvement/addition to the 2nd amendment. I hardly consider forming/joining a militia to be a common motive for most gun owners today, while I think the idea of self defense has become much more common.



If it wasn't, I could not have stayed in the Marines the last 10 years.


There is a big difference between being a soldier and possibly having to kill another person. For one, the person you might be killing is most likely trying to kill you, is armed ect. A felon getting a gun might end up getting some innocent American killed.



All a background check system does is give the government another tool to deny a basic right. As I said earlier, they have already done it with Veterans, those who have placed their lives on the line to defend those same rights. If they will throw them to the curb, what will they do to peasants such as you would like everyone to be?


I think most people disagree with the Veteran Disarmament Act (that is what is is called, right?). Unless the veterans can be proven to be extremely effected by PTSD or something similar that they are a danger to society, I think all Veterans should be able to own a gun. Though, if someone is proven to be extremely mentally unstable, they would probably be locked up in a mental institution anyways.


To go further, I do not even think that felons should be prohibited from owning firearms. Have you ever heard of the saying "Paying their debt to society" in reference to jail? That is exactly what it is. They committed a crime, they paid their debt. Where in the Constitution does it say that their rights should be restricted for life? If they are released, that is the government saying that they are once again fit to be a member of society, and it should be as a full fledged citizen, not a half-assed one. If they are not fit to have full rights, they should not be released, and if they are so far gone as to never be expected to be a member of society again, they should be executed.


The problem with that is that a lot of criminals seem to be behave very good in prison, but once released, they continue to commit their crimes again.


I will never condone the loss of our rights in the name of saving a few lives.


Well, I'm just going to have to disagree with that. Something like a background check might be a small annoyance and a very slight reduction in our rights, but at least we will be saving lives. What about those innocent that are killed? What about their rights? I think we should try and make it possible so that as many people as possible can be able to live their lives as long as possible so that they can enjoy the same rights as the rest of us.


I have given up years of my life defending what this country stands for, and good friends have given their whole life in defense of the same. Those sacrifices will not be in vain.


Thank you for your service!

7x57
04-12-2009, 4:56 PM
It's true, but there's no reason to turn this into a religious discussion I don't think.

The problem is, it is a religious and metaphysical discussion from the moment you invoke a pre-existing, universal human right. There is no other choice, and this has terribly practical consequences.

There are only a few positions one can take. If you insist, as the founders did, that there are preexisting Natural Rights, then the logical question is how do I know they exist and what they are? That argument almost always leads to the necessity of expressing some sort of origin.

The problem is that it is strictly impossible to find the origin in the physical universe. The impossibility can be demonstrated both theoretically and practically, and this has been attempted often enough that we can be very confident that it has been very well tested. The founders knew this better than a lot of modern thinkers, and attributed the origin to God (which worked as much for the Deists as the Christians, and thus could obtain broad consent).

That leads to a very great problem for those who do not believe in the existence of God. There are only two options without giving up on true Natural Rights: one is to find another metaphysical origin besides God, the other is to attempt to argue for the existence of metaphysical rights of unknown (even unknowable) origin. For the former, I invite you to construct a compelling origin without God--I am not at all saying it cannot be done, but it doesn't seem to have a large constituency. I would be happy if you succeeded, however, as it would tend to allow more materialists to get on board with the original meaning of the Constitution, and that would be a very good thing.

The second attempt, to argue for their existence without any origin theory, seems to be very difficult. I only know of one line of argument I like well enough to attempt to defend myself, basing it on the surprising consistency between all cultures of certain ethical principles. One problem with this is not so much theoretical as practical: if you invoke the moral consensus of mankind for the Law against Murder, for example, you are going to have to also accept it in currently extremely unpopular areas like sexual morality and gender differences. I'm not sure too many people today are willing to accept those consequences, and so the line of argument tends to be neglected.

The problem is there are no other options except to drop inherent, inalienable Natural Rights. That is probably why an earlier poster claimed that rights are created by the law. This is a logically consistent position, albeit one anathema to the founders; the problem is it does not so much defend rights as defend some other lesser entity that we call by the same name. Basically, there are no inalienable rights in the true sense in a purely materialist system, and most people who claim to be materialists have either given up on Natural Rights in the true sense or have hidden non-materialist assumptions that they do not admit even to themselves.

In fact it's pretty hard to be a consistent materialist, and the few that I am aware of that achieve it almost always become something scary. I actually like inconsistent materialists much better, as they are usually inconsistent precisely at the place where their humanity and ethical decency requires it.

Many of the social and cultural fault lines we see today are, in fact, derived from the philosophical struggle over these exact issues. Including, to veer back to somewhere close to the Calguns topic, gun rights.

7x57

CA_Libertarian
04-13-2009, 9:20 AM
Are you guys fricken sick? What the hell, have you really forgotten how things should be done? Gunshow loophole my ***. It's legal in that state, and you guys want to help set up a DROS type system for them! I think I'm going to puke...:(

+1

You really think someone intent on violence is going to be stopped by laws? Guns are readily available on the street, not to mention the myriad of other weapons that don't require background checks.

Make no mistake. ALL gun control laws are aimed at you and me, not the criminals.

12voltguy
04-13-2009, 9:33 AM
+1

You really think someone intent on violence is going to be stopped by laws? Guns are readily available on the street, not to mention the myriad of other weapons that don't require background checks.

Make no mistake. ALL gun control laws are aimed at you and me, not the criminals.

Of course they are.
And the anti's, & these guys that think like them & say they are not anti do not understand....never will.
Romans had no problem killing before the gun.......thank GOD we are not in those days of swords! Rather be shot anyday of the week then stabbed to death:rolleyes::p

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves, guns or hammers.

Bugei
04-13-2009, 9:46 AM
Arguing that a NICS check is an infringement on the 2nd is only valid if you believe that violent felons and mentally defective people have the right to the second. That is a valid argument. However, if you agree that they should not have the right to own firearms, than you cannot call a NICS check an infringement, as it in now way prohibits a non-prohibited person from owning a certain firearm, when they can have that firearm, or how they can use it (keeping and bearing arms).

...
However, like I said before, if you agree that violent felons, etc should have the rights of the 2nd ammendment, then all of my points are moot.

There is a huge mass of case law saying that you are right and I am wrong. I certainly hold the minority view. I agree that the law other than the Bill of Rights does restrict the right of all felons (not just the violent ones you cite, but all of them) and those adjudicated to mentally deficient (not just the violent, dangerous ones...all of them).

I just don't agree with those things. I believe the Constitution forbids these laws from existence. They exist anyway. I believe that having violent felons on the street is a problem. I believe that having violent people with mental problems on the street is the problem. The fact that they have guns or don't is not relevant. If they can be trusted with rocks, sticks, gasoline, matches, or forks, they can be trusted with firearms. And if they cannot be so trusted, then they cannot be trusted with firearms.

All I'm saying is that the Constitution doesn't permit government to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone. It is the highest law in the land. It applies even in California and is a check on government power.

Does it have drawbacks? Bad guys with guns are a problem, but some problems you have to find other solutions for than restricting the rights of all in order to restrict the bad behavior of the few.

If you permit government to decide, they aren't going to decide your way. Have they so far? Not by my lights.

briankk
04-13-2009, 9:56 AM
OMG! You can actally buy guns at at a gun show? Who knew!! We're all gonna die!! RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY....

evan69
04-13-2009, 10:04 AM
Isn't there an easy way to run a drivers license through a computer to see? All they would need is a laptop and database software for when somebody purchases. Either way, it should be the choice of the seller whether or not they run the check. Crime guns are not even linked to gun shows very often. It's a non-problem. They just focus too much on what COULD happen, and not on what DOES happen.

7x57
04-13-2009, 10:47 AM
The generic problem with background checks is that they impede the exercise of the right, and that they create part of the infrastructure for registration. Don't you people understand that the antis have thought this all through before? They know the infrastructure they need to identify and confiscate guns, and they know they can't do it in one shot, so they identify pieces that can be sold individually. It's a generational strategy.

The other problem is that all a failed background check does is give the perp a heads up that he needs to be a lot quieter about his guns. It doesn't stop him from acquiring a gun, it just encourages him to get out of the system. Given that we already have partial registration through the tracing system, I'd rather he buy a legal gun so that there might be some hope of tracing him if he uses it illegally.

7x57

bohoki
04-13-2009, 11:53 AM
the one dealer that wanted id then offered to take $100 more with no id should be behind bars if he is an ffl holder

12voltguy
04-13-2009, 12:32 PM
the one dealer that wanted id then offered to take $100 more with no id should be behind bars if he is an ffl holder

didn't say he was a dealer.
likely you need to be from that state to buy FTF & seller asked for ID then said ****it

gbp
04-13-2009, 2:05 PM
2. Less than one percent (0.7) of criminals acquire their guns from gun shows (Bureau of Justice Statistics) and federal law requires all licensed firearms retailers to run FBI background checks on every purchaser of every gun sold, including sales at gun shows.

source:
http://blog.nssf.org/2009/04/anti-gun-mayors-group-at-it-again.html

SimpleCountryActuary
04-13-2009, 7:07 PM
2. Less than one percent (0.7) of criminals acquire their guns from gun shows (Bureau of Justice Statistics) and federal law requires all licensed firearms retailers to run FBI background checks on every purchaser of every gun sold, including sales at gun shows.

source:
http://blog.nssf.org/2009/04/anti-gun-mayors-group-at-it-again.html

Wait. I think I know where criminals are getting their guns ......... Mexico! ;)