PDA

View Full Version : Poll Question concerning Gunshow Loophole


Pages : [1] 2

trevilli
01-12-2011, 12:04 PM
I have a question regarding the gunshow loophole. I know that we have no such loophole in this state, as every gun transfer (excluding private party curio & relic) must go through an FFL. But in other states (I was born and raised in Ohio) private party transfers require no background check of any kind, they are cash and carry. My question to you is the following: Should California's model regarding private party transfers be the law of the land? I don't mean that a 10 day wait would be required, let's say it's just done in 5 minutes over the phone.

Dreaded Claymore
01-12-2011, 12:07 PM
I'm prepared to be flamed, but this seems like an okay idea.

johnny_22
01-12-2011, 12:10 PM
There is no gun-show loophole. Federal and state laws apply inside a gun show in all 50 states. Typically people are asked for ID to verify that they live in the same state. Some vendors are less careful, but, the ATFE sets up stings for them. Usually those stings catch the 80 year old guy selling some of his collection, forgetting that the law changed in 1968.

Making all firearm purchases have to go through a FFL, prevents me from giving my brother a firearm as a gift!

We should not expand this law, we should repeal the California Gun Show laws (Oregon, too for that matter; Face-to-face in parking lot OK, FFL required inside the show).

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 12:23 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

Dr Rockso
01-12-2011, 12:29 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

This. Also I'd exempt any intrafamilial transfers with a more expansive definition of what constitutes "family" than CA's definition (at least include siblings for christsakes...).

I really am worried what will happen if/when someone like Loughner, except who is a PP by virtue of being in the mental health system, buys a murder weapon at a gun show or similar. I'd rather our side write that legislation to be minimally restrictive than let the antis impose their own special brand of stupid bull****.

HowardW56
01-12-2011, 12:36 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

:iagree:

Werewolf1021
01-12-2011, 12:38 PM
If no costs were added on to the purchasing price and the process was convenient (could be done at local gun store, ffl, or Police department, etc) I would not have too many objections.

Main thing, in my mind, is adding cost to a privately purchased firearm. That is wrong.

Though I doubt if this happened the antis would shut up and still claim loopholes.


Though, I would not be heartbroken if this NEVER happened. Current system (in other states) is not a problem.

Edit: Exemption for inter-family transfers. Including Father, mother, son, siblings, aunt, uncle, grandparents, etc. Not California definition.

Chris M
01-12-2011, 12:39 PM
This. Also I'd exempt any intrafamilial transfers with a more expansive definition of what constitutes "family" than CA's definition (at least include siblings for christsakes...).

As far as siblings goes...there's another 'loophole', if you will. You give the firearm to one of your parents, then your parent gives the firearm to their other child. Handguns will require documentation, of course, but long guns can simply be handed over between parent/child.

Dr Rockso
01-12-2011, 12:42 PM
As far as siblings goes...there's another 'loophole', if you will. You give the firearm to one of your parents, then your parent gives the firearm to their other child. Handguns will require documentation, of course, but long guns can simply be handed over between parent/child.

As long as at least one of your folks is still around, I suppose. My definition would be parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, aunts/uncles, great aunts/great uncles, first cousins, parents in-law, siblings in-law, and probably some others I'm forgetting.

OleCuss
01-12-2011, 12:43 PM
What wildhawker said. And as long as there is no cost. And if the background check system is broken or does not give the answer within 15 minutes - the default is that you get the gun.

We don't need to perpetuate the idea that a functioning government bureaucracy is necessary for me to exercise my constitutional rights. (Remember that some of our citizens can't purchase firearms because the DMV has problems?)

Werewolf1021
01-12-2011, 12:43 PM
As far as siblings goes...there's another 'loophole', if you will. You give the firearm to one of your parents, then your parent gives the firearm to their other child. Handguns will require documentation, of course, but long guns can simply be handed over between parent/child.

Orphan brothers are screwed. :D:p

wash
01-12-2011, 12:43 PM
I really am worried what will happen if/when someone like Loughner, except who is a PP by virtue of being in the mental health system, buys a murder weapon at a gun show or similar. I'd rather our side write that legislation to be minimally restrictive than let the antis impose their own special brand of stupid bull****.
This has already happened in Columbine I think.

What people have a hard time seeing is that the number of crazy people who buy a gun and then go on a murder spree is vanishingly small, it just gets exploited by the media every time it happens.

Freedom has consequences, just like a totalitarian state has consequences. I prefer the consequences of freedom.

jdberger
01-12-2011, 1:10 PM
If you can get past the idea that the government has a compelling interest in regulating private transactions of goods and services between citizens, there are a couple of ideas that would work (and IIRC have been floated to and rejected by the Bradys).

Drivers Licenses with a mark that states "Prohibited from Purchasing Firearms" for all PP. Similar to DLs with markings which tell the viewer when the holder turns 21 for liquor sales. All holders with unmarked DLs would be considered "unprohibited" and could purchase without a background check from any FFL in the Country.

The return of Kitchen Table FFLs. ATF under the Clinton Administration went after and shut down kitchen table dealers who were the majority of the small sellers at gunshows. Without the FFL, they were no longer required to run a Brady Check on purchasers. If ATF would be willing to allow the return of these small dealers who primarily got the license to be able to purchase wholesale and for family and friends, they'd have a few thousand additional FFLs submitting Brady Checks.

Getting either of those past the Bradys and Chuck Schumer would be a challenge.

QQQ
01-12-2011, 1:19 PM
Background checks didn't stop Loughner.

An armed, law-abiding citizen might have.

rromeo
01-12-2011, 1:22 PM
Background check costs $2 out, I believe. I haven't bought a gun from an FFL, so I'm not sure.
The house of delegates has actually introduced a bill to shut down the "gun show loophole" , but it only covers gun shows, so every all other private transactions would still be legal. I don't think it will pass though. This is an election year for them.

Exile Machine
01-12-2011, 1:24 PM
Free men may buy and sell arms in private transactions. It's not any kind of "loophole." At least where I live. This is the model for the nation. It's part of keeping and bearing. Buying and selling. We need to move toward more freedom, not less.

Crazy people will do what they will do, if not a gun, then an SUV filled with fertilizer and diesel. I can't believe I'm hearing calls for increased gun control on calguns.net of all places.

-Mark

audiophil2
01-12-2011, 1:25 PM
I voted no. I do not want any government knowing if I have guns. As far as they are concerned I have zero. I don't want my knives and tools registered either after some nut decides to stab or bludgeon a bunch of people.

rromeo
01-12-2011, 1:28 PM
Oh yeah, the common background check for private sales is a carry permit or voter ID card.

Big O
01-12-2011, 1:39 PM
I'd be willing to go for closing the private party "loophole" in exchange for mandatory CCW reciprocity or a federally issued CCW under a shall issue system.

Pred@tor
01-12-2011, 1:41 PM
No terrible idea I hate filling out those 4473 defacto registration forms to buy a gun that is supposed to be a right! Asking permission from the government makes it a granted privilege. I like buying guns off my fellow man by taking part in capitalism without government intervention. Its nice to not always have to do a FLL dealer transaction and this is coming from a guy that used to live in California. All the back ground check is merely a feel good measure. If we have a right to keep and bear arms why must we ask the government to do so? What is the interest in knowing that we own arms at a certain address? To make us safer? I doubt it why else would the government want to know you own a gun? To take them away...

Sure 15 minutes to call NICS isn't a huge deal but if it were up to me to get what I want through a private party I'd do it that way because I don't have to ask the government but the owner of the firearm who agrees with my payment/trade on the transaction. Keeping a Bill of sale can cover your butt too if you really care. Other than that cash and carry. Crooks and cooks will always get their guns regardless of the law and carry out their illicit activities.

madmike
01-12-2011, 1:44 PM
I'd be willing to go for closing the private party "loophole" in exchange for mandatory CCW reciprocity or a federally issued CCW under a shall issue system.

This idea comes up now and then, and I understand why, but I would not sacrifice the freedoms of others (in free states) to make things better here.
I say, give them nothing, take everything, burn their fields, and homes, salt the earth, and leave their heads on the fence posts as a warning to any who would oppose freedom in the future.

Metaphorically, of course.

OleCuss
01-12-2011, 1:50 PM
If you can get past the idea that the government has a compelling interest in regulating private transactions of goods and services between citizens, there are a couple of ideas that would work (and IIRC have been floated to and rejected by the Bradys).

Drivers Licenses with a mark that states "Prohibited from Purchasing Firearms" for all PP. Similar to DLs with markings which tell the viewer when the holder turns 21 for liquor sales. All holders with unmarked DLs would be considered "unprohibited" and could purchase without a background check from any FFL in the Country.

The return of Kitchen Table FFLs. ATF under the Clinton Administration went after and shut down kitchen table dealers who were the majority of the small sellers at gunshows. Without the FFL, they were no longer required to run a Brady Check on purchasers. If ATF would be willing to allow the return of these small dealers who primarily got the license to be able to purchase wholesale and for family and friends, they'd have a few thousand additional FFLs submitting Brady Checks.

Getting either of those past the Bradys and Chuck Schumer would be a challenge.

That would make sense - so given that D.C. is involved the odds of that happening would seem to be quite small.

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 2:24 PM
Not to invoke the ungodly, but a closely-related issue is registration of and for militia purposes, which Congress almost certainly has authority for under the Militia Clause.

If you can get past the idea that the government has a compelling interest in regulating private transactions of goods and services between citizens, there are a couple of ideas that would work (and IIRC have been floated to and rejected by the Bradys).

Pred@tor
01-12-2011, 3:00 PM
Not to invoke the ungodly, but a closely-related issue is registration of and for militia purposes, which Congress almost certainly has authority for under the Militia Clause.

So the government registers our guns for the militia purpose? This is why we need to end capitalistic sales between private individuals without government intervention?

Registered guns vs non registered guns... registered guns can be traced back to you if its ever stolen and the other non registered is that more than likely "they" (government) possibly do not know you own such a firearm.

Many years ago my father came home from a gun show and told me how great his M1 carbine at the time wasn't "registered." I was a young boy and thought to myself this is bad why wouldn't you wanna register your guns? I even asked him why and he said that it couldn't be taken away. It made sense to me a little bit then but more so now.

I personally enjoy the "gun show loophole" aka free private party sales of arms.

civilsnake
01-12-2011, 3:54 PM
I voted "no", because I don't think there should be any background checks at all. Self defense is a human right, and making a prohibited class is akin to saying "you're not a human" to me.

Vanilla Gorilla
01-12-2011, 4:07 PM
What wildhawker said. And as long as there is no cost. And if the background check system is broken or does not give the answer within 15 minutes - the default is that you get the gun.

We don't need to perpetuate the idea that a functioning government bureaucracy is necessary for me to exercise my constitutional rights. (Remember that some of our citizens can't purchase firearms because the DMV has problems?)

:iagree:

Legasat
01-12-2011, 4:12 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

This. Keeps guns out of the hands people that shouldn't have them - like the crazies...

N6ATF
01-12-2011, 4:16 PM
Doesn't keep guns out of all prohibited persons' hands, proven time and time again.

All this bureaucracy and intel sharing to catch criminals and it's practically useless in doing anything but infringing upon law-abiding citizens right to self-defense, travel, be free from unreasonable searches and seizures...

rugershooter
01-12-2011, 4:23 PM
I have a question regarding the gunshow loophole. I know that we have no such loophole in this state, as every gun transfer (excluding private party curio & relic) must go through an FFL. But in other states (I was born and raised in Ohio) private party transfers require no background check of any kind, they are cash and carry. My question to you is the following: Should California's model regarding private party transfers be the law of the land? I don't mean that a 10 day wait would be required, let's say it's just done in 5 minutes over the phone.

Not only no, but HELL no. It's not a loophole, it's an exercise of freedom. People in this country have been so brainwashed into thinking that it should be necessary to obtain gov't permission to exercise a freedom. Should I need a background check to exercise my 1st Amendment rights? Definitely not, nor should I need a background check (which is, in and of itself, a form of permit from the government) to exercise any other Constitutionally protected rights.

rromeo
01-12-2011, 4:25 PM
Like I said, on the local gun board, many people ask for some proof of eligibility. A carry permit should be proof enough, and I would say it should be enough to skip a check when buying new guns from a dealer.
I sold a gun last month to a young Marine. His military ID card was good enough for me.

MasterYong
01-12-2011, 4:27 PM
I am very, very disappointed in everyone that voted "yes."

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Chris M
01-12-2011, 4:29 PM
This. Keeps guns out of the hands people that shouldn't have them - like the crazies...

No, it doesn't. If a 'prohibited' person really wants to get a gun - they're going to get a gun.

Even if there were no background checks or waiting periods, I highly doubt that criminals would purchase guns from legitimate businesses. They're going to steal them, or buy them dirt cheap on the street.

rugershooter
01-12-2011, 4:34 PM
I am very, very disappointed in everyone that voted "yes."

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

This. I think it's pathetic that people who are supposed to be pro gun are calling for more gun control. Gun owners, of all people, should know that gun control doesn't work. So why ask for more? It's blatently unconstitutional and ineffective. There's absolutley no reason for any true 2A supporter to want it.

Pred@tor
01-12-2011, 4:37 PM
No, it doesn't. If a 'prohibited' person really wants to get a gun - they're going to get a gun.

Even if there were no background checks or waiting periods, I highly doubt that criminals would purchase guns from legitimate businesses. They're going to steal them, or buy them dirt cheap on the street.

Yeah man criminals back in the day before background checks were made they stole their guns and bought em on the black market like they still do today. Background checks do not stop the criminal misuse of firearms nor a determined person from getting a gun when they shouldn't have one. An dude with a clean background and no mental illness can commit a crime just because he all the sudden wanted to one day. I dunno if the yes voters just like the idea because the state of CA does or what? I lived in CA for 18 years and been out for two. I'm glad I can buy a gun off someone without filling out forms or being treated like a criminal to exercise my right.

audiophil2
01-12-2011, 4:52 PM
This. I think it's pathetic that people who are supposed to be pro gun are calling for more gun control. Gun owners, of all people, should know that gun control doesn't work. So why ask for more? It's blatently unconstitutional and ineffective. There's absolutley no reason for any true 2A supporter to want it.

I agree 100%. Problem is that what I have noticed on Calguns since just before the Heller decision is that a lot of members here appear very willing to give up some freedom thinking it will prevent government from taking away more.

A few members in this thread that have no problem with additional background checks were also very open to more strict training/policies on CCW permits if it would give them a better chance at getting one.

It seems that since CA has such strict laws already it's residents have no problem with giving up more freedom under the foolish assumption that the laws won't get worse if they accept some new law.

N6ATF
01-12-2011, 4:56 PM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

...

GrizzlyGuy
01-12-2011, 4:57 PM
I am very, very disappointed in everyone that voted "yes."

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

+1000

Why not require a government controlled background check on the buyer whenever someone wishes to sell any of their potentially dangerous private property? Used cars cause far more deaths per year than used firearms.

gotsig
01-12-2011, 5:08 PM
As long as at least one of your folks is still around, I suppose. My definition would be parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, aunts/uncles, great aunts/great uncles, first cousins, parents in-law, siblings in-law, and probably some others I'm forgetting.

Obviously..........Your BFF

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 5:14 PM
Those who wish to read something into what I posted can if they wish. Those who fail to acknowledge the constitutional and policy issues presented by the instant matter will most likely continue to be frustrated as there is almost no chance that we'll have a world with no NICS, compulsory transfers, and registrations, etc.

Congress has more authority under the Militia and Commerce Clauses, respectfully, than you give them credit for (based on projecting your policy preferences which, I'll note, are probably mine also).

rugershooter
01-12-2011, 5:52 PM
That still doesn't allow the government to do something it's specifically prohibited from doing. Mandatory background checks are certainly an infringement of the 2A as a defacto permit system for gun ownership; fail background= no gun.

dustoff31
01-12-2011, 5:54 PM
No, it doesn't. If a 'prohibited' person really wants to get a gun - they're going to get a gun.

This is very true.



I highly doubt that criminals would purchase guns from legitimate businesses.

Often they do. Think VA tech, Ft. Hood, and Tucson.

N6ATF
01-12-2011, 5:56 PM
They do because it's been well known for years that the government background checks cannot, and will never be, anywhere near perfect at preventing them from acquisition. They are stupid though because black-market guns are cheaper.

orangevale
01-12-2011, 6:06 PM
I'd be willing to go for closing the private party "loophole" in exchange for mandatory CCW reciprocity or a federally issued CCW under a shall issue system.

So you are willing to trade away something others have but you don’t (private party transfer without a background check) to get something you don’t have, but others already have (shall issue concealed carry). Nice.:mad:

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 6:36 PM
That still doesn't allow the government to do something it's specifically prohibited from doing. Mandatory background checks are certainly an infringement of the 2A as a defacto permit system for gun ownership; fail background= no gun.

Please support your conjecture with something more substantive than assuming the above proposition as fact.

Funtimes
01-12-2011, 7:30 PM
Like Wildhawker said, many regulations will stand. I don't think we are not to far off from NICS checks for private party transfers, at least in a majority of states.

I have to get a permit to acquire a firearm here in Hawaii prior to picking one up for sale. It takes no less then 14 days to get a firearm from a gun show here. It's hard to say if this law will even be struck down.

rugershooter
01-12-2011, 8:58 PM
Please support your conjecture with something more substantive than assuming the above proposition as fact.

" 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.
The government requires passing a background check to buy guns. If you don't pass, you can't buy them. It's a permit system in disguise

Milsurp Collector
01-12-2011, 9:37 PM
(Oregon, too for that matter; Face-to-face in parking lot OK, FFL required inside the show).

That's not entirely correct. While Oregon law requires a background check at Oregon gun shows where more than 25 firearms are up for sale, it doesn't not require that a FFL holder be involved. The Oregon State Police provide a phone number (1-800-432-5059) that is manned 8AM to 10PM every day except Thanksgiving and Christmas so dealers and private individuals can perform the background check. There is a $10 fee for the service. They can also check firearm serial numbers for private individuals against the stolen weapon database for free. http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/ID/fics.shtml

Texas Boy
01-12-2011, 10:15 PM
I'm really confused as to what these background checks accomplish. I don't want criminals and crazy people having guns, but they already do. It seems all the checks really do is serve as a defacto registration system and harass the law abiding public.

I also fully expect background checks to become required for private party transfers in more states, and might even become a federal law. But I really think it is pointless - and infringes on my rights. What other fundamental rights require government approval every time you exercise them?

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 10:47 PM
" 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.
The government requires passing a background check to buy guns. If you don't pass, you can't buy them. It's a permit system in disguise

Rights have long been permitted. A regulation which serves a compelling government purpose, is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive means to achieving the interest will almost certainly be found to not infringe on your 2A rights.

You also ignore my proposition that the government has authority to regulate under the Militia Clause.

bsim
01-12-2011, 11:22 PM
I'd rather ban beef-jerky shows, er, "gun shows" so Brady's could no longer claim a "gunshow loophole" - that sounds nasty to the sheep. :)

GrizzlyGuy
01-13-2011, 9:10 AM
I'm still surprised (shocked?) that a whopping 30% of the poll respondents have answered YES. Perhaps people aren't understanding what was asked:

My question to you is the following: Should California's model regarding private party transfers be the law of the land? I don't mean that a 10 day wait would be required, let's say it's just done in 5 minutes over the phone.

Nothing was asked about whether or not background checks are constitutional. Let me rephrase the question for clarity:

Should California's nanny state laws that require background checks and FFL participation for most private party transfers be forced onto all states including relatively free states such as MT, AZ, AK, NH and TX?

Why do 30% of you want to subject the rest of the country to some of our crappy gun laws and compromise the liberty of the residents of those states? Is it a spite/jealously thing, or do you actually believe that CA's idiotic laws regarding PPTs prevent crime?

EBR Works
01-13-2011, 9:15 AM
I voted no. I do not want any government knowing if I have guns. As far as they are concerned I have zero.

They already know... ;)

wildhawker nailed it.

GrayWolf09
01-13-2011, 9:42 AM
If you can get past the idea that the government has a compelling interest in regulating private transactions of goods and services between citizens, there are a couple of ideas that would work (and IIRC have been floated to and rejected by the Bradys).

Drivers Licenses with a mark that states "Prohibited from Purchasing Firearms" for all PP. Similar to DLs with markings which tell the viewer when the holder turns 21 for liquor sales. All holders with unmarked DLs would be considered "unprohibited" and could purchase without a background check from any FFL in the Country.

The return of Kitchen Table FFLs. ATF under the Clinton Administration went after and shut down kitchen table dealers who were the majority of the small sellers at gunshows. Without the FFL, they were no longer required to run a Brady Check on purchasers. If ATF would be willing to allow the return of these small dealers who primarily got the license to be able to purchase wholesale and for family and friends, they'd have a few thousand additional FFLs submitting Brady Checks.

Getting either of those past the Bradys and Chuck Schumer would be a challenge.

That is an excellent point about Kitchen Table FFLs. Talk about unintended consequences. Rather than leading to more checks it actually led to less checks. Thanks.

shocknm
01-13-2011, 10:05 AM
Gunshow "loophole"? It works... speak a false truth and repeat it over and over and over and it becomes fact.
Quit with the :fud:

BTW, did you know that over 90% of guns used in crimes found in Mexico come from the USA? :banghead:

So you are willing to trade away something others have but you don’t (private party transfer without a background check) to get something you don’t have, but others already have (shall issue concealed carry). Nice.:mad:

That. That. That.

Pred@tor
01-13-2011, 10:19 AM
While these background checks don't put an absolute strain on my right to keep and bear arms. Its still just a pain in the *** to buy a good. So why ruin it for us out in the freer states 30% voters?

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 10:56 AM
Predator, the point is that Fed regulation is always a possibility. This isn't about a horsetrade, it's about surveying the battlefield and strategizing from an informed position.

Uriah02
01-13-2011, 12:00 PM
Freedom has consequences, just like a totalitarian state has consequences. I prefer the consequences of freedom.

Well said! The nature of the background check indicates that I am possibly a prohibitted individual. The attitude is the same that "you might be, so we need to check all", I do not believe it is efficient nor the attitude I would like my government to have of me. Instead of making policies that sweep across the masses, there needs to be policies that effectively police prohibitted individuals.
I recall a suggestion of adding CCW emblem on a driver's license, what about having codes on licenses or other forms of standard ID which ID's individuals as prohibitted. I have no problem with the government being supicious of people who have proved they need additional attention.

NorCalDustin
01-13-2011, 12:26 PM
If it were required on ALL transfers, then if I were to give my son, or my father a firearm... Then I would have to do a background check. ^_^

NorCalDustin
01-13-2011, 12:27 PM
Gunshow "loophole"? It works... speak a false truth and repeat it over and over and over and it becomes fact.
Quit with the :fud:

BTW, did you know that over 90% of guns used in crimes found in Mexico come from the USA? :banghead:



That. That. That.

Source?

17+1
01-13-2011, 12:30 PM
NO!

No Government meddling in the 2A, ever.

The Federal Government going out of control is the reason we have guns, don't forget. Having the Government involved in them in any form is absurd.

Chris M
01-13-2011, 12:30 PM
Source?

It's called sarcasm.

audiophil2
01-13-2011, 12:31 PM
They already know... ;)

wildhawker nailed it.

Actually, they do not. I sold all me CA registered guns, including long guns since they have at one time gone through an FFL, before I left CA. I kept 1 pistol for CCW into AZ and then sold it via face to face transaction. As far as the government is concerned I have no firearms.

AZ, like MOST states, allows for face to face non-FFL firearms purchases. If I ever decide to buy a gun I can buy one perfectly legally in a face to face transaction with cash. The only way I can get back into the system is to buy NFA items like silencers, destructive devices, and machine guns.

And to those that think face to face transactions are a bad idea all I have to say is that if you want to be safe you can legally make the transaction inside a police station in AZ. They will even run the gun for you to see if it has a history. I know it is a strange concept for the government to actually treat its people like responsible adults instead of nannying them with pro-criminal laws.

ETA:
I hope those willing to allow further regulation also realize that there are millions of guns that are legally off any government tracking system. I have friends with guns still brand new in box that were purchased from Sears catalog pre-1968. What is the government going to do about that along with all the face to face transactions that have been moved around so much they cannot be traced? Do you also suggest a mass registration for those?

rugershooter
01-13-2011, 12:47 PM
Rights have long been permitted. A regulation which serves a compelling government purpose, is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive means to achieving the interest will almost certainly be found to not infringe on your 2A rights.

You also ignore my proposition that the government has authority to regulate under the Militia Clause.

By nature, a right cannot be permitted. If it is being permitted, it's not being recognized as a right and is being violated. Being the least restrictive means of achieving the interest doesn't make it any less of an infringement of the 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means just that, so how is it not an infringement of a person's rights to mandate a background check in order to obtain a firearm?

As far as the Militia Clause, the government has the authority to regulate the militia when acting as the militia, not the personal private lives of the people. The "shall not be infringed" clause prohibits the government from infringing on the People's right to keep and bear arms, simple as that.

The "gunshow loophole" is a creation of the antigunners who only want to destroy our liberty. To people who actually understand liberty it's called being free; free to buy and sell property as we see fit and as we desire without the government intervention of the nanny state. We need to pick our battles of which laws to take to court, but it's also important to recognize that even small regulations such as the NICS is an infringement of the 2A, no matter how little it inconveniences us.

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 1:02 PM
Ruger,

Ignore reality, and our own history, at your peril. A functional right to arms is attainable; I doubt you'll be happy with what it looks like.

audiophil2
01-13-2011, 1:47 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

This can already be done in most states. What you are willing to accept is already in place.
I have a wild suggestion. What if the person selling the gun actually took the responsibility on himself to make sure the seller was legit by conducting the transaction at a police station? What if the buyer took the responsibility on himself by conducting the transaction at a police station to ensure the seller was legit and the gun was legit?
Nah, makes more sense to make it a law to do this because we all know criminals obey laws.

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 1:57 PM
All snark aside, this thread has devolved into a(nother) "purist" vs. "realist", with the purists assuming the realists disagree in principle.

audiophil2
01-13-2011, 2:39 PM
All snark aside, this thread has devolved into a(nother) "purist" vs. "realist", with the purists assuming the realists disagree in principle.

This thread has not devolved. There is a lot of good information from both sides of view.

Your 4th post suggests something that is already in place but not required in most states. A responsible person has many ways to sell or buy a gun other than just off the street. A law will just require responsible people to do that and criminals will continue to buy off the streets. It has little to do with Constitutional rights and more to do with reality or common sense.

As it is I can go to a police station for a cash and carry transaction and have the gun searched for free to $5. This let's me know the seller is legit since he would not walk into a station as a felon.
I can also do a PPT at an FFL for $15. You won't get it much cheaper since the FFL has to make money for their time.
I can also require a CCW and AZ DL from the buyer. It's not the same as a 4473 but at least I know they buyer was printed and had a check at some time.

I had more suspicion and actually denied a PPT to a CA resident because I did not get good vibes off him. I did not need a 10 day wait, DROS, 4473, FFL to tell me it was a bad sale. I made the decision on my own before I even got near a FFL.

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 3:16 PM
All well and good, but in my eyes we're now at the point of discussing what is possible, and what is preferable.

It's my argument that our preferences will not always rule the day. Do we agree on that?

This thread has not devolved. There is a lot of good information from both sides of view.

Your 4th post suggests something that is already in place but not required in most states. A responsible person has many ways to sell or buy a gun other than just off the street. A law will just require responsible people to do that and criminals will continue to buy off the streets. It has little to do with Constitutional rights and more to do with reality or common sense.

As it is I can go to a police station for a cash and carry transaction and have the gun searched for free to $5. This let's me know the seller is legit since he would not walk into a station as a felon.
I can also do a PPT at an FFL for $15. You won't get it much cheaper since the FFL has to make money for their time.
I can also require a CCW and AZ DL from the buyer. It's not the same as a 4473 but at least I know they buyer was printed and had a check at some time.

I had more suspicion and actually denied a PPT to a CA resident because I did not get good vibes off him. I did not need a 10 day wait, DROS, 4473, FFL to tell me it was a bad sale. I made the decision on my own before I even got near a FFL.

audiophil2
01-13-2011, 3:42 PM
All well and good, but in my eyes we're now at the point of discussing what is possible, and what is preferable.

It's my argument that our preferences will not always rule the day. Do we agree on that?

That is a tough one to call. I think you and I agree that future additional regulation is not preferable but possible but i am seeing many calgunners actually exhibiting a preference for tighter control. This is what concerns me. Once again a selection of CA gun owners show no problem with CA style regulations. While they have a right to their opinion they have no right to enforce it on those that seek the basics of freedom. I do not know if this is from years of having the CA government tell them to be sheep or if they actually think this is a good idea but I am guessing the former. The CA gov oppresses them so why not let oppress others by advocating similar laws countrywide. That's how I see it.

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 3:50 PM
I won't try to speak for anyone having those views, but my perception is that - understanding some regulation of the sort is possible, and even likely - a segment of our culture would seek to leverage the opportunity to mitigate the exposure and maximize efficacy. Sometimes allowing people who don't understand the practical application of the subject matter make laws can be more damaging than contouring them from a position of institutional, technical, and cultural knowledge - especially if such laws were likely to be challenged and upheld.

Jack L
01-13-2011, 4:12 PM
Bottom line, I would not want felons, wife beaters or the mentally ill to get guns legally by circumventing any intended law. Since I am legal and always have been, a 15 minute check is fine and I would hope most people would think the same.

Criminals will always get a gun if they really want one but at least there would be a lot less people selling them in a parking lot to potential criminals and psychos if there are repercussions concerning that type of sale.

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 4:15 PM
Another law which would only burden the law abiding and have 0 effect on criminals. The Brady checks need to be repealed not expanded.

RomanDad
01-13-2011, 4:25 PM
My general inclination is YES... All transfers should be checked to be sure they aren't being sold to prohibited people.... The problem is, THIS GUY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED AND WASN'T. He bought the gun at an FFL, went through NICS and it didnt stop HIM. So why expand something that DOESNT WORK?

Asking FFLs to police the world doesnt work if the POLICE arent doing their job and arresting people for the CRIMES theyre committing in the first place (In this instance, making multiple death threats against people. This guy should have been involuntarily committed MONTHS ago).

QQQ
01-13-2011, 4:32 PM
Sorry for being a party pooper, but I don't agree that being an ex-felon, especially a nonviolent one, should of itself automatically ban you for life from the RKBA.
Nor should a single non-voluntary admission to a mental health facility.

A gun should be considered a tool for crime when and only when it is actually used in a crime.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are we having trouble understanding here?

wildhawker
01-13-2011, 4:33 PM
Indeed, and well put. Excellent post.

My general inclination is YES... All transfers should be checked to be sure they aren't being sold to prohibited people.... The problem is, THIS GUY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED AND WASN'T. He bought the gun at an FFL, went through NICS and it didnt stop HIM. So why expand something that DOESNT WORK?

Asking FFLs to police the world doesnt work if the POLICE arent doing their job and arresting people for the CRIMES theyre committing in the first place (In this instance, making multiple death threats against people. This guy should have been involuntarily committed MONTHS ago).

audiophil2
01-13-2011, 5:46 PM
I won't try to speak for anyone having those views, but my perception is that - understanding some regulation of the sort is possible, and even likely - a segment of our culture would seek to leverage the opportunity to mitigate the exposure and maximize efficacy. Sometimes allowing people who don't understand the practical application of the subject matter make laws can be more damaging than contouring them from a position of institutional, technical, and cultural knowledge - especially if such laws were likely to be challenged and upheld.

As old gun laws are falling like dominoes countrywide you speak as if new gun laws should be acceptable simply because they are possible. All I see is you are willing to move your line in the sand with the hope the government will make a fair law.
I think you and I can agree that laws don't stop criminals. What I think we disagree with is that I would rather show gun owners and non gun owners that there is already a way to limit prohibited persons from obtaining guns without any laws while you are already coming to terms with accepting more oppression for responsible gun owners.
Why wait for a law to take effect and then fight it? Why not just educate the public before laws can even get past the idea stage?
Or are you of the group that has no problem with a national database of guns and gun owners?

missiondude
01-13-2011, 5:52 PM
There is no gun-show loophole. Federal and state laws apply inside a gun show in all 50 states. Typically people are asked for ID to verify that they live in the same state. Some vendors are less careful, but, the ATFE sets up stings for them. Usually those stings catch the 80 year old guy selling some of his collection, forgetting that the law changed in 1968.

Making all firearm purchases have to go through a FFL, prevents me from giving my brother a firearm as a gift!

We should not expand this law, we should repeal the California Gun Show laws (Oregon, too for that matter; Face-to-face in parking lot OK, FFL required inside the show).

At the Phoenix gun show, there were signs posted that FTF transfers could not be done in the parking lot, and must be completed inside the show. Non FFL vendors had large signs on their tables that said FTF transfers done here with AZ ID...

locosway
01-14-2011, 12:04 AM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

We all know the waiting period isn't for the BG check, it's a "cooling off" period.

locosway
01-14-2011, 12:09 AM
Sorry for being a party pooper, but I don't agree that being an ex-felon, especially a nonviolent one, should of itself automatically ban you for life from the RKBA.
Nor should a single non-voluntary admission to a mental health facility.

A gun should be considered a tool for crime when and only when it is actually used in a crime.

What part of "shall not be infringed" are we having trouble understanding here?

It's not like people accidentally commit felonies. There are risks involved when being a criminal, one of them is losing certain freedoms. I think it's in the best interest of the public to not give felons the ability to buy firearms legally. Does this force them to buy them illegally? Perhaps, but this just shows they have no regard for the law.

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 12:46 AM
We all know the waiting period isn't for the BG check, it's a "cooling off in the morgue" period.

Fixed.

It's not like people accidentally commit felonies.

Um. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556

rugershooter
01-14-2011, 1:06 AM
My general inclination is YES... All transfers should be checked to be sure they aren't being sold to prohibited people.... The problem is, THIS GUY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED AND WASN'T. He bought the gun at an FFL, went through NICS and it didnt stop HIM. So why expand something that DOESNT WORK?

Asking FFLs to police the world doesnt work if the POLICE arent doing their job and arresting people for the CRIMES theyre committing in the first place (In this instance, making multiple death threats against people. This guy should have been involuntarily committed MONTHS ago).

You're admitting that it doesn't work, so why is your general inclination yes? "Why expand something that doesn't work"? Great point. Even if it was constitutional, it doesn't work so there's no reason to expand it and create yet another false sense of security that these gun laws create for ignorant people.

Jack L
01-14-2011, 6:50 AM
I'd be willing to go for closing the private party "loophole" in exchange for mandatory CCW reciprocity or a federally issued CCW under a shall issue system.

I'd go for this too (above).

I have a sense that in decades from now guns will still be allowed, but all sales will be through FFL, some kind of high speed process like a biometric card I.D.

trevilli
01-14-2011, 11:16 AM
Great point. Even if it was constitutional, it doesn't work so there's no reason to expand it and create yet another false sense of security that these gun laws create for ignorant people.
People still speed, so having laws against speeding must not work right? What standard are you using to proclaim ___________ doesn't work? Are you inferring that gun laws don't work, because people continue to be shot? So then why have any laws at all? We all know criminals don't obey laws, so screw it. Why place any burden on you and me at all? Do What Thou Wilt.

marc4
01-14-2011, 11:23 AM
Background checks I agree with. A Felon can buy a C&R SKS or any other C&R rifle with no checks at all or be able to build an AK47 from flats and a kit and that worries me too.
But then the same felon could avoid the hassle and just steal a gun from someone else walking out of the gun show.
More regulations is really not going to stop a felon from getting a gun if he wants one.

Pred@tor
01-14-2011, 9:04 PM
Predator, the point is that Fed regulation is always a possibility. This isn't about a horsetrade, it's about surveying the battlefield and strategizing from an informed position.

I see don't get me wrong I just don't miss the California gun laws I was oppressed by when I lived there. Sorry for being so uptight but I love it out here and only have dumb federal laws to deal with practically. Lets just hope moronic legislation don't come out anytime soon. Realistically we may never see background checks go away but until then whatever. I see what you brought in the militia argument and what you say is true. I Just do not see why the government has an interest in conducting background checks and having purchasers fill out those 4473 forms. I see it as a "registry" issue. Paranoid I may be but it is the way it is... I know when my friend and I were cited out at Ronconada mine out in California they couldnt tell if his pistols were registered to him when they were DROSed.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 9:28 PM
You bring up an excellent point about C&Rs, and also why I think that the FFL03 program will probably change (or vanish) in the next 3-7 years.

Background checks I agree with. A Felon can buy a C&R SKS or any other C&R rifle with no checks at all or be able to build an AK47 from flats and a kit and that worries me too.
But then the same felon could avoid the hassle and just steal a gun from someone else walking out of the gun show.
More regulations is really not going to stop a felon from getting a gun if he wants one.

trashman
01-14-2011, 10:03 PM
You bring up an excellent point about C&Rs, and also why I think that the FFL03 program will probably change (or vanish) in the next 3-7 years.

I kinda doubt this myself - folks who go through the (relatively minor) hassle of obtaining an 03FFL and keeping the associated records are not likely to be seen as the cause of arms trafficking.

The focus is always going to be on the paperless intra-state transfer of "modern" guns -- even though you and I know they are mechanically/functionally identical in many cases to their C&R predecessors.

--Neill

trashman
01-14-2011, 10:09 PM
My question to you is the following: Should California's model regarding private party transfers be the law of the land? I don't mean that a 10 day wait would be required, let's say it's just done in 5 minutes over the phone.

I don't care for the idea, and the statistics don't back up the premise that this is public safety problem -- but it will eventually be on the table, politically speaking.

And, as long as the system is fairly administered, the courts are very unlikely to hold that it's an infringement of the RKBA.

--Neill

Zak
01-14-2011, 11:19 PM
I know I'm in the minority, but a quick background check really doesn't bother me. It hardly infringes on my rights, and it doesn't bother me that the only people they'll be denying sales to are felons.

No, it doesn't. If a 'prohibited' person really wants to get a gun - they're going to get a gun.

Even if there were no background checks or waiting periods, I highly doubt that criminals would purchase guns from legitimate businesses. They're going to steal them, or buy them dirt cheap on the street.

Guns actually sell for more on the streets than in the shop.

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 11:23 PM
You know what, I am to the RIGHT of Savage and to the left of God. BUT, anyone buying a gun should have to go through a backround check period. Further more, with all the high tech computers we should not have to wait more than 24 hours to recieve our new purchase. Especially if that person is already a gun owner.

locosway
01-14-2011, 11:27 PM
A BG check takes 10 minutes, and there's no reason they can't have laptops at gun shows staffed by LEO's performing these checks. Hell, the gun show could even give 1% of sales to the LEO agency for helping out.

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 11:50 PM
A BG check takes 10 minutes, and there's no reason they can't have laptops at gun shows staffed by LEO's performing these checks. Hell, the gun show could even give 1% of sales to the LEO agency for helping out.

I think the tax payers give more than their fair share to the LEO's as is. FFL's can perform the BG checks without the interference of big bro.

Marcus Cicero
01-14-2011, 11:52 PM
I cannot believe what I am reading here. I cannot believe people who claim to think they have a natural right to self defense through arms welcome the idea of their government deciding who may and who may not defend themselves with those arms via arbitrary measures in the name of protecting you from what your neighbor may do sometime in the future.

You people think that 10 minutes is alright because it is only ten minutes and you get to walk out with your nice firearm after you have been given permission to do so?

What follows when that 10 minutes becomes 1 year and that nice permission slip turns into "So sorry but you were caught speeding and now you are a prohibited person."?

How many times has your government told you "Don't worry this is strictly voluntary" and then forced you to do something (Social Security)?

How many times has your government "changed" their minds or out right lied to your face (No, it's not a tax, it's a fine. No that fine we told you about is actually a tax)?

How on earth can you people trust your government with anything given what they have done in the past and what they continue to do let alone actually WANT them to increase and expand their already useless, expensive, and futile efforts that do NOTHING to curb crime and everything to rid you of your freedom one tiny push at a time?

Your government is at best incompetent and at worst evil.

At their best they "accidentally" put innocent people on death row and at worst they put them in concentration camps (this is not hyperbole; this is recorded history and has happened multiple times).

They have done enough to rob from you, cheat you, and kill you via legislation, regulation, and prohibition.

STOP IT! Your government is not your friend. They are not here to help you. They are not here to protect you.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” ~G.W.

Government is a necessary evil so keep it as restricted as is humanly possible! They have done enough already. ENOUGH!

trevilli
01-15-2011, 12:01 AM
Marcus-

I understand what you are saying, and to a point I agree with it. However, are you suggesting that we dissolve our government and live without one? Because I believe the case can be made that the minute a government is formed, freedom is lost. So are you suggesting no government of any kind?

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:07 AM
Marcus-

I understand what you are saying, and to a point I agree with it. However, are you suggesting that we dissolve our government and live without one? Because I believe the case can be made that the minute a government is formed, freedom is lost. So are you suggesting no government of any kind?

The last portion of my first post answered this question:


........

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” ~G.W.

Government is a necessary evil so keep it as restricted as is humanly possible! They have done enough already. ENOUGH!

I am not pushing for anarchy but merely voicing my displeasure at this idea I see posed here that presumes our government to be inherently good while serving our best interests.

Right now I see more people who distrust their neighbors more so than their government. Quite frankly that scares me.

locosway
01-15-2011, 12:09 AM
Marcus, the idea that we should allow people who're mentally ill (don't know right from wrong) and those who have committed crimes against society (don't know right from wrong) to be allowed weapons on equal terms as law abiding people is ridiculous.

Does everyone have the right to self preservation? Absolutely. Should we allow people who demonstrate they're not responsible enough to own a firearm to buy them? I don't think so.

Some limits must be drawn in our society, and a minimal wait time BG check is fine in the eyes of the majority of gun owners. Why? Because 10 minutes is 10 minutes. While you're still wiping the drool off your chin from looking at what you're buying, the FFL can process your paperwork and run your BG. It's minimal and ensures the people who shouldn't have firearms don't obtain them legally.

trevilli
01-15-2011, 12:23 AM
I've struggled with this personally, which is why I wanted to see what fellow calgunners thought. I don't like the fact that the government knows how many guns I have, the serial numbers and the rest of it. I would prefer that they did not record that information. However, I have a mentally ill person in my family. This person suffers from bi-polar disorder, and when he is off his meds, he should not have access to firearms. It doesn't make sense to me that he would be able to purchase a firearm in private transaction. I'm not saying that all such purchases would be caught, or that he couldn't steal a gun if he was intent on it; no system is perfect. But I don't think that means we should not make an attempt to screen buyers either. Thanks for sharing your views.

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:25 AM
Marcus, the idea that we should allow people who're mentally ill (don't know right from wrong) and those who have committed crimes against society (don't know right from wrong) to be allowed weapons on equal terms as law abiding people is ridiculous.

1) You cannot allow or prohibit a person from physically possessing a firearm while that person is not in your custody. They are either going to possess a firearm or they are not. Ergo the law is a feel good measure at best.

2) Define "mentally ill". You would do well to realize that the phrase "mentally ill" is not always backed by a strong scientific reasoning and has been used by many governments, including the American government, to prohibit undesirables for doing various things (to say nothing of forced sterilizations and other interesting cruel and unusual acts).


Does everyone have the right to self preservation? Absolutely. Should we allow people who demonstrate they're not responsible enough to own a firearm to buy them? I don't think so.

Not responsible enough? By whose definition? Yours? Mine? A simple majority? What happens when "responsible enough" means your skin tone has to match my own?

What happens when your President signs an executive order mandating that all people who are of skin color X or nationality Y (American citizen or not) now must abandon their personal belongings and report to a military camp for processing?

Must I now demonstrate a capacity for maturity to your standard before I may possess a firearm?

Why stop at a firearm? What about an automobile? What about kitchen knives?

What about an etch-o-sketch (AL powder anyone?)?

Since when did your right to do anything hinge upon you demonstrating your ability to act responsibly with that item?



Some limits must be drawn in our society, and a minimal wait time BG check is fine in the eyes of the majority of gun owners. Why?

Simple: a good many firearm owners are ignorant. They do not understand history and they do not understand what they government does to them on a daily basis.

Furthermore they do not understand that background checks neither protect them nor prevent crime.

That background check doesn't prohibit anybody from possessing a firearm and requiring a background check of ALL FIREARMS would not change this.

Because 10 minutes is 10 minutes. While you're still wiping the drool off your chin from looking at what you're buying, the FFL can process your paperwork and run your BG. It's minimal and ensures the people who shouldn't have firearms don't obtain them legally.

Sure and Social Security is an insurance benefit that is NOT MANDATORY and WILL NOT BE TAXED when you draw your benefit in the future. Do you remember that line? I do.

Right now you seem to be going the long way around to say "Certain people with firearms scare me ergo I have no problem waiting 10 minutes to fulfill the veneer of safety."

Right now "felons" and the "mentally ill" are safe targets for you because a lot of people can agree with you on that issue.

That's fine. Wait until "felon" is expanded and "mentally ill" is redefined to include a large class of people who are otherwise mentally capable.

The former has already happened in this country and the latter in other countries (and a lesser extent in this country a century back).

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 12:28 AM
There is no guarantee, nor overwhelming compulsion for the check to be done in ONLY 10 minutes. All human systems, especially related to firearms, are prone to failure, and fail they have, repeatedly.

As far as anarchy vs tyranny goes... there only needs to be one penal code. Don't be evil to other people. Police arrest if a mala in se act is committed, and don't if it would violate civil rights, prosecutors determine whether or not they can convince a jury, jury determines level of punishment based on severity of act, if at all. Jury recommends civil suit against .gov if arrest and prosecution are malicious and without a scintilla of merit.

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:32 AM
......This person suffers from bi-polar disorder, and when he is off his meds, he should not have access to firearms. It doesn't make sense to me that he would be able to purchase a firearm in private transaction. I'm not saying that all such purchases would be caught, or that he couldn't steal a gun if he was intent on it; no system is perfect. But I don't think that means we should not make an attempt to screen buyers either. Thanks for sharing your views.

You can't. The government cannot protect you from criminals and the mentally ill.

Some people are mentally ill and they are not discovered until they act out (VA Tech?).

The only way such a scheme would work is if you required all citizens to exist at the pleasure of your government (i.e. mandatory mental health screenings, physicals, etc) and even at that you would be trading the risk of one party you do not know for another that you do know.

You people are afraid of certain people owning firearms. I get that. That is a normal and quite rational fear.

However freedom has a price: risk. You cannot completely mitigate risk and no government scheme exists or can exist that can protect you from that risk with out stripping you of your freedoms.

There is no middle ground or half way point where you can give up some rights to mitigate some risk. It doesn't exist.

stix213
01-15-2011, 12:47 AM
If a seller could by themselves via the internet or phone perform an instant yes/no background check of a potential buyer with only a name and state ID #, without having to show up at an FFL or any other location, then I would be in favor. Otherwise not so much

Zak
01-15-2011, 2:07 AM
1) You cannot allow or prohibit a person from physically possessing a firearm while that person is not in your custody. They are either going to possess a firearm or they are not. Ergo the law is a feel good measure at best.

I agree with you that anybody who really wanted a gun could get one regardless of any legislation out there. However, I'd rather have a felon commit a crime with an illegal gun than a "legally" purchased gun. It would even help our cause when a mass murder shooter is revealed to have used an illegal weapon.

Pred@tor
01-15-2011, 5:07 AM
If people cant have guns like violent felons and mentally ill people then why are they walking our streets? Locked up or better yet for the hardcore criminal types dead. I am not saying commit mass genocide either its just why is it we have to suffer because of the actions or potential actions of a few? Background checks all the time screw that! http://atfabuse.com/ Those clowns give us permission to own guns! It ain't right its stupid and pointless... Personally if back ground checks stay or go I do not care. I like the fact I don't have to deal with commie crap selling and buying guns off my fellow man in this state. LEAVE YOUR COMMIE CALIFORNIA LAWS OUT OF OUR STATES!

locosway
01-15-2011, 5:10 AM
In the case of mentally ill people, they're possibly on the same level as a child, mentally. So why would you let a child own a firearm?

As for a felon, that's a different story, and perhaps if they did their time they could be trusted. However, statistically speaking, it seems that most felons end up back in jail at least once.

Pred@tor
01-15-2011, 5:12 AM
In the case of mentally ill people, they're possibly on the same level as a child, mentally. So why would you let a child own a firearm?

As for a felon, that's a different story, and perhaps if they did their time they could be trusted. However, statistically speaking, it seems that most felons end up back in jail at least once.

I owned a shotgun at age 13 and there were no problems. I'd leave that up to the parents not the government to decide for them.

Longbaugh1911
01-15-2011, 7:44 AM
Background checks didn't stop Loughner.

An armed, law-abiding citizen might have.

I agree. Being that the incident happened in AZ, I'm shocked to know a CCW person wasn't around.

locosway
01-15-2011, 7:50 AM
I agree. Being that the incident happened in AZ, I'm shocked to know a CCW person wasn't around.

People were around... I don't know why everyone can sit back and say no one with a CCW was there, and if they were there with a CCW they'd have shot this guy in 1 second.

Seriously, you weren't there, you don't know what happened. **** goes down fast, and if you're with your kids, etc, you don't necessarily rush towards a gunman with your gun out. You'd likely shield your kids first and then see what the hell was going on.

A lot of people DID act, and they did so courageously saving lives.

Longbaugh1911
01-15-2011, 7:50 AM
In the case of mentally ill people, they're possibly on the same level as a child, mentally. So why would you let a child own a firearm?

As for a felon, that's a different story, and perhaps if they did their time they could be trusted. However, statistically speaking, it seems that most felons end up back in jail at least once.

That's true.

I've seen guys at gunshows admitting to their friends there felons so they couldn't buy. Then I remembered a guy I knew years ago (non-violent convicted felon) and he told me he couldn't even be near a gun or it's up to 5 years in prison.

Longbaugh1911
01-15-2011, 8:04 AM
Background checks I agree with. A Felon can buy a C&R SKS or any other C&R rifle with no checks at all or be able to build an AK47 from flats and a kit and that worries me too.
But then the same felon could avoid the hassle and just steal a gun from someone else walking out of the gun show.
More regulations is really not going to stop a felon from getting a gun if he wants one.

I have the same concerns that you do because I've seen guys whom were arrested for violent crimes in and out of jail. One guy from my old neighborhood did a few years and someone told me he was out. After being out, he was seen by someone with a 1911.

Last I heard, he's under indictment for multiple shootings.

Longbaugh1911
01-15-2011, 8:16 AM
I know I'm in the minority, but a quick background check really doesn't bother me. It hardly infringes on my rights, and it doesn't bother me that the only people they'll be denying sales to are felons.

I agree.

Guns actually sell for more on the streets than in the shop.

That is a FACT in my city.

*R. Lee Ermey lives in California and raised a good point about the whole 4473 and DROS process. If we as gun owners have 1 to 50 more at home, why do we keep having to complete DROS's everytime? He understood the 4473, but I certainly agree and ask why gun owners have to keep completing a DROS?

rromeo
01-15-2011, 8:30 AM
By the way, "instant" background checks can be 10 monites or 3 hours. Now and then they take more than 24 hours. If your name is Bob Smith, you're screwed.
As just mentioned, why can't current gun owners be vetted?

jpigeon
01-15-2011, 8:33 AM
Marcus, Its just a backgroung check to make sure they are not selling it to some maniac or felon. That is pretty damn reasonable.

Longbaugh1911
01-15-2011, 8:35 AM
People were around... I don't know why everyone can sit back and say no one with a CCW was there, and if they were there with a CCW they'd have shot this guy in 1 second.

Seriously, you weren't there, you don't know what happened. **** goes down fast, and if you're with your kids, etc, you don't necessarily rush towards a gunman with your gun out. You'd likely shield your kids first and then see what the hell was going on.

A lot of people DID act, and they did so courageously saving lives.

I never said nobody acted. He was subdued by people while he reloaded and I'm not discounting people courageously saved lives without having to kill. True, ****goes down fast, I know because it's happened to me (many times).

I would have liked to have heard someone with a CCW saved lives. The general public (Especially in California) is always shielded by Media news about CCW holders or just Gun owners who fend off criminals or defended themselves. CCW (Especially in San Francisco) is "scary" for almost everyone here...it's ridiculous. There are probably 10 people with CCW issued in San Francisco.

rugershooter
01-15-2011, 8:38 AM
People still speed, so having laws against speeding must not work right? What standard are you using to proclaim ___________ doesn't work? Are you inferring that gun laws don't work, because people continue to be shot? So then why have any laws at all? We all know criminals don't obey laws, so screw it. Why place any burden on you and me at all? Do What Thou Wilt.

My statement that they don't work was based on his statement that they don't work; they're not constitutional, you say they don't work, so what's the point? I should've clarified that.

Background checks I agree with. A Felon can buy a C&R SKS or any other C&R rifle with no checks at all or be able to build an AK47 from flats and a kit and that worries me too.
But then the same felon could avoid the hassle and just steal a gun from someone else walking out of the gun show.
More regulations is really not going to stop a felon from getting a gun if he wants one.

It worries you that people have freedom? You're saying that people are going to obtain guns anyways, regardless of the law. So why burden us everybody else with restrictions that are only going to be followed by us law abiding gun owners?
Don't you remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Requiring background checks undermines that concept by requiring me to be proven innocent of any prohibiting crimes before I can own a gun.

audiophil2
01-15-2011, 10:50 AM
I agree with you that anybody who really wanted a gun could get one regardless of any legislation out there. However, I'd rather have a felon commit a crime with an illegal gun than a "legally" purchased gun. It would even help our cause when a mass murder shooter is revealed to have used an illegal weapon.

You really think so? Did you consider the possibility that if an illegal gun is used for a shooting after a system wide registration/check process was enacted that the government might just ban all guns completely?

orangevale
01-15-2011, 11:06 AM
I agree with you that anybody who really wanted a gun could get one regardless of any legislation out there. However, I'd rather have a felon commit a crime with an illegal gun than a "legally" purchased gun. It would even help our cause when a mass murder shooter is revealed to have used an illegal weapon.

Well you’ve got a pretty good experiment testing your theory going on in California right now. How’s it working out for you?

I’d judge your theory to have already been disproved.

wildhawker
01-15-2011, 11:06 AM
Ban all guns? Uhm...

Zak
01-15-2011, 11:08 AM
You really think so? Did you consider the possibility that if an illegal gun is used for a shooting after a system wide registration/check process was enacted that the government might just ban all guns completely?

My line of thinking is if something like that happens, people will see gun control laws just don't work. Maybe you're right though, I wouldn't put the idea of a complete ban past them.

Pred@tor
01-15-2011, 11:37 AM
I guess there is different levels or "progun" and some people feel at ease and think its a good idea to have background checks for purchases all together. The 10 minute wait is annoying but its not horrendous. I sincerely hope you fans of background checks do not push it on us that enjoy buying guns freely that's all....

I'll try to keep buying guns without asking permission from the gov to tick them off and some people here...

Cokebottle
01-15-2011, 12:01 PM
I have a question regarding the gunshow loophole.
There is no "gunshow loophole"

Dealer sales are subject to the same restrictions at a gun show as they are at the dealer's shop. NICS check is required for all dealer sales.

Private party sales are subject to the same restrictions (or lack of) at a gun show as they are at the seller's home or Wal-Mart parking lot. NICS check is not required for any private-party sale on the federal level.

foxtrotuniformlima
01-15-2011, 12:07 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).


I could not have said this any better myself.

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:27 PM
I agree with you that anybody who really wanted a gun could get one regardless of any legislation out there. However, I'd rather have a felon commit a crime with an illegal gun than a "legally" purchased gun. It would even help our cause when a mass murder shooter is revealed to have used an illegal weapon.

Why would that help? What possible difference does it make when you have taken another person's life if you used a weapon you purchased legally or manufactured in your garage illegally? The person is just as dead and society is just as worse off!

Why do we even consider the semantics surrounding HOW a weapon is possessed when what we are considering is already a heinous crime (rape, murder, armed robbery, etc)?

Here is an idea: stop looking at how they acquired the weapon and start looking at what they are doing with that weapon!

Murder, armed robbery, rape, etc; these are the actual crimes. Make these crimes carry the serious weight they deserve and punish the people who commit these crimes regardless of what weapon they choose to use and the method in which they use to acquire their weapons.

There is no need to even consider the weapon used or the way in which that weapon is acquired if you are serious about punishing these truly violent crimes and you actually take the time and effort to remove these people from society following due process of law.

Cokebottle
01-15-2011, 12:35 PM
you purchased legally or manufactured in your garage illegally?
Manufacturing a gun in your garage is not illegal.

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:47 PM
In the case of mentally ill people, they're possibly on the same level as a child, mentally. So why would you let a child own a firearm?

I know 7 year old children who are far more responsible with firearms than 40 year old police officers and I would feel far more secure amongst a platoon of 18 year old Marines than the same office with a 37 year old GS13 Federal Officer who negligently discharged his weapon into his desk mere feet away from me in the office.

As for children with guns: YES; give children guns once you have taught them how to use them.

How else are they supposed to learn proper firearm safety and use?

I learned how to use firearms as a child and I actually took firearms to school (responsibly) on the school bus and we didn't have mass shootings at my school.

That was a different age when people were expected to act with maturity and children we given responsibility.


As for a felon, that's a different story, and perhaps if they did their time they could be trusted. However, statistically speaking, it seems that most felons end up back in jail at least once.

You do not understand: felon is now an arbitrary bar set by the legislature depending on their whim.

You most likely view a felon as a murderer or a rapist or some other heinous criminal. You can just as easily be a felon and never have harmed another person in any way. You have most likely violated a multitude of felony offenses and you do not even know it.

Give me your tax returns for the last three years and a blanket access to your records and I can find felony tax evasion.

Felon once meant something. We have now expanded felony offenses to cover things that can apply to just about any citizen should the right scrutiny be applied by the right people.

THAT IS MY POINT!

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:51 PM
Manufacturing a gun in your garage is not illegal.

Manufacturing a firearm in your garage is illegal if you are a prohibited person and that was the concept I was trying to convey (it is also illegal depending on the type of firearm you manufacture; suppressors and automatics sans SOT, for example).

When I said "... or manufactured in your garage illegally" it was not my intention to imply that manufacturing any firearm under any circumstance was wholly illegal.

My point: if you cannot obtain a firearm from a seller due to your background (i.e. you are a prohibited person) you can still break the law in your garage and obtain that which you seek.

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 12:58 PM
Marcus, Its just a backgroung check to make sure they are not selling it to some maniac or felon. That is pretty damn reasonable.

It's just a background check and it doesn't stop any person from acquiring firearms. Ergo it is a waste of time and resources.

Background checks do not deprive felons and maniacs from firearm possession but merely require them to go through other means to acquire what they seek (sometimes).

Sometimes maniacs can get past the background check because the state does not know they are maniacs.

So you are pushing a system that costs me a lot of money (tax dollars) and does not work (Zip gun?) and you claim that to be "pretty damn reasonable?"

Perhaps you should reconsider your definition of reasonable because I do not see the natural degradation of my rights in the name of a system that does not work to be anything close to reasonable.

orangevale
01-15-2011, 1:32 PM
What is being called here an “inconvenience”; I call being required to physically travel to an agent of government and begging permission to sell/trade my personal property.

“Please Massa, [head down, eyes diverted], may I sell this to John Smith? Please?”

Marcus Cicero
01-15-2011, 2:42 PM
What is being called here an “inconvenience”; I call being required to physically travel to an agent of government and begging permission to sell/trade my personal property.

“Please Massa, [head down, eyes diverted], may I sell this to John Smith? Please?”

^----- THIS!

audiophil2
01-15-2011, 3:49 PM
Ban all guns? Uhm...

Because there is no complete gun ban in effect right?

I guess machine guns are so expensive because everyone prefers semi-auto's.

Pred@tor
01-15-2011, 6:11 PM
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

31% believes in giving up their rights. This is disturbing...

wildhawker
01-15-2011, 6:13 PM
audiophil, you have access to functional firearms. The contours of that right is unclear, and will require years of litigation and policy modification. However, find me an outright ban on firearms in common use.

12voltguy
01-15-2011, 6:47 PM
There is no gun-show loophole.

audiophil2
01-15-2011, 7:11 PM
audiophil, you have access to functional firearms. The contours of that right is unclear, and will require years of litigation and policy modification. However, find me an outright ban on firearms in common use.

An AR15 can be argued as a common firearm. It was perfectly legal as a machine gun at one point in time. If the machine gun ban occurred in 2015 and not 1985 FA AR15's would be a common weapon that was banned. FA in CA is banned. If you can tell me you can buy one next week legally in CA then you might have some ground.
CA law already severely restricts many common firearms. The loopholes can close at any time.

I'll ask again, are you in favor a nationwide requirement to have every gun transaction processed by a government entity?

taperxz
01-15-2011, 7:21 PM
An AR15 can be argued as a common firearm. It was perfectly legal as a machine gun at one point in time. If the machine gun ban occurred in 2015 and not 1985 FA AR15's would be a common weapon that was banned. FA in CA is banned. If you can tell me you can buy one next week legally in CA then you might have some ground.
CA law already severely restricts many common firearms. The loopholes can close at any time.

I'll ask again, are you in favor a nationwide requirement to have every gun transaction processed by a government entity?

What does this have to do with the OP in regards to background checks?

audiophil2
01-15-2011, 7:46 PM
What does this have to do with the OP in regards to background checks?

Read the entire thread for your answer and find someone else to stalk.

vintagearms
01-15-2011, 8:23 PM
Cash and carry.

wildhawker
01-15-2011, 8:32 PM
The AR-15 *is* a firearm in common use (see, e.g., Staples). There is virtually no chance that a total ban on AR-15s would be permissible, but a few cases need to get to the USSC in order to flesh this out.

Your logic in re NFA (and modifiers) is correct in that the very system of taxes, burdensome/onerous registration, and cutoff dates created a class(es) of arms possibly not in common use (though we simply don't know that at this point). Practically, we'll have to go through a number of cases and political steps to get where you want to be - and we have to be open to the possibility that we may not.

I'm afraid I don't know when you asked me about a global system of government-run transaction processing. The answer is no, I'm not in favor of what you describe. What does my preference matter here? I thought we were talking about the legal basis of such a system, not our feelings towards it.

An AR15 can be argued as a common firearm. It was perfectly legal as a machine gun at one point in time. If the machine gun ban occurred in 2015 and not 1985 FA AR15's would be a common weapon that was banned. FA in CA is banned. If you can tell me you can buy one next week legally in CA then you might have some ground.
CA law already severely restricts many common firearms. The loopholes can close at any time.

I'll ask again, are you in favor a nationwide requirement to have every gun transaction processed by a government entity?

ih8ca
01-15-2011, 10:51 PM
How about a system like they have at the gunshows in Washington State ran by the Washington Arms Collectors. They are a non profit organization. They charge like $30 a year for a membership. They do background checks on all its members. The WAC puts on two shows an month and gives its members free admission and only chargerd $40 per table. You have to be a member to buy,sell or trade any firearms. Most of the vendors there are private and cash&carry,They put on a 1000 table gunshow once a month. I would be for something like that.

Zak
01-15-2011, 11:12 PM
Why would that help? What possible difference does it make when you have taken another person's life if you used a weapon you purchased legally or manufactured in your garage illegally? The person is just as dead and society is just as worse off!


Virginia Tech and the Tuscon shooting were results of the gunmen simply walking into gun shops and purchasing their weapons. They were legal guns. The result? Gun control advocates calling for stricter laws, because "they shouldn't have been allowed to buy guns."

Now if Virginia Tech and the Tuscon shooting were results of gunmen buying illegal guns off the streets, there wouldn't be as many gun control advocates calling for stricter laws, because it's obvious they weren't a result of any "failed" gun laws. The only gun control advocates then calling for stricter laws would be the extreme gun grabbers, in which case I doubt anything could change their mind anyway.

I agree that the person is "just as dead", but that's not what I meant in my original post. I'm saying if a gunman were to inevitably go on a shooting spree, I'd rather have it been an illegal gun to show that strict gun regulation doesn't do a thing in regards to illegal guns.

trashman
01-15-2011, 11:19 PM
I agree that the person is "just as dead", but that's not what I meant in my original post. I'm saying if a gunman were to inevitably go on a shooting spree, I'd rather have it been an illegal gun to show that strict gun regulation doesn't do a thing in regards to illegal guns.

I certainly understand the underlying sentiment, but I think you make an assumption that isn't true: namely, that the response from outside the gun community will be dispassionate, and linear, and based on facts/statistics related to public safety and risk.

In fact, as we continue to see, the general reaction from outside the community is more or less focussed on finding a dramatic "fix" to a "problem". Thus, the endless banter and hysteria about semi-automatic handguns, or the appropriateness or ethical basis for owning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and so on.

--Neill

Zak
01-15-2011, 11:33 PM
I certainly understand the underlying sentiment, but I think you make an assumption that isn't true: namely, that the response from outside the gun community will be dispassionate, and linear, and based on facts/statistics related to public safety and risk.

In fact, as we continue to see, the general reaction from outside the community is more or less focussed on finding a dramatic "fix" to a "problem". Thus, the endless banter and hysteria about semi-automatic handguns, or the appropriateness or ethical basis for owning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and so on.

--Neill

I certainly can't argue with that. However, I also don't see anything good that can come out of legal guns being used for crimes.

Pred@tor
01-16-2011, 12:10 PM
So you guys feel safer in California? If you wanna push your agendas on us out here and else where stay the hell there!

Cokebottle
01-16-2011, 1:25 PM
So you guys feel safer in California? If you wanna push your agendas on us out here and else where stay the hell there!
No, we don't, and we're doing everything we can to push YOUR agendas HERE! ;)

Marcus Cicero
01-16-2011, 4:28 PM
Virginia Tech and the Tuscon shooting were results of the gunmen simply walking into gun shops and purchasing their weapons. They were legal guns. The result? Gun control advocates calling for stricter laws, because "they shouldn't have been allowed to buy guns."

Now if Virginia Tech and the Tuscon shooting were results of gunmen buying illegal guns off the streets, there wouldn't be as many gun control advocates calling for stricter laws, because it's obvious they weren't a result of any "failed" gun laws.

The only gun control advocates then calling for stricter laws would be the extreme gun grabbers, in which case I doubt anything could change their mind anyway.

I agree that the person is "just as dead", but that's not what I meant in my original post. I'm saying if a gunman were to inevitably go on a shooting spree, I'd rather have it been an illegal gun to show that strict gun regulation doesn't do a thing in regards to illegal guns.

You are playing their game by their rules. You shouldn't.

These people, those seeking to remove you from your right to own weapons, don't care if the weapons used were legally acquired or not.

If they are legally acquired they are happy and will use that against you.
If they are illegally acquired they lie or omit this fact from the conversation and they will STILL use this against you.

The two examples prove my point for me: the system FAILED regarding both VT and AZ; the very people this system was supposedly created to prevent from acquiring firearms in the first place and yet these people ignore this completely and demand more of the same broken system that brought us to this point!

These people are not rational, logical, or intellectually honest.

How many times have you heard a reporter refer to any non Ak-47 as an Ak-47 or a semi auto as an automatic? This isn't an accident. They either lie or they keep themselves ignorant because the buzz words help their argument; truth be damned.

The ONLY reason we are making headway is because people are being educated. Don't fall for the trap of wishing a criminal had gone full criminal before he went on his shooting spree.

Keep putting the truth out there where ever you can and the truth will do all the work for you.

wildhawker
01-16-2011, 4:38 PM
Marcus,

That one system fails does not mean that no system wouldn't.

I agree that the ultimate goal of most gun control advocates is not about the simple restriction of arms for the violent or mentally ill.

However, imperfect policy is created when both sides refuse to address the core issues.

If we *work* stubbornly from the position that no regulation is permissible or reasonable, then it should come as no surprise when we fail to secure the debate in the legislatures and public opinion.

Marcus Cicero
01-16-2011, 5:12 PM
Marcus,

That one system fails does not mean that no system wouldn't.

I agree but that is the problem.

The only systems that will work with any degree of near absolute success are so destructive to personal freedom, liberty, and responsibility that the cure has done more to kill the patient than the ailment.


I agree that the ultimate goal of most gun control advocates is not about the simple restriction of arms for the violent or mentally ill.

However, imperfect policy is created when both sides refuse to address the core issues.

If we *work* stubbornly from the position that no regulation is permissible or reasonable, then it should come as no surprise when we fail to secure the debate in the legislatures and public opinion.

We have not made progress due to firearm owners saying "Sure, regulate me some more."

We have made progress from people educating themselves regarding the Constitution, firearms in general, and the relationship between the criminals, police, and an armed populace and this process only started because firearms owners originally elected people who said "Sure, regulate me some more with some COMMON SENSE regulations" that brought us lovely legislation such as the NFA.

The second amendment has been absolutely ravaged by legislation from the states and the federal government for over one hundred years and only recently has begun receding in the states, the federal courts, and the Congress.

That did not happen because people such as Obama, Clinton, Johnson, Cummings, etc, changed their minds on gun control.

As for core issues: One side wants to disarm me completely any way they can (be it excessive taxation or outright prosecution) and the other side only gets into the ring after the fight has been fought leaving people like me who just want to be left alone in the middle.

I have seen the "compromise" found in the NFA, GCA, and FOPA, if you can call that compromise so I know enough to know that won't work to do anything but rob me of what firearm freedom I have left. I will stick to my own core principals while educating all of those around me.

dfletcher
01-16-2011, 9:22 PM
Now if Virginia Tech and the Tuscon shooting were results of gunmen buying illegal guns off the streets, there wouldn't be as many gun control advocates calling for stricter laws, because it's obvious they weren't a result of any "failed" gun laws. The only gun control advocates then calling for stricter laws would be the extreme gun grabbers, in which case I doubt anything could change their mind anyway.



Both these fellows bought guns legally so to speak - went through an FFL, background too. Depending on the state they're in a "face to face" private sale can be perfectly legal - people sell to each other in other states all the time at gun clubs, newspaper adverts. So if these two had bought their guns in that fashion, they would have broken no law BUT their having done so without going through an FFL would certainly, I think, have resulted in calls for more gun control.

If the "gunshow loophole" is ended but private sales away from gun shows allowed, it will be only a matter of time before someone buys face to face in that manner, does something bad and gun control proponents "discover" the "private party loophole" and go after it too.

That we're only about 65 to 35 against here tells me we're in a difficult situation opposing any legislation.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 12:33 AM
Both these fellows bought guns legally so to speak - went through an FFL, background too. Depending on the state they're in a "face to face" private sale can be perfectly legal - people sell to each other in other states all the time at gun clubs, newspaper adverts. So if these two had bought their guns in that fashion, they would have broken no law BUT their having done so without going through an FFL would certainly, I think, have resulted in calls for more gun control.

If the "gunshow loophole" is ended but private sales away from gun shows allowed, it will be only a matter of time before someone buys face to face in that manner, does something bad and gun control proponents "discover" the "private party loophole" and go after it too.

That we're only about 65 to 35 against here tells me we're in a difficult situation opposing any legislation.

People will still sell privately regardless of the law or not because people like to own "unregistered" guns. Yeah its unfortunate that we have to deal with our own on this one...

motorhead
01-17-2011, 10:00 AM
i still maintain there are NO good gun laws. they steal your rights piecemeal, in tiny increments.
your servitude may vary.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 11:43 AM
No, we don't, and we're doing everything we can to push YOUR agendas HERE! ;)

Well sir I'd like to believe you as a Californian brother. The military got me away and I appreciate the rights I have out here. Why are 30% of your Californian brothers not appreciating their rights to not have any communist interventions? Gun control has its racial and slavery roots. Why do these 30% support these communist bigots who wish to disarm peaceful people?

Archie B.
01-17-2011, 11:52 AM
I voted no for all the obvious reasons... :D

dfletcher
01-17-2011, 11:58 AM
Well sir I'd like to believe you as a Californian brother. The military got me away and I appreciate the rights I have out here. Why are 30% of your Californian brothers not appreciating their rights to not have any communist interventions? Gun control has its racial and slavery roots. Why do these 30% support these communist bigots who wish to disarm peaceful people?

I think, unfortunately, you'll find a fair amount of support for the "gun show loophole" being closed among gun owners in other states too. Not as much as in CA or states where nearly all sales must go through an FFL, but still a good deal of support.

Instead of gun shows I think "should the government ban all private sales and require a background check for all firearms sales?" would more accurately reflect what's at stake. Sales at gun shows constitute a very small percentage of guns sold, it's no surprise they don't statistically don't contribute to crime. The only time it comes up is when something big happens - can you imagine the problems if this most recent shooting occured as a result of a gun bought at a show?

IrishPirate
01-17-2011, 12:01 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

This. Also I'd exempt any intrafamilial transfers with a more expansive definition of what constitutes "family" than CA's definition (at least include siblings for christsakes...).

I really am worried what will happen if/when someone like Loughner, except who is a PP by virtue of being in the mental health system, buys a murder weapon at a gun show or similar. I'd rather our side write that legislation to be minimally restrictive than let the antis impose their own special brand of stupid bull****.

I'm on board with this....make it instant, make it cheap, and make it so brothers and sisters are included. I think if the pro gun side introduced legislation that "closed the gunshow loop hole", the anti's would jump on it, and we would get rid of some stupid restrictions in the process if it was written right.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 12:33 PM
Why not make it all go away IrishPirate?

dfletcher
01-17-2011, 1:25 PM
I'm on board with this....make it instant, make it cheap, and make it so brothers and sisters are included. I think if the pro gun side introduced legislation that "closed the gunshow loop hole", the anti's would jump on it, and we would get rid of some stupid restrictions in the process if it was written right.

Of course they'd jump on it because they'd get exactly what they want - private sales banned and WE get to pay to sell our private property. And what would gun owners get out of this?

Being lost in this discussion is that very few guns used in crime come from gun shows: http://www.wmsa.net/charlotte_obs_011203.htm

tiki
01-17-2011, 1:26 PM
Making all firearm purchases have to go through a FFL, prevents me from giving my brother a firearm as a gift!


What if his name is Jared Loughner?

Cokebottle
01-17-2011, 1:40 PM
What if his name is Jared Loughner?
Due process.
Jared purchased his gun from an FFL 100% legally.
The transaction could have taken place in California. Our 10 day waiting period would not have stopped him.
The old 15 day waiting period would not have stopped him.
Even a 30 day waiting period would not have stopped him.

At what point do you decline to sell a gun, or prohibit a sale?
A shop owner can refuse a sale if he suspects something is up, but for a sale to be legally prohibited, the buyer has to at some point, have done something to get him into "the system".

Should Jared have been in the system for a 5150 hold? Perhaps, but the fact remained that those around him did not put him into that situation, so his background check was clear.


We can't allow society to get into a "Minority Report" scenario where people are processed in the legal system because of something that they have not yet done.

Cokebottle
01-17-2011, 1:49 PM
I'm on board with this....make it instant, make it cheap, and make it so brothers and sisters are included. I think if the pro gun side introduced legislation that "closed the gunshow loop hole", the anti's would jump on it, and we would get rid of some stupid restrictions in the process if it was written right.
Wrong direction man.

We want to be here
V--------------------------------------------------
Our opponents want to be here
--------------------------------------------------V
We are here
------------------------V--------------------------

Anything done to move the arrow to the right is a victory for our opponents and a loss for us, regardless of who proposed it. The "Safe Handgun Roster" is the result of the SASS caving and supporting the roster after they were given their single-shot and single-action exemptions.
And at the time, the roster wasn't a big deal. It's purpose was supposed to keep cheap imports off of the market.
But as time went on, new regulations were added, and today, a new 1911 design (2011 for instance) can not be added to the roster.

We can't offer an olive branches to our opponents. That is only seen as a weakness. They will take the compromise, and in 6, 12, or 24 months, they will be back pushing for more regulation.

wildhawker
01-17-2011, 1:50 PM
Predator - can you describe how it would "all go away"?

-Brandon

taperxz
01-17-2011, 1:51 PM
Well sir I'd like to believe you as a Californian brother. The military got me away and I appreciate the rights I have out here. Why are 30% of your Californian brothers not appreciating their rights to not have any communist interventions? Gun control has its racial and slavery roots. Why do these 30% support these communist bigots who wish to disarm peaceful people?

If the imports from different states had not invaded this state the political structure in this state would not be the same. From lets say the mid to late 1970's and on. I also blame Hollywood and their antics in regards to gun laws in this state.

tiki
01-17-2011, 1:57 PM
Due process.
Jared purchased his gun from an FFL 100% legally.
The transaction could have taken place in California. Our 10 day waiting


This needs to be fixed. We do the same thing for temporary restraining orders.


We can't allow society to get into a "Minority Report" scenario where people are processed in the legal system because of something that they have not yet done.

No, but we have to look at the people that get thrown out of a school because of mental issues. You guys want gun rights to prevail. So you need to look at stopping the guys that pull Arizona, Columbine or Virginia Tech type stunts. We want to make it harder to stop these guys from getting guns, yet, every time one of them flips out, their actions fuel the anti's and puts public (the voters) sentiment on thier side.

12voltguy
01-17-2011, 2:05 PM
You can't. The government cannot protect you from criminals and the mentally ill.

Some people are mentally ill and they are not discovered until they act out (VA Tech?).

The only way such a scheme would work is if you required all citizens to exist at the pleasure of your government (i.e. mandatory mental health screenings, physicals, etc) and even at that you would be trading the risk of one party you do not know for another that you do know.

You people are afraid of certain people owning firearms. I get that. That is a normal and quite rational fear.

However freedom has a price: risk. You cannot completely mitigate risk and no government scheme exists or can exist that can protect you from that risk with out stripping you of your freedoms.
There is no middle ground or half way point where you can give up some rights to mitigate some risk. It doesn't exist.

why has nobody else spoke up on this?
make to much sence I guess.

Cokebottle
01-17-2011, 2:11 PM
No, but we have to look at the people that get thrown out of a school because of mental issues. You guys want gun rights to prevail. So you need to look at stopping the guys that pull Arizona, Columbine or Virginia Tech type stunts. We want to make it harder to stop these guys from getting guns, yet, every time one of them flips out, their actions fuel the anti's and puts public (the voters) sentiment on thier side.
The Columbine kids did not obtain their guns legally.
IIRC, there were at least 22 individual laws violated BEFORE they took their first step across the perimeter of the school.


Tell me again how laws stop criminals.

rromeo
01-17-2011, 2:20 PM
I was actually in the office of a few of our state delegates today. I don't think we changed her mind, but she acted like she was receptive to us.

And her aide Sharon Stoned me when she crossed her legs.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 3:14 PM
Predator - can you describe how it would "all go away"?

-Brandon

For one by not further supporting it letting alone having a desire to expand it. Voting your conscience and fighting these laws. Just keep on rolling them back. That is how.... Dunno if it will happen in my life time though. This left vs right paradigm don't help things either it be nice to see a third party step in but so long as people have the attitudes they have about voting outside the norm it is not going to happen either.

Better yet lets just time travel back to the roaring 20s lol...

-John

wildhawker
01-17-2011, 3:20 PM
John,

With all due respect, that's not even remotely realistic.

If you're going to argue a position so far away from where even some gun owners want to be, you really have to support it with more than that.

-Brandon

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 3:22 PM
Also educating new gun owners when teaching them history and the wrongs and evils of gun control. Introducing new shooters is a definite must.

IrishPirate
01-17-2011, 3:29 PM
so when did everyone lose faith in CGF to write legislation that wouldn't infringe on us as much as the Anti's would? I think if we took the approach now versus going to court and losing and letting the anti's get their way...we'd be better off. Like Wildhawker said, an instant, cheap (hell, even free!) transfer is something that the courts would most likely rule does not infringe on your rights. make the system easier than we currently have and we'd be proactively keeping guns out of the hands of criminals....then WE'D be able to say that we want the same things, yet we support law abiding citizens and show the general public that the anti's do not. how would this be a losing situation? it would be great for CA and for the "gun lobby" in general?

i'd love to see it all disapear, but that is NOT going to happen, so this is the next best thing!!!!

MasterYong
01-17-2011, 3:31 PM
so when did everyone lose faith in CGF to write legislation that wouldn't infringe on us as much as the Anti's would? I think if we took the approach now versus going to court and losing and letting the anti's get their way...we'd be better off. Like Wildhawker said, an instant, cheap (hell, even free!) transfer is something that the courts would most likely rule does not infringe on your rights. make the system easier than we currently have and we'd be proactively keeping guns out of the hands of criminals....then WE'D be able to say that we want the same things, yet we support law abiding citizens and show the general public that the anti's do not. how would this be a losing situation? it would be great for CA and for the "gun lobby" in general?

i'd love to see it all disapear, but that is NOT going to happen, so this is the next best thing!!!!

CGF writes legislation now???

Linky?

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 3:38 PM
so when did everyone lose faith in CGF to write legislation that wouldn't infringe on us as much as the Anti's would? I think if we took the approach now versus going to court and losing and letting the anti's get their way...we'd be better off. Like Wildhawker said, an instant, cheap (hell, even free!) transfer is something that the courts would most likely rule does not infringe on your rights. make the system easier than we currently have and we'd be proactively keeping guns out of the hands of criminals....then WE'D be able to say that we want the same things, yet we support law abiding citizens and show the general public that the anti's do not. how would this be a losing situation? it would be great for CA and for the "gun lobby" in general?

i'd love to see it all disapear, but that is NOT going to happen, so this is the next best thing!!!!

Its a losing situation because you're asking to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. Asking the masters to purchase your goods.

wildhawker
01-17-2011, 3:43 PM
People who think that rights - in practice - cannot be regulated *at all, in any manner*, are going to be tilting at windmills indefinitely, especially if they think such a society will ever exist in this highly-imperfect world with many competing interests.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 3:45 PM
John,

With all due respect, that's not even remotely realistic.

If you're going to argue a position so far away from where even some gun owners want to be, you really have to support it with more than that.

-Brandon

What do you want me to say Brandon? I mean this is not the political climate to obviously to meet those goals. Its not likely to happen unless there was a civil war or some crazy revolution. Which I am by no means advocating. I doubt a revolt will ever happen either.

The only way to convince these gun owners that love these silly laws is to point out the flaws in them. How pointless these background checks are. Asking why them why they like to ask a master to exercise the right to keep and bear arms? Getting them to think and not with fear. Its difficult it may take generations to beat it into the masses heads. Maybe even the others arguing here can word it better for you than I.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 3:48 PM
People who think that rights - in practice - cannot be regulated *at all, in any manner*, are going to be tilting at windmills indefinitely, especially if they think such a society will ever exist in this highly-imperfect world with many competing interests.

Well sir you're correct in that regard but we didn't have background checks for years. Sure there were state gun laws but wasn't the NFA the first federal gun law? (I'd have to do more research to see if there were any fed laws before) If not the first major federal law?

ARPirateMilitia
01-17-2011, 3:54 PM
Why don't they just make murder illegal... oh wait. The congress wont stop until they take our knives and all blunt objects.

The criminals and the representatives have a symbiotic relationship as civilians are disarmed the criminals have a much easier/safer time committing crimes which fuel new bills.

IrishPirate
01-17-2011, 4:03 PM
CGF writes legislation now???

Linky?

anyone can write legislation. you can write a bill and send it to your political representatives and they can submit it. I was using CGF as an example. I'm sure they are smart enough to submit the perfect compromise that actually wins us more rights.

Its a losing situation because you're asking to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. Asking the masters to purchase your goods.

you're delusional if you think that the courts, even SCOTUS is going to say that background checks infringe on your rights. AGAIN...I'M ALL FOR GETTING RID OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND WAITING PERIODS but there is no way that it's going to happen. rather than ask permission, why not write the laws ourselves to guarantee our rights?? is that harder than standing back and always playing defense? instead of asking permission like you claim, why not write our own rules? why is that option not discussed more?

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 4:18 PM
anyone can write legislation. you can write a bill and send it to your political representatives and they can submit it. I was using CGF as an example. I'm sure they are smart enough to submit the perfect compromise that actually wins us more rights.



you're delusional if you think that the courts, even SCOTUS is going to say that background checks infringe on your rights. AGAIN...I'M ALL FOR GETTING RID OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND WAITING PERIODS but there is no way that it's going to happen. rather than ask permission, why not write the laws ourselves to guarantee our rights?? is that harder than standing back and always playing defense? instead of asking permission like you claim, why not write our own rules? why is that option not discussed more?

Why not just leave it up to the states to write their own laws then? No, I don't think the courts would agree with me lol... What pisses me off is the fact if this law were closed I wouldn't just freely do business with my friends and family. Like gifting my old man a P64 last years fathers day and selling a guy my Mak because hes helping me do motor work on my truck. Some gun owners fear freedom I guess... I only crave it and appreciate it because I didn't have it in California. I know men who sell good and guns out here in Missouri even though in compliance with state law the feds ATF agents tried to shut them down. Its awful.... However he keeps selling guns LOL!!! I love my new home!

IrishPirate
01-17-2011, 4:44 PM
Why not just leave it up to the states to write their own laws then? No, I don't think the courts would agree with me lol... What pisses me off is the fact if this law were closed I wouldn't just freely do business with my friends and family. Like gifting my old man a P64 last years fathers day and selling a guy my Mak because hes helping me do motor work on my truck. Some gun owners fear freedom I guess... I only crave it and appreciate it because I didn't have it in California. I know men who sell good and guns out here in Missouri even though in compliance with state law the feds ATF agents tried to shut them down. Its awful.... However he keeps selling guns LOL!!! I love my new home!

I hear you, and i agree. it would be nice to be able to sell my friend guns without gov't intervention. But if someone could write a bill that did away with registration, ten day waiting periods, one gun in 30 days, included brothers and sisters in the intrafamily definition, and only required a simple, instant background check that could be done at any FFL or LEA and was either free or very cheap......i can't see how that would be a bad thing. The "gun show loophole" is a hot button issue that most likely will result in having to go through an FFL. If so, why not make it on our terms and not the anti's? I'm all for fighting it, but it's not a bad idea to have something to fall back on too. what would you suggest if this doesn't sound good to you?

i know there's a conflict of interest accross the states and what might be good for us in CA might set other states back. I can really only speak from my point of view here in CA.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 5:04 PM
I hear you, and i agree. it would be nice to be able to sell my friend guns without gov't intervention. But if someone could write a bill that did away with registration, ten day waiting periods, one gun in 30 days, included brothers and sisters in the intrafamily definition, and only required a simple, instant background check that could be done at any FFL or LEA and was either free or very cheap......i can't see how that would be a bad thing. The "gun show loophole" is a hot button issue that most likely will result in having to go through an FFL. If so, why not make it on our terms and not the anti's? I'm all for fighting it, but it's not a bad idea to have something to fall back on too. what would you suggest if this doesn't sound good to you?

i know there's a conflict of interest accross the states and what might be good for us in CA might set other states back. I can really only speak from my point of view here in CA.

Lets not pass it on a federal level because the states have rights and should have a say in the matter look at the majority of the states in this nation we can sell face to face and no bull. We can get suppressors, pre ban autos, ect. We practically only have federal laws to deal with. So I say leave it up to the individual states to decide if they wanna end capitalist sales between free non prohibited people. Look at the fire arms freedoms acts. The tides are changing and states want their rights recognized. They fight against the Real ID act, Obama Health Care, and gun laws. I am a liberated Californian and in a much happier place. So you can see why I get so rhiled up about pushing this one us out in these states. I say allow the states and their residents to have a say and debate whether it should be done on at the state level like California did. Whats best for California its not whats best for the rest of us. Lots of it has to do with our state constitutions as well too.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 5:09 PM
I talk to many gun owners from around the nation because they are military but the Missourian gun owners are happy with private party sales for the most part and do not want to end it and I agree with them.

Widdle
01-17-2011, 5:10 PM
NO! I don't consider following the letter of the law to be a loophole though.

The stats on this poll concern me. :(

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 5:41 PM
The AR-15 *is* a firearm in common use (see, e.g., Staples). There is virtually no chance that a total ban on AR-15s would be permissible, but a few cases need to get to the USSC in order to flesh this out.

Your logic in re NFA (and modifiers) is correct in that the very system of taxes, burdensome/onerous registration, and cutoff dates created a class(es) of arms possibly not in common use (though we simply don't know that at this point). Practically, we'll have to go through a number of cases and political steps to get where you want to be - and we have to be open to the possibility that we may not.

I'm afraid I don't know when you asked me about a global system of government-run transaction processing. The answer is no, I'm not in favor of what you describe. What does my preference matter here? I thought we were talking about the legal basis of such a system, not our feelings towards it.

I think we have a disconnect. I was asking about your feelings and not about the legal possibilities you mentioned a gun registration process could be enacted. The OP is asking if people think a nationwide CA system would be better and you provided a legal possibility that I read, as well as others possibly, as your personal opinion on what should be enacted in post #4. As you can see a few members agreed with your post and a few disagreed while I am now under the perception that you simply stated what could be possible and not what you actually desire personally. Thanks for the clarification.

I do think your opinion matters greatly as you are an active member of the CA gun owners community. Your words have power and if they are not clear you can see how they can be taken incorrectly and amplified inside and outside of Calguns.

As far as the AR-15 and NFA is is concerned I was actually referring to the original Armalite AR-15 that was designated M16 and not the Colt AR-15 semi-auto. Either way, you clearly understand what I was trying to get across.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 5:53 PM
People who think that rights - in practice - cannot be regulated *at all, in any manner*, are going to be tilting at windmills indefinitely, especially if they think such a society will ever exist in this highly-imperfect world with many competing interests.

It is the people that allow those rights to be infringed. Some people like HOA's because it keeps the neighbors from parking cars on the front lawn. Some people prefer to fight those battles themselves.

While there will never be zero regulation, the goal should be to have as little regulation as possible and let each citizen be responsible for his actions.

If the Fed gov decides to enact new gun laws AZ will pop up big in the news. The immigration and Constitutional Carry laws were the media sensation last year and once again this year but the really big show might just be seeing the fight over our Firearms Freedom Act. AZ could be ground zero in preventing hi-cap mag bans and additional registrations and hopefully the other 5 states will step up to the plate also.

It sure looks like AZ politicians only want to lessen government control of guns.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=385480

aklover_91
01-17-2011, 5:59 PM
Background checks on sales from a dealer are something I grudgingly admit is a good idea.

Mandatory background checks on private sales, however, are and will always be unenforceable. Unless you want owning a gun to be probable cause for the police to come into anyone's house to run serial numbers to make sure that this gun is registered to this person (because it would need to be registered to make sure the person who owns the gun is the person who the law thinks owns the gun), there's no point in doing it.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 6:07 PM
Background checks on sales from a dealer are something I grudgingly admit is a good idea.

Why do you feel it is a good idea for new guns? Can you explain it more in depth please sir? A barley used gun vs old gun... It don't matter to me I have only one new made gun I own.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 6:13 PM
Couldn't someone argue these background checks violate our 4th Amendment right to privacy too don't they?

IrishPirate
01-17-2011, 6:16 PM
if you want to say that states have rights, why not argue that they ahve the right to restrict gun sales too? if they have the right to decide what to do, who's to stop them from all going the way of CA? the Federal Gov't, that's who. By virtue of the Second Amendment. Only a Federal law which precludes all other laws on the topic would be right, since the 2A has been incorporated, it's not a Federal matter, not a state one.

I want to be able to drive to Maine and buy guns in every state i pass through, with no more than a few minute background check each time. I don't believe in gun registration, but i see no problem with making sure that felons aren't getting guns by doing a quick background check. by pro gun people pushing for this and attaching stipulations that make it so it's an instant backgound check with no wait time, and making sure the fee is very low, i think we'll come out ahead. just my $0.02

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 6:35 PM
I want to be able to drive to Maine and buy guns in every state i pass through, with no more than a few minute background check each time. I don't believe in gun registration, but i see no problem with making sure that felons aren't getting guns by doing a quick background check. by pro gun people pushing for this and attaching stipulations that make it so it's an instant backgound check with no wait time, and making sure the fee is very low, i think we'll come out ahead. just my $0.02

You can pretty much do that now. Only issue is you can't move handguns across state lines yourself and CA has more restrictions besides handguns.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 7:08 PM
You can pretty much do that now. Only issue is you can't move handguns across state lines yourself and CA has more restrictions besides handguns.

No you can't, not to many FFLs will sell to anyone with a CA iD. Nevada won't, Arizona won't. And the list goes on.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 7:10 PM
Heck, FFLs on gun broker won't even send us guns to our FFLs!

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 7:22 PM
if you want to say that states have rights, why not argue that they ahve the right to restrict gun sales too? if they have the right to decide what to do, who's to stop them from all going the way of CA? the Federal Gov't, that's who. By virtue of the Second Amendment. Only a Federal law which precludes all other laws on the topic would be right, since the 2A has been incorporated, it's not a Federal matter, not a state one.

I want to be able to drive to Maine and buy guns in every state i pass through, with no more than a few minute background check each time. I don't believe in gun registration, but i see no problem with making sure that felons aren't getting guns by doing a quick background check. by pro gun people pushing for this and attaching stipulations that make it so it's an instant backgound check with no wait time, and making sure the fee is very low, i think we'll come out ahead. just my $0.02

what do you think these background checks accomplish? Are all felons to be feared? I guess if you're armed and had CCW like we do it wouldn't matter. We have already beat that subject to death in here also. Why are these background checks necessary for all sales? Yes a state could make its self worse than California. We out here in Missouri had a bill like AB 692 but I dunno what happened with it here. (must have croaked) We also had a handgun permit not that long ago that was nixed but that had its racial roots in the first place. You can read about it in Unintended Consequences by the way. Buying pistols and rifles freely may be alien to you guys.

Do you really believe that felons worry about background checks? The Brady commie bigots came up with that idea. All it does is punish those that are not likely going to commit a crime. All we need to focus on is criminal misuse of firearms. A victimless crime of acquiring a firearm is silly its not until it is used improperly. The most recent tragedies both firearm purchases were through a dealer yet ironically 30% of you want to stop these private sales. Maybe because it makes you all sleep better at night? I fail to understand because all it is in my eyes is a feel good measure that does not prevent a damned thing. Humans make choices and sometimes those choices are criminal behavior. Do you guys love asking your government masters to buy a gun or something? I know you Irishpirate personally don't... We didn't always have these background checks in the past. Also guncite spoke of a blind background check yet I still feel its asking permission to exercise a granted privilege.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 7:36 PM
No you can't, not to many FFLs will sell to anyone with a CA iD. Nevada won't, Arizona won't. And the list goes on.

I'm not buying that. While there are FFL's that will not ship to CA there are many more that will. When I lived in CA a short while ago I had no problem finding dealers willing to ship to my local FFL even with the new paperwork.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 7:41 PM
I'm not buying that. While there are FFL's that will not ship to CA there are many more that will. When I lived in CA a short while ago I had no problem finding dealers willing to ship to my local FFL even with the new paperwork.

My reply was in regards to driving across the nation and buying guns along the way. Tough to do with a CA ID! Most FFLs out of state don't want to sell to CA because of the paper work

taperxz
01-17-2011, 7:46 PM
Predator, all your rants seem to be simply bashing CA. I can tell you this, I have been to Missouri, and it ain't all that. We will get the laws here fixed! We will then be the great state that IS 2a friendly.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 7:52 PM
Heck, FFLs on gun broker won't even send us guns to our FFLs!

Did you ever stop and think it might be because CA law makes it completely undesirable to ship guns into CA? Seriously, CA has a huge gun owner clientele yet no one wants to do business with CA FFL's.
Yet for some reason California gun owners are willing to add more laws onto the books. That makes zero sense.

Add the fact that CA FFL's in general charge anywhere from $50-300 to accept an out of state firearm which usually involves the buyer fighting with both FFL's. Cmon. why is it that I can walk into my local brick and mortar FFL and he charges me $25 to transfer in the same exact gun he has in his display case? I can even get the fee dropped to $15 if I use my local kitchen table FFL and he delivers!

taperxz
01-17-2011, 7:55 PM
You can pretty much do that now. Only issue is you can't move handguns across state lines yourself and CA has more restrictions besides handguns.


This is what YOU said in post 187. I disagree with your reply.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 7:57 PM
Predator, all your rants seem to be simply bashing CA. I can tell you this, I have been to Missouri, and it ain't all that. We will get the laws here fixed! We will then be the great state that IS 2a friendly.

It wasn't just the gun issue for me. Its way more than that... For me Missouri is king. I like the culture, people, and the less regulation I face out here. They do not for the most part want to hold my hand out here in Missouri its very rural out here and its part of the former confederate states of America. So yes for me personally I fit right in here as a country backwoods guy and not considered a "weirdo" for owning guns out here either. Hell people drive the same era trucks as mine. Its my kinda place and my new home my parents even live out here too. I guess it all depends on what you like and value.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 8:00 PM
BTW, I have a very good friend who lives in Surprise. He is looking forward to leaving regardless of the gun laws. His exact words were " Ya we got great gun laws here, but the wages don't allow most to be able to buy quality firearms. I can't wait to be able to afford to come home."

taperxz
01-17-2011, 8:04 PM
It wasn't just the gun issue for me. Its way more than that... For me Missouri is king. I like the culture, people, and the less regulation I face out here. They do not for the most part want to hold my hand out here in Missouri its very rural out here and its part of the former confederate states of America. So yes for me personally I fit right in here as a country backwoods guy and not considered a "weirdo" for owning guns out here either. Hell people drive the same era trucks as mine. Its my kinda place and my new home my parents even live out here too. I guess it all depends on what you like and value.

Obviously you have never been to the REAL parts of Northern CA, except for a few laws it's no different than let's say, Kentucky

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 8:14 PM
This is what YOU said in post 187. I disagree with your reply.

It can be done. Note I added that CA has more restrictions. It's not anyone's fault but a Californians that they can't buy guns like residents in almost all the other states.

CA paperwork required to buy a handgun:
1 gun per month
DROS
10 day wait
Safe handgun list
AW list
CFLC
HSC
4473

Yet some Californians want more laws.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 8:24 PM
BTW, I have a very good friend who lives in Surprise. He is looking forward to leaving regardless of the gun laws. His exact words were " Ya we got great gun laws here, but the wages don't allow most to be able to buy quality firearms. I can't wait to be able to afford to come home."

LOL. People move to Surprise to retire. I left CA in 2009 at the age of 36 to exit the workforce. My neighbors are all snowbirds from MI and Canada except for the one to my immediate left that has a summer home in Prescott. All I do is relax, watch the spring training games, watch my son grow up, and enjoy a few other simple activities. I work from home and I don't intend to fire myself anytime soon.

There are no jobs out here for a reason. We don't want them. The working folks are all in Phoenix and the east valley slogging away 9-5 M-F.

IrishPirate
01-17-2011, 8:30 PM
You can pretty much do that now. Only issue is you can't move handguns across state lines yourself and CA has more restrictions besides handguns.

wrong. a CA FFL must be involved in the process. So if you have your 03FFL and you're buying C&R long guns, then you're ok. But if you don't have an 03FFL or if you're buying handguns or non-C&R guns, then you have to have the gun shipped to a CA FFL. So no, you can't just drive to other states and buy guns. If you did, it would be a felony. Soon though, that may be a reality...can't remember the case name right now...

what do you think these background checks accomplish? Are all felons to be feared? I guess if you're armed and had CCW like we do it wouldn't matter. We have already beat that subject to death in here also. Why are these background checks necessary for all sales? Yes a state could make its self worse than California. We out here in Missouri had a bill like AB 692 but I dunno what happened with it here. (must have croaked) We also had a handgun permit not that long ago that was nixed but that had its racial roots in the first place. You can read about it in Unintended Consequences by the way. Buying pistols and rifles freely may be alien to you guys.

Do you really believe that felons worry about background checks? The Brady commie bigots came up with that idea. All it does is punish those that are not likely going to commit a crime. All we need to focus on is criminal misuse of firearms. A victimless crime of acquiring a firearm is silly its not until it is used improperly. The most recent tragedies both firearm purchases were through a dealer yet ironically 30% of you want to stop these private sales. Maybe because it makes you all sleep better at night? I fail to understand because all it is in my eyes is a feel good measure that does not prevent a damned thing. Humans make choices and sometimes those choices are criminal behavior. Do you guys love asking your government masters to buy a gun or something? I know you Irishpirate personally don't... We didn't always have these background checks in the past. Also guncite spoke of a blind background check yet I still feel its asking permission to exercise a granted privilege.

obviously you're not going to see the point. Yes i do believe background checks are important. I don't want violent felons getting guns. Does it stop them now? no, of course not, but that's mostly because the majority of gun laws are aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals. If someone is in the system as a prohibited person, they shouldn't be getting guns from an FFL. You think that rapist still deserve gun rights? Child molesters? Murderers (not always done with a gun you know...) kidnappers? Well I dont. If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but I'm tired of doing this :beatdeadhorse5:

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 8:35 PM
Don't get me wrong the weather is great in California but where I am from in Arroyo Grande there are wanna be Hollywood posers and idiots. Missouri is not a culture shock lol... Yeah I didn't travel CA much but I liked the off roading and national forest areas to shoot in that was fun. Been out to Yosemite and the Sierras too back packing and hiking. I hated the fact i need a stupid permit to camp and park my truck.

Can we get back on subject please? lol

taperxz
01-17-2011, 8:41 PM
LOL. People move to Surprise to retire. I left CA in 2009 at the age of 36 to exit the workforce. My neighbors are all snowbirds from MI and Canada except for the one to my immediate left that has a summer home in Prescott. All I do is relax, watch the spring training games, watch my son grow up, and enjoy a few other simple activities. I work from home and I don't intend to fire myself anytime soon.

There are no jobs out here for a reason. We don't want them. The working folks are all in Phoenix and the east valley slogging away 9-5 M-F.

LMAO I get to do the same thing but I get to do it here in N. CA. Raising horses and cattle on a large piece of land without having to move to Surprise. I've been there! I am glad your happy. I could never live there.

The Rangers lost the World Series, and that's all Surprise has.

Sorry but I do get tired of folks bashing CA, it is a great place to live if you know how to make it work for you.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 8:41 PM
wrong. a CA FFL must be involved in the process. So if you have your 03FFL and you're buying C&R long guns, then you're ok. But if you don't have an 03FFL or if you're buying handguns or non-C&R guns, then you have to have the gun shipped to a CA FFL. So no, you can't just drive to other states and buy guns. If you did, it would be a felony. Soon though, that may be a reality...can't remember the case name right now...



obviously you're not going to see the point. Yes i do believe background checks are important. I don't want violent felons getting guns. Does it stop them now? no, of course not, but that's mostly because the majority of gun laws are aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals. If someone is in the system as a prohibited person, they shouldn't be getting guns from an FFL. You think that rapist still deserve gun rights? Child molesters? Murderers (not always done with a gun you know...) kidnappers? Well I dont. If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but I'm tired of doing this :beatdeadhorse5:

No I ever said I believe they have a right. I already wrote about my thoughts on all that a few pages back.

im exhausted with beating the horse too...

To quote the Tullius: "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

Look man you can support the anti-gun commie bigots if you wish.

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 8:46 PM
wrong. a CA FFL must be involved in the process. So if you have your 03FFL and you're buying C&R long guns, then you're ok. But if you don't have an 03FFL or if you're buying handguns or non-C&R guns, then you have to have the gun shipped to a CA FFL. So no, you can't just drive to other states and buy guns. If you did, it would be a felony. Soon though, that may be a reality...can't remember the case name right now...


Reread my quote. I may be missing something with regard to CA law but as far as I know I can buy a gun in almost any state. I just can't take possession of it. I made it very clear that the handgun can't cross state lines by the purchaser.
I don't see why a CA resident can't drive through states, by a gun in each state that allows it, and have each FFL ship it to his local CA FFL. I would even go out on a limb and say the local FFL can hold each pistol for 30 days 1 second to comply with that law.

I had this happen to my cousin at the phoenix gun show. He lives in WI and thought he could just buy a pistol and take it home on the plane. The seller told him he had to have the FFL at the gun show do the paperwork and ship it to an FFL in WI. Again, maybe CA does not allow that but getting back to the topic, why would anyone want the nation to follow CA gun law?

taperxz
01-17-2011, 8:49 PM
No one wants more gun control on this forum in this state! What their saying is they are willing to take footsteps to repeal laws here because that's what it will take. Brandon basically told you this but your own rants about how great Missouri is seems to be more important to you

yoteassasin
01-17-2011, 8:49 PM
This idea comes up now and then, and I understand why, but I would not sacrifice the freedoms of others (in free states) to make things better here.
I say, give them nothing, take everything, burn their fields, and homes, salt the earth, and leave their heads on the fence posts as a warning to any who would oppose freedom in the future.

Metaphorically, of course.
YES!

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 9:01 PM
No one wants more gun control on this forum in this state! What their saying is they are willing to take footsteps to repeal laws here because that's what it will take. Brandon basically told you this but your own rants about how great Missouri is seems to be more important to you

30% want more gun control but the majority of the forum don't you're right about that...

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 9:12 PM
LMAO I get to do the same thing but I get to do it here in N. CA. Raising horses and cattle on a large piece of land without having to move to Surprise. I've been there! I am glad your happy. I could never live there.

The Rangers lost the World Series, and that's all Surprise has.

Sorry but I do get tired of folks bashing CA, it is a great place to live if you know how to make it work for you.

I don't ever recall bashing CA. I bash its laws and the residents that want more laws.

I loved every minute I was in CA from 2000-2009. Met my wife there. Made my son there. I miss walking out of my home in the Sunset every morning the fog was missing and seeing the Golden Gate bridge. I miss living in Sonoma county wine tasting and beach combing. I just don't want to raise my son in CA. When he is out of the house we might move back to San Francisco so better gun laws are a big concern for me.

Pred@tor
01-17-2011, 9:14 PM
I've just been trying to get a feel for the 30% as to why they feel they need to tell us all what to do in the rest of the states. I used Missouri because my life improved ten fold since I have been out here, for my thoughts, and experience. Still cannot quite grasp the idea of wanting more commie bigot laws that aim to disarm us. The only gun control I believe in is holding my weapon to make those accurate and safe shots. This minority of folks who own arms agree with our enemies.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 9:16 PM
Personally, I think the question asked is to vague. If the check is to make sure you are not a violent felon or a certified mental case then so be it. If you disagree, then why don't we just go ahead an arm the Taliban and Al Qaeda while we are at it. If you want to retain your 2a rights, don't do the crime! This isn't 2a specific either. Felons have their voting rights taken away also. A standard has been set.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 9:19 PM
I don't ever recall bashing CA. I bash its laws and the residents that want more laws.

I loved every minute I was in CA from 2000-2009. Met my wife there. Made my son there. I miss walking out of my home in the Sunset every morning the fog was missing and seeing the Golden Gate bridge. I miss living in Sonoma county wine tasting and beach combing. I just don't want to raise my son in CA. When he is out of the house we might move back to San Francisco so better gun laws are a big concern for me.

It's all good! To be fair though you can have San Francisco too.

Anchors
01-17-2011, 9:19 PM
Said differently, I think an [instant] background check and transfer process probably would be found to not seriously infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if the ability to complete the check/transfer were accessible, the process narrowly-tailored, and not unduly burdened by large fees, discretion and other similar policies.

From a policy perspective, the government could mandate that law enforcement offices should handle them, in addition to licensed FFLs. Get rid of the waiting periods and you have what is essentially a 15 minute administrative process that requires a limited inconvenience (both parties generally travel to meet anyway).

I voted no only because of the way they want it to be.
I think an easily accessible AND FREE system would be fair.
My criteria for accepting this would be:
1. No information from the background check is stored. Information about the gun other than "it is a firearm" should not be a part of the process and even this fact should be discarded after the person is cleared. Do away with 4473. Either you can own it or you can't. Period.
2. MUST BE FREE. FFL/government cannot charge a fee.
3. Make it easier for people to check themselves so that FTF transfers are possible. NO, you shouldn't be able to look up information on anyone, but simply they punch in their DL number on a secure government website and hit enter. The only responses from the site are "Yes." and "No/delayed."
If no/delayed, if the person calls to clear it up then change their status on the website as yes immediately. I think this would both protect privacy and give people the background checks they seek. I don't have a problem showing my drivers license to someone I'm buying a gun from, so them checking my DL number instead of checking my age really doesn't make a difference.

Ideally I think all transfers should be free of background checks, but I know they will eventually be expanded to private sales. So why do I still disagree with them? Because people who want guns get them either way. This is a staple of our argument and a very real fact. The lunatic/criminal will get that AK on the shelf whether it is from the dealer or not. At least if it is a legal gun the person selling it has the chance to size the person up, whereas the black market dealer they go to instead won't care if they are talking about doing someone crazy with it.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 9:36 PM
obviously you're not going to see the point. Yes i do believe background checks are important. I don't want violent felons getting guns. Does it stop them now? no, of course not, but that's mostly because the majority of gun laws are aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals. If someone is in the system as a prohibited person, they shouldn't be getting guns from an FFL.


Can you or somebody else please explain this line of thinking for me?

You freely admit that laws are only for those who care to follow the law so they do not apply to criminals in the sense the law will prevent anything.

You freely admit the current laws do not work.

Having conceded these two points you then conclude that you support law that does not work and only applies to the people you have no reason to worry about.

Why?



You think that rapist still deserve gun rights? Child molesters? Murderers (not always done with a gun you know...) kidnappers? Well I dont. If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but I'm tired of doing this :beatdeadhorse5:

If this is true then why do you support background checks? You freely admit the laws we have do not work and that laws only apply to those who follow laws.

Convicted child molesters, murders, kidnappers, etc, by definition are criminals who do not follow the law ergo these measures do not apply to them.

Therefore your support for useless, wasteful background checks does not serve your desire to keep firearms out of the hands of said criminals.

Why then do you continue to support background checks?

audiophil2
01-17-2011, 9:47 PM
This is the only question in the original post:

Should California's model regarding private party transfers be the law of the land?

The only choices are yes or no. The only change suggested was no 10 day wait.

If you answered yes then you are willing to submit the entire nation to:
DROS
HSC
Safety demonstration
4473
Any CA residents care to add what I am missing?

So the DROS fee everyone complains about 30% of participants want nationwide.

The little paper slip that says you can read a pamphlet at 3rd grade level 30% want nationwide.

The safety demonstration on the 50th gun you bought in 40 years 30% want nationwide.

The 4473 along with the fee and gun registration that goes with it 30% want nationwide.

Those 30% want this because they think it will weed out criminals and mentally ill people. Would someone please explain to me how this makes sense?

tiki
01-17-2011, 9:47 PM
Tell me again how laws stop criminals.

I never told you the first time.
There aren't any laws that would have prevented Loughner from pulling the trigger. But there are a few laws that could have severely restricted his ability to have his finger on the trigger. And I'm not talking about handgun safety cards and drop tests.
This guy was expelled from a college for mental health issues.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 9:47 PM
:rolleyes:Can you or somebody else please explain this line of thinking for me?

You freely admit that laws are only for those who care to follow the law so they do not apply to criminals in the sense the law will prevent anything.

You freely admit the current laws do not work.

Having conceded these two points you then conclude that you support law that does not work and only applies to the people you have no reason to worry about.

Why?

Because it makes it a little harder than just walking into walmart.

Heck, the way you think, why even put people in jail? After all a criminal is going to be an angel in the slammer. Right?

It's a punishment for committing a crime, an inconvenience, it's the only way to say "you suck felon"




If this is true then why do you support background checks? You freely admit the laws we have do not work and that laws only apply to those who follow laws.

Convicted child molesters, murders, kidnappers, etc, by definition are criminals who do not follow the law ergo these measures do not apply to them.

Therefore your support for useless, wasteful background checks does not serve your desire to keep firearms out of the hands of said criminals.

Why then do you continue to support background checks?

taperxz
01-17-2011, 9:49 PM
It's a punishment, an inconvenience, a way to tell that criminal that they suck!

trashman
01-17-2011, 9:50 PM
Why then do you continue to support background checks?

Although he didn't articulate it, probably for the same reason that I do.

Even though background checks are anathema to the concept of 'pure' liberty (as it relates to owning guns), they are a very low-impact way to reduce the POLITICAL risk of owning guns: by using background checks we can ensure that criminals cannot regularly and easily source their guns from the same shops we law-abiding folks do.

(Note that nothing will ever stop the Loughners of the world from premeditated slaughter - that's not the problem we're trying to solve)

Although they are distasteful, background checks build a factual basis for holding the line against other more nonsensical anti-gun legislation.

While we should always be vigilant when dealing with anti-gunnies, that should not stop us from looking for opportunities where we share obvious (and honest) common ground: keeping guns out of the hands of folks who are prohibited from owning them.

--Neill

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 10:08 PM
Although he didn't articulate it, probably for the same reason that I do.

Even though background checks are anathema to the concept of 'pure' liberty (as it relates to owning guns), they are a very low-impact way to reduce the POLITICAL risk of owning guns: by using background checks we can ensure that criminals cannot regularly and easily source their guns from the same shops we law-abiding folks do.

These people acquire illegal drugs that are shipped over entire continents through a myriad of police states with armies of men and women looking for them. Do you not think the word "easily" is a bit more flexible with these people than it is for you or I?

The idea that a gang banger cannot just walk into Walmart and buy a gun does not do me any good when he can pay his girlfriend or sister to walk in and buy it for him. Approximately 78% (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) of criminals purchase their weapons in this fashion or in a fashion very similar to this.

What you have is a law that is practically useless but serves the purpose of appearing to do something.

I am not interested in sacrificing my freedoms for appearances regardless of how "low impact" they may seem.

How much freedom have we lost due to highly invasive laws that began life as "low impact", common sense compromises?


(Note that nothing will ever stop the Loughners of the world from premeditated slaughter - that's not the problem we're trying to solve)

Although they are distasteful, background checks build a factual basis for holding the line against other more nonsensical anti-gun legislation.

While we should always be vigilant when dealing with anti-gunnies, that should not stop us from looking for opportunities where we share obvious (and honest) common ground: keeping guns out of the hands of folks who are prohibited from owning them.

--Neill

Why is your goal to keep "guns out of the hands of folks who are prohibited from owning them" when a peaceful, nonviolent person can just as easily be made a prohibited person with the stroke of a pen?

Shouldn't your goal be to keep firearms out of the hands of folks who are known threats to society as demonstrated by their past actions of violence?

If that is truly your goal then why go after firearms at all? Why not make the criminal acts so heinous and carry such strong penalties that either the person is dissuaded from carrying out such acts or the person is removed from society permanently when convicted of such offenses?

The easiest way to keep firearms out of the hands of such undesirable people such as murderers, rapists, etc, is to keep them in prison or put them to death.

That solution does not require me sacrificing my freedoms for a useless, expensive gesture that serves no purpose other than placating the feelings and desires of other people.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 10:16 PM
It's a punishment, an inconvenience, a way to tell that innocent citizen that they suck!

Fixed for accuracy.

Criminals are not punished as they can own a myriad of weapons law abiding citizens wouldn't touch even if they could physically acquire them due to their desire to follow the law.

Criminals are no more inconvenienced than they would asking their friend to pick up their taco bell rather than do it themselves.

The punishment, inconvenience, and the suck are all directed towards the citizen who just wants to live their lives with in the letter of the law.

Anchors
01-17-2011, 10:21 PM
wrong. a CA FFL must be involved in the process. So if you have your 03FFL and you're buying C&R long guns, then you're ok. But if you don't have an 03FFL or if you're buying handguns or non-C&R guns, then you have to have the gun shipped to a CA FFL. So no, you can't just drive to other states and buy guns. If you did, it would be a felony. Soon though, that may be a reality...can't remember the case name right now...



obviously you're not going to see the point. Yes i do believe background checks are important. I don't want violent felons getting guns. Does it stop them now? no, of course not, but that's mostly because the majority of gun laws are aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals. If someone is in the system as a prohibited person, they shouldn't be getting guns from an FFL. You think that rapist still deserve gun rights? Child molesters? Murderers (not always done with a gun you know...) kidnappers? Well I dont. If you want to believe otherwise, fine, but I'm tired of doing this :beatdeadhorse5:

You know there are other things that classify people as prohibited from owning firearms/ammunition right?
Things that are non-violent, non-drug related, and have nothing to do with mental health.

I never told you the first time.
There aren't any laws that would have prevented Loughner from pulling the trigger. But there are a few laws that could have severely restricted his ability to have his finger on the trigger. And I'm not talking about handgun safety cards and drop tests.
This guy was expelled from a college for mental health issues.

Really? Can you please tell me what would stop a crazy criminal from buying a gun?
There aren't any laws that would stop him from obtaining the gun either.
Everyone say it with me:
Criminals (and you can't argue that he isn't one) can still obtain guns regardless of legal status.
You honestly don't think he could have gone to South Phoenix and gotten someone to hook him up with a gun?
Clearly you have never been to South Phoenix or any other area with high gang/criminal activity.

He could have searched for all of two hours to buy a gun and gotten one.
He could have stolen one, in Arizona his odds are pretty good of breaking into a house and finding a gun. I would bet at least one out of every three houses has at least one firearm in it there (if not more).

The real point is, criminals will get guns no matter what. Just like drug dealers get crack no matter what (it is prohibited too, you know).
Don't forget the Second Amendment, why should his actions affect me?
If we could wave a wand and make all criminal's guns disappear of course we would do it, no one is arguing that. But that is not possible.

Anchors
01-17-2011, 10:23 PM
These people acquire illegal drugs that are shipped over entire continents through a myriad of police states with armies of men and women looking for them. Do you not think the word "easily" is a bit more flexible with these people than it is for you or I?

The idea that a gang banger cannot just walk into Walmart and buy a gun does not do me any good when he can pay his girlfriend or sister to walk in and buy it for him. Approximately 78% (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) of criminals purchase their weapons in this fashion or in a fashion very similar to this.

What you have is a law that is practically useless but serves the purpose of appearing to do something.

I am not interested in sacrificing my freedoms for appearances regardless of how "low impact" they may seem.

How much freedom have we lost due to highly invasive laws that began life as "low impact", common sense compromises?




Why is your goal to keep "guns out of the hands of folks who are prohibited from owning them" when a peaceful, nonviolent person can just as easily be made a prohibited person with the stroke of a pen?

Shouldn't your goal be to keep firearms out of the hands of folks who are known threats to society as demonstrated by their past actions of violence?

If that is truly your goal then why go after firearms at all? Why not make the criminal acts so heinous and carry such strong penalties that either the person is dissuaded from carrying out such acts or the person is removed from society permanently when convicted of such offenses?

The easiest way to keep firearms out of the hands of such undesirable people such as murderers, rapists, etc, is to keep them in prison or put them to death.

That solution does not require me sacrificing my freedoms for a useless, expensive gesture that serves no purpose other than placating the feelings and desires of other people.

I'm with this guy^
Thumbs up for logic.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 10:24 PM
That's not true. You are just flat out wrong! We are still a nation of laws.

In your world, it would be ok to go to war and expect no deaths. In other words an absolute perfect scenario with the perfect outcome. You can't expect your perfect world in a free society.

In order to have good you have to have bad and in order to have both there needs to be some sort of rule.

Anchors
01-17-2011, 10:34 PM
That's not true. You are just flat out wrong! We are still a nation of laws.

In your world, it would be ok to go to war and expect no deaths. In other words an absolute perfect scenario with the perfect outcome. You can't expect your perfect world in a free society.

In order to have good you have to have bad and in order to have both there needs to be some sort of rule.

Please include who and what you are replying to.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 10:36 PM
Fixed for accuracy.

Criminals are not punished as they can own a myriad of weapons law abiding citizens wouldn't touch even if they could physically acquire them due to their desire to follow the law.

Criminals are no more inconvenienced than they would asking their friend to pick up their taco bell rather than do it themselves.

The punishment, inconvenience, and the suck are all directed towards the citizen who just wants to live their lives with in the letter of the law.

This is who!

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 10:40 PM
That's not true. You are just flat out wrong! We are still a nation of laws.

What part of what I wrote is not true? Please be specific.

As for a nation of laws.... will you be singing that tune when your President signs an executive order giving the military the authority to take private American citizens, remove them from their property, and detain them against their will with out due process of law?

Yes, we are a nation of laws but those laws are bound by ONE LAW: the Constitution.

Are you to suggest that all laws, regardless of their content, are to be treated equally and are to be obeyed with out question?

In your world, it would be ok to go to war and expect no deaths. In other words an absolute perfect scenario with the perfect outcome. You can't expect your perfect world in a free society.

I seek personal liberty. No more. No less. Freedom isn't perfect. Freeom isn't neat or clean. Freedom isn't a warm blanket that makes you feel all warm and safe.

Freedom is scary. Freedom means you can fail. Freedom means you can die a painful death.

To use the old cliche': freedom isn't free. Freedom is expensive and messy and by God I will take it every day and twice on Sunday to any form of "ordered safety" that someone may try to trade me for my birthright as a free man.

In order to have good you have to have bad and in order to have both there needs to be some sort of rule.
I get the bad part: I have to spend a lot of money, both in tax dollars and in FFL fees, to purchase a firearm from a FFL.

I get the worse to bad part: I must now ask permission from my government to exercise the right of purchasing private property.

I get that.

Please explain the "good" part to me. What is the good that comes with the bad?

Is the good that criminals no longer have access to firearms? That isn't true.
Is the good that criminals have a harder time accessing firearms? That isn't true especially relative to their chosen line of work.

Please enlighten me: what is the good that comes with the bad in this situation?

taperxz
01-17-2011, 10:52 PM
In order to have good there has to be a bad.

You are just paranoid. Your scenario is not rational. We are not communist. Gun laws are going to become more favorable to Californians. CGF is doing this. You appear to be a raving newbie here who hasn't seen the good the CRPA and CGF have and are doing.

Even the 1A has rules that can't be abused without punishment of some kind. A background check is a minor inconvenience to make sure your not a dirtbag criminal.

It's OUR society and it's OURS to take care of.

taperxz
01-17-2011, 10:54 PM
Oh BTW. You don't HAVE to buy, pay tax and FFL fees if you don't want to. You don't have to buy a gun! No one is twisting your arm! You choose to do this! You just don't like the rules

taperxz
01-17-2011, 10:57 PM
You knew the rules going in and yet you still choose to purchase! If you really wanted to make your point based on your argument you should be boycotting firearms purchases.

Anchors
01-17-2011, 11:01 PM
In order to have good there has to be a bad.

You are just paranoid. Your scenario is not rational. We are not communist. Gun laws are going to become more favorable to Californians. CGF is doing this. You appear to be a raving newbie here who hasn't seen the good the CRPA and CGF have and are doing.

Even the 1A has rules that can't be abused without punishment of some kind. A background check is a minor inconvenience to make sure your not a dirtbag criminal.

It's OUR society and it's OURS to take care of.

I disagree with you for the most part.
Yes laws must exist even if people break them.
I don't believe (example) we should just stop taking away licenses from DUI drivers based on the assumption that they will just drink and drive anyway (even though this is true, as evidenced by people with multiple DUIs).

At the same time, I don't think the bartender should have the right to make sure you don't have your keys based on the assumption that you probably go there by driving.
This is a more specific and important right so no analogy really does it justice.

The only time I would agree with background checks is like I stated above.
No information about the gun is transmitted other than "Mr. Anchors at 1234 Garand Lane is trying to buy a firearm. Is he allowed?" Yes or no answer.
No 4473, no recording information about the gun, certainly no registration, no information on the gun owner stored. Nothing.

What is wrong with the background checks only verifying eligibility?
The way it is now is plain wrong.
And even if we had it the way I think it should be, one regulation always leads to more.
I shouldn't have to go pay an FFL to sell a guy my gun private party. That is BS.
It should be free if they are going to restrict it.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:02 PM
In order to have good there has to be a bad.

I get the bad part: I have to spend a lot of money, both in tax dollars and in FFL fees, to purchase a firearm from a FFL.

I get the worse to bad part: I must now ask permission from my government to exercise the right of purchasing private property.

I get that.

Please explain the "good" part to me. What is the good that comes with the bad?

Is the good that criminals no longer have access to firearms? That isn't true.
Is the good that criminals have a harder time accessing firearms? That isn't true especially relative to their chosen line of work.

Please enlighten me: what is the good that comes with the bad in this situation?

You are just paranoid. Your scenario is not rational. We are not communist.

That scenario is not hyperbole or a hypothetical. I was referencing an event that occurred over 60 years ago under President Franklin Roosevelt that started with Executive Order 9066 where the US military set up internment camps and interned thousands of American citizens with out a trial or due process.

A related event (although not as flamboyant) occurred under President Woodrow Wilson.

A similar event occurred under President Abraham Lincoln who marched Union soldiers into a state that had not voted for secession and used Union troops to sway a state election. Lincoln also used military tribunals to try and banish a sitting member of the US Congress.

A similar event occurred under President Andrew Jackson. You may have heard of this one. Perhaps not.

I can go on if you like. Communists are not the only people who don't much care for personal liberty although they certainly are among them.

Should I be paranoid to think my government may, in the future, do something they have already done to American citizens in the past?

Gun laws are going to become more favorable to Californians. CGF is doing this. You appear to be a raving newbie here who hasn't seen the good the CRPA and CGF have and are doing.

Even the 1A has rules that can't be abused without punishment of some kind. A background check is a minor inconvenience to make sure your not a dirtbag criminal.

It's OUR society and it's OURS to take care of.

Not all "criminals" are dirt bags. Give me your tax returns and the power to subpoena your records and I can show you just how much a criminal you have been over your life time (whether you wanted to be or not).

Our society brought us the NFA, GCA, FOPA, and FAWB to say nothing of various ATF rulings opinions and Presidential Executive Orders and restrictive state legislation. That's just in the last one hundred years. I can go back, of course, to the origins of gun control laws in the USA starting with slaves and freed slaves if you wish.

I may be a "raving newbie" but I do have a firm grasp of history.

Yes, CRPA and CGF have done amazing things for firearm owners and they continue to do amazing things but this is not directly related to the conversation at hand.

Now kindly answer my question from my previous post: what, exactly, did I get wrong?

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:04 PM
Oh BTW. You don't HAVE to buy, pay tax and FFL fees if you don't want to. You don't have to buy a gun! No one is twisting your arm! You choose to do this! You just don't like the rules



. .... you don't have to vote. Nobody is forcing you to vote. However you just need to pay the poll tax and pass the poll test before you can vote.

Nobody is twisting your arm! You just don't like the rules!

:rolleyes:

Your grasp of the US Constitution and personal liberty seems to be lacking....

Anchors
01-17-2011, 11:08 PM
Oh BTW. You don't HAVE to buy, pay tax and FFL fees if you don't want to. You don't have to buy a gun! No one is twisting your arm! You choose to do this! You just don't like the rules

You knew the rules going in and yet you still choose to purchase! If you really wanted to make your point based on your argument you should be boycotting firearms purchases.

That is stupid.
Should I not drive a car because I think registration fees are unethical and illegal?

You shouldn't HAVE to make a choice to pay FFL fees, tax, buy, whatever.
You have the right to, that is not in question.
Just because you don't like the rules doesn't make them right.

No one likes the essentially non-issuance of CCW in CA, but that doesn't mean we should just say "Oh well, that is the rule. Forget about it. I knew that".
You can lay down and take whatever they tell you to, but rules are just made by other men and you and I have the right to disagree with and protest them.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:10 PM
That is stupid.
Should I not drive a car because I think registration fees are unethical and illegal?

You shouldn't HAVE to make a choice to pay FFL fees, tax, buy, whatever.
You have the right to, that is not in question.
Just because you don't like the rules doesn't make them right.

No one likes the essentially non-issuance of CCW in CA, but that doesn't mean we should just say "Oh well, that is the rule. Forget about it. I knew that".
You can lay down and take whatever they tell you to, but rules are just made by other men and you and I for have the right to disagree with and protest them.


Very well said.

Anchors
01-17-2011, 11:11 PM
. .... you don't have to have vote. Nobody is forcing you to vote. However you just need to pay the poll tax and pass the poll test before you can vote.

Nobody is twisting your arm! You just don't like the rules!

:rolleyes:

Your grasp of the US Constitution and personal liberty seems to be lacking....

Best example ever.
Poll tax. Wasn't that started to try and deprive poor, black citizens who had just earned the right to vote from doing so?
Sounds like something else they did once....
Oh yeah, gun laws were started to deprive poor, black citizens a means to defend themselves.

This is fact.

Patriot Man
01-17-2011, 11:12 PM
This has already happened in Columbine I think.

What people have a hard time seeing is that the number of crazy people who buy a gun and then go on a murder spree is vanishingly small, it just gets exploited by the media every time it happens.

Freedom has consequences, just like a totalitarian state has consequences. I prefer the consequences of freedom.

:rockon::rockon:::::patriot::patriot::patriot:

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:20 PM
Best example ever.
Poll tax. Wasn't that started to try and deprive poor, black citizens who had just earned the right to vote from doing so?
Sounds like something else they did once....
Oh yeah, gun laws were started to deprive poor, black citizens a means to defend themselves.

This is fact.

Exactly.

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:24 PM
That is stupid.
Should I not drive a car because I think registration fees are unethical and illegal?

You shouldn't HAVE to make a choice to pay FFL fees, tax, buy, whatever.
You have the right to, that is not in question.
Just because you don't like the rules doesn't make them right.

No one likes the essentially non-issuance of CCW in CA, but that doesn't mean we should just say "Oh well, that is the rule. Forget about it. I knew that".
You can lay down and take whatever they tell you to, but rules are just made by other men and you and I have the right to disagree with and protest them.

FFL fees? So the ffl has no right to make a living?

The rules are only wrong to those who think they are wrong

essentially non issuance of ccw's? Thats not a California problem that is a county by county problem!! Some counties issue like its trick or treat candy!!

I don't like alot of the rules either but a fed background check to make sure you are not a prohibited person does not bother me at all.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:27 PM
FFL fees? So the ffl has no right to make a living?

The rules are only wrong to those who think they are wrong

essentially non issuance of ccw's? Thats not a California problem that is a county by county problem!! Some counties issue like its trick or treat candy!!

I don't like alot of the rules either but a fed background check to make sure you are not a prohibited person does not bother me at all.


Poll tax fees? So the states have no right to draw in revenue?

The rules are only wrong to those who think they are wrong

essentially non issuance of voting? Thats not a California problem that is a county by county problem!! Some counties allow voting like its trick or treat candy!!

I don't like alot of the rules either but a fed tax and test to make sure you are not going to vote the way I don't want you to vote does not bother me at all.



:rolleyes:

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:27 PM
Best example ever.
Poll tax. Wasn't that started to try and deprive poor, black citizens who had just earned the right to vote from doing so?
Sounds like something else they did once....
Oh yeah, gun laws were started to deprive poor, black citizens a means to defend themselves.

This is fact.

WAS a tax

I don't think i should have to pay property tax. I don't like paying any tax!!

I love having our military though!! So i pay. Oh, and as Americans we have a right to that security! Don't we! We are still taxed for it though.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:29 PM
WAS a tax

I don't think i should have to pay property tax. I don't like paying any tax!!

I love having our military though!! So i pay. Oh, and as Americans we have a right to that security! Don't we! We are still taxed for it though.

How about a tax on voting that is, oh, $20,000 per vote?

I mean, hey, I don't think I should have to pay it because I don't like taxes but I love having our military!

You should pay! We have a right to security after all and we are taxed for it.

A $20,000 tax for 1 vote is reasonable!



:rolleyes:

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:31 PM
Marcus i pay a lot more than that in taxes!!

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:32 PM
Marcus i pay a lot more than that in taxes!!

Oh so you have no problem chipping in an extra $20,000 so you can vote?

F-22's and Carrier Battle Groups are expensive after all.




:rolleyes:

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:33 PM
Besides you are just inventing rhetoric for the sake of argument.

Do you realize you are comparing a vote at the cost of $20,000 to a 10 minute background check to make sure the purchaser of a firearm is not a prohibited person. LOL get real!

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:34 PM
Oh so you have no problem chipping in an extra $20,000 so you can vote?

F-22's and Carrier Battle Groups are expensive after all.




:rolleyes:

I basically already do.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:35 PM
I basically already do.

You cut a check to your state for $20,000 for each and every vote you submit?

Did you wrote "Vote tax" on the memo line?

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:37 PM
You cut a check to your state for $20,000 for each and every vote you submit?

Did you wrote "Vote tax" on the memo line?

Yes Marcus i do pay that money to vote and here is why!

If i didn't pay those taxes i would be arrested and put in jail for tax evasion. I would be a convicted felon and would lose my right to own a firearm and vote.

Marcus Cicero
01-17-2011, 11:39 PM
Yes Marcus i do pay that money to vote and here is why!

If i didn't pay those taxes i would be arrested and put in jail for tax evasion. I would be a convicted felon and would lose my right to own a firearm and vote.

Not exactly.

You see while it is a felony offense to willfully evade taxes it is not a felony offense to quit your job and go on welfare.

You don't have to work and if you do so you will be hard pressed to take in income which means you will pay significantly less in income tax (and most probably get more back than you pay in via Making work pay, EITC and California tax payer provided goodies).

They will still let you vote.

Ergo you do not pay $20,000 for each and every vote you cast.

:rolleyes:

taperxz
01-17-2011, 11:41 PM
But again, that is your choice and i choose not to live that way. Do you?