PDA

View Full Version : "Gun show loophole" focus of MSNBC article


SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 6:31 AM
In what I suspect to be a concerted push by liberal media sources, the myth of the "gun show loophole" rears its ugly head.

I dont even know where to begin with an article like this.... Lets just say I have a new found respect for the "editorial board" at the Washington Post...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/

Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.

NBC News hired Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help with our investigation. Barborini said that the online sales loophole permits what he called “a weapons bazaar for criminals. There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.”

We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol – no questions asked.

Many weapons used in deadly gun violence can be traced back to private sales.

For our next meeting, we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage, even telling the seller point-blank that we probably couldn’t pass a background check. Another seller showed up with a tactical shotgun, an assault rifle and his 7-year-old son. Remember, our buyers could have been dangerous felons!

But the scariest transaction came after dark in a pharmacy parking lot. The online ad was for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter. But the seller was so laid-back, you’d think he was hocking a used bicycle.

And it’s happening nationwide. In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg led another investigation, buying guns in 14 states, even after the buyers said they couldn’t pass a background check.

Oh my goodness.

Are these setups straw buys? I was going to call my local ATF field office and report them.

Also I was incredibly impressed with the comments left after the last WAPO smear job. I feel like writing stories that are written for the lowest common denominator, light on facts and reality, using hyperbole and lurid early 20th century pulp fiction descriptors are the last gasp of the losing side. We are watching these bull**** purveyors and we outnumber them. Of course, in American politics the winner is usually who shouts the loudest, so leave a comment and donate to the NRA/SAF/CGF.

Mesa Tactical
02-09-2012, 6:45 AM
The "gun show loophole" is now the "online sales loophole?"

I think a more accurate term for it is the "freedom of speech and assembly loophole."

Yeah, that loophole.

BucDan
02-09-2012, 6:50 AM
I thought all sales ppr or ffl had to ho through an ffl for a background check, then you carry home...

Anyone care to enlighten me?

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 6:55 AM
In California. In a free(er) state, people may dispose of their private property as they wish. I would caution discretion, but the law does not require it. If someone tells me flat out they cant pass a background check, I would have my reservations...

Sigh... I don't even have the energy to refute most of this sensational garbage. Anti gunners dig themselves further and further into the hole with this type of "reporting". We the people who respect the Constitution will NEVER compromise on this issue. You can look back on the utter failure of 70+ years of "gun control" in this country, much of it brought on from compromising in good faith with people that support the last vestiges of racist jim crow policy ie "gun control"... Well, no more. Bloomberg (who I suspect is behind this recent push, see WAPO editorial and Super Bowl ad) is a tyrant, but he is only one man, inspite of all his money and armed guards.

Your "common sense" is illogical, your propaganda and tactics are lies, your empire is crumbled. We reject your philosophy of state domination and control utterly and forever.

The "gun lobby" is four million indivdual NRA members, and millions more in groups and unaffliated patriots. The tide is turning.

Mesa Tactical
02-09-2012, 6:57 AM
In California. In a free(er) state, people may dispose of their private property as they wish. I would caution descretion, but the law does not require it.

The "everywhere but California, New York and a few other states loophole."

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 6:58 AM
Like

Curley Red
02-09-2012, 7:01 AM
buy a freaking AK-47.”[/I]

Freaking AK-47? Is this a new model? Freaking idiots. My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50. In California the main reason they banned the 50BMG was because it supposedly could take down a commercial airliner, even though one has never been taken down, and probably never in the movies either.

scarville
02-09-2012, 7:04 AM
The "gun show loophole" is now the "online sales loophole?"

I think a more accurate term for it is the "freedom of speech and assembly loophole."

Yeah, that loophole.
In the current legal climate, I think we need more loopholes. I think we need a gun store loophole and a backward over the fence loophole and a selling from my trunk in an alley loophole. If the hoplophobes really don't want a world full of loopholes then stop messing with the natural human right to self defense.

Maestro Pistolero
02-09-2012, 7:07 AM
Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.Which, as I recall, is already against state and federal law. What exactly is he proposing, a law that says: "No, really, it's illegal"?

Stonewalker
02-09-2012, 7:15 AM
Wow. Good find SPS, I haven't read an anti-gun piece this sensational in a very long time. This feels like the kind of stuff written in the mid-late 90's. I'm honestly sort of confused.

Mesa Tactical
02-09-2012, 7:17 AM
Which, as I recall, is already against state and federal law. What exactly is he proposing, a law that says: "No, really, it's illegal"?

Stop! Or I will yell "stop" a second time!

Wow. Good find SPS, I haven't read an anti-gun piece this sensational in a very long time. This feels like the kind of stuff written in the mid-late 90's. I'm honestly sort of confused.

Bloomberg is making a big push. No coincidence a flurry of these articles have appeared in recent weeks.

I suspect but do not know that, this being an election year, Bloomberg wants to reinsert gun control into the national dialogue. Good luck with that.

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 7:20 AM
Freaking AK-47? Is this a new model? Freaking idiots. My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50. In California the main reason they banned the 50BMG was because it supposedly could take down a commercial airliner, even though one has never been taken down, and probably never in the movies either.

and this guy was a federal agent....

winnre
02-09-2012, 7:26 AM
So they are basically saying that criminals do not follow all the laws we made for them. So let's get rid of the dumb laws then.

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 7:29 AM
Wow. Good find SPS, I haven't read an anti-gun piece this sensational in a very long time. This feels like the kind of stuff written in the mid-late 90's. I'm honestly sort of confused.

I have been posting these because they have been coming up a lot lately. I usually dont concern myself with one off anti gun editorials or "features". As someone pointed out the other day, its just more opinion... which, like a certian body part, everyone's got one...

But the increased frequency, plus the tone and tenor lead me to belive that we are in for some kind of legislative push or something (thank God for the NRA)

You are right about the 90's esq feel. This type of raging hyperbole seemed to be everywhere back then (looking back now) The main difference is the comment page... (God bless the internet?)

I was a kid in 1994, only 14, but I recall klin-ton at the televised signing ceremony for the AW ban, flanked by rows and rows of uniformed police union reps.. There's a great essay on that time and circumstance in my sig line. Sam Francis refers to JIm Brady as "a pathetic human houseplant" and you can hear the audience groan, laugh, or applaud from the auditorium to the capitol.....

SilverTauron
02-09-2012, 7:31 AM
Interesting, that the mainstream media is expending money and effort to vilify people selling their property privately and legally when there are hearings now of Government officials illegally arming international drug syndicates with long arms by the carload.

A dirty secret about the so called "background check system";criminals will send a straw buyer to make the transaction if they want to anyhow, and legal citizens with names similar to repeat offenders are essentially blacklisted from buying guns.

If someone with a clean record has a name that is one letter different from a felon they can count on either being delayed on their transaction, denied outright, or will need to submit to a special registration process with the FBI to have a dedicated personal ID number to ensure they don't come up on the NICS system as a felon.

For such people, there isn't much of a recourse for easily buying a firearm without a face to face transaction.These poor souls are just as legitimate as any other law abiding citizen but cannot pass a background check. As for the rest of us, those with common names should be wary of one day coming up "hot" lest someone with a similar or same name rob a bank somewhere.

This doesn't take into account Identity Theft either. Someone steals your ID and gets arrested under your name three states away, your first warning will be being denied at POS because of the arrest record.

outkast353
02-09-2012, 7:32 AM
I watched this this morning. I laughed when he said something like "this tactical assault rifle that has been modified to take AK-47 bullets" I'm paraphrasing because that's as close as I could remember.

cindynles
02-09-2012, 7:34 AM
The video that was on the Today show this morning is up on the OPs link now:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/

Untamed1972
02-09-2012, 7:34 AM
For our next meeting, we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage, even telling the seller point-blank that we probably couldn’t pass a background check.


Hmmm.....does the writer of thid article know that there are somewhere around 800,000 gov't agents (local, state and fed) who carry "easily concealable pistols everyday with dangerous hollow point bullets designed to inflict serious internal damamge?

zonzin
02-09-2012, 7:39 AM
No No No!!! Not dangerous killer hollow point ammunition falling into the hands of a common citizen!! OMG we are all doomed!!! It causes great internal injuries,,,, ahhhhhggghh!!!!

Worst peice of "journalism" I have ever waisted my time on.

Back to reloading hollow points now.





.

outkast353
02-09-2012, 7:40 AM
"dangerous Hollow points" god damn it I just want to punch him with my less dangerous fists for saying **** like that. would you rather have people use fmjs that go right through your target into whatever is behind him or the wall?

Brown Rock
02-09-2012, 7:50 AM
"Tactical assault rifle, modified to use bullets for an AK-47" Looks like an SKS with Tapco stock. :rofl:

tiki
02-09-2012, 7:51 AM
How many people were killed by cars that wern't bought through a dealership?

bm-bill
02-09-2012, 7:54 AM
Where is the show on the Eric Holder loophole??????

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 8:19 AM
Honestly, like I said in my comment, I think they only make things harder on themselves with outrageous claims and exagerations.

If people thought the world was going to end, who would you listen to first? A man calmly explaining the reasons why, or some nut wearing a sandwich board screaming "YOUR DOOM IS NIGH!!"

In the end, the point is the same, but people might believe one while they tune the other out. If I was gun control advocate, even I would be cringing right about now....

It clearly highlights why compromise is off the table. Occasionally the NRA falls into this trap of making silly and sensationalist claims, but the validity and tone the other sides entire argument can be summed up in statements like "But the scariest transaction came after dark in a pharmacy parking lot. The online ad was for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter. But the seller was so laid-back, you’d think he was hocking a used bicycle."

Making wild and unsubstantiated claims does not bolster your argument, not in the days of online media, and pandering to the lowest common denominator may sometimes work in this country, but this subject is to technical and nuanced and can easily be disproven, lurid details notwhithstading. I kinda feel like the cat is out of the bag on this one....

Of course, you should never underestimate the stupidty of people in large groups... I think it comes down to what people want, if they wanted gun control, no argument to the contrary would stop it. Since they dont, writing pulpy feeling stories about buying WMD's in dark parking lots with tolddlers in tow is not going to change anyones mind, certainly not anyone that matters and certianly not in an NRA controlled congress. I hope we can capitlize on the pendulum swinging in our favor, and show gun control for what it is. Articles like this one may actually help us. The truth is on the side of right for once....

Untamed1972
02-09-2012, 8:21 AM
"dangerous Hollow points" god damn it I just want to punch him with my less dangerous fists for saying **** like that. would you rather have people use fmjs that go right through your target into whatever is behind him or the wall?

Well I think their point is.....they dont want you to have the ability to shoot anyone....period. :rolleyes:

yellowfin
02-09-2012, 8:46 AM
I wonder how many articles they run on steakhouses written by vegans or music reviews by the deaf.

CHS
02-09-2012, 8:49 AM
Hey! Look over here! No, not over there. Over here! Loopholes! Bad stuff! Criminals! AK-47's! Keep looking over here!!!

*meanwhile, behind the curtain*
Hey Mexican drug-lord, here's some more weapons you can use in your war against Mexico and the US.

Gee thanks ATF!

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 9:10 AM
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTIAN!

NZR64EF3OpA

You're a very bad man.....

More

As for you my galvanized friend:
All of our human fallacies explained by the wizard
ky7DMCHQJZY

"Back where I come from", or "I dont think there is anything in that black bag for me..."

odysseus
02-09-2012, 9:15 AM
"Loop Holes" - items that are actually legal, but that you simply disagree with philosophically, so you call it a "loop hole". :rolleyes:

I see that used in the media all the time. "In what is a loop hole to the law..." ...wait. You mean, legal? Right?

MadMax
02-09-2012, 9:16 AM
This article has so much misinformation it is not even funny. Makes me angry and a little sick to my stomack that people can still eat this stuff up, read some of the comments. While there are a good number of posts that make some sense to me the anti ones are in a word, SCARY!

I really hope there comes a time where this kind of journalism stops.

1stGenRex
02-09-2012, 9:57 AM
"Police-grade pistol"

As opposed to what exactly?


Hmmm.....does the writer of thid article know that there are somewhere around 800,000 gov't agents (local, state and fed) who carry "easily concealable pistols everyday with dangerous hollow point bullets designed to inflict serious internal damamge?

Well, it's OK for them. Not for you you or anyone else here though.

/s

Ubermcoupe
02-09-2012, 10:19 AM
The sad thing is many uneducated folks who may be apathetic towards the 2A go:
“oh yea, that makes sense... we should (insert egregious, capricious, just plain dumb gun law -which criminals don’t care about anyways - here)”
:no:

ja308
02-09-2012, 10:23 AM
fortunately the story was on msnbc .

it's the old if a tree falls in the forest ,will anyone hear it ,thing!

may be kinda fun to see who advertises on this joke of a media outlet!

Super Spy
02-09-2012, 11:02 AM
I want to know what website I can order a 50 BMG or AK-47 from online, and have them ship me the thing with no waiting period or background check.

winnre
02-09-2012, 11:12 AM
I'm gonna open a 50 cal training range as soon as I can get some surplus helicopters to shoot down.

Ubermcoupe
02-09-2012, 11:41 AM
I'm gonna open a 50 cal training range as soon as I can get some surplus helicopters to shoot down.

Can you also train us to use "Police grade pistols" with "Deadly, hollow points" ???

I can't believe some of these reporters and their scare tactics :facepalm:

1stGenRex
02-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Roll call will be conducted after dark, in an alley behind a drug store!

Full Clip
02-09-2012, 12:09 PM
"Loop Holes" - items that are actually legal, but that you simply disagree with philosophically, so you call it a "loop hole". :rolleyes:

Too true.

A-J
02-09-2012, 12:38 PM
"dangerous Hollow points" god damn it I just want to punch him with my less dangerous fists for saying **** like that. would you rather have people use fmjs that go right through your target into whatever is behind him or the wall?

Unfortunately, yes. The bullet goes through the target bad guy, out into the world where it will probably hit another person. The antis then use that as more evidence to show how evil guns are.

cindynles
02-09-2012, 1:11 PM
fortunately the story was on msnbc .

it's the old if a tree falls in the forest ,will anyone hear it ,thing!

may be kinda fun to see who advertises on this joke of a media outlet!

Unfortunately they ran the story on the Today Show on NBC this morning.....

CBlacksheep
02-09-2012, 1:23 PM
What next, a televised special on the terror of assault clips?

http://lonelymachines.org/guns/brady/clippy.jpg

CrazyPhuD
02-09-2012, 1:30 PM
Freaking AK-47? Is this a new model? Freaking idiots. My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50. In California the main reason they banned the 50BMG was because it supposedly could take down a commercial airliner, even though one has never been taken down, and probably never in the movies either.

Geese not only can take down an airliner, they have actually done so. Why people don't start a petition to ban all flying birds is beyond me.

510dat
02-09-2012, 2:24 PM
http://www.students.stedwards.edu/bkindel2/images/broken%20fence.jpg



The problem isn't that there is a hole in the fence, the problem is that someone built the fence in the first place.
.
.
.
.

bohoki
02-09-2012, 2:36 PM
it really should be called the instate private sale loophole since that is the line in the federal system

TempleKnight
02-09-2012, 2:54 PM
Freaking AK-47? Is this a new model? Freaking idiots. My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50. In California the main reason they banned the 50BMG was because it supposedly could take down a commercial airliner, even though one has never been taken down, and probably never in the movies either.

In the movie S.W.A.T with Colin Farrel an LAPD helicopter was downed with a .50. Shortly thereafter, the .50 was declared an assault weapon. I suspect a lot of gun laws were passed because law makers get their info about how guns work from Hollywood. The ceramic Glock 7 from Die Hard never existed, but caused a huge amount of concern at the time.

I'm surprised that they didn't ban Angelina's gun (from Wanted) that can shoot in a circle.

furyous68
02-09-2012, 3:05 PM
"Tactical assault rifle, modified to use bullets for an AK-47" Looks like an SKS with Tapco stock. :rofl:

That was my biggest peeve right there. That rifle is designed (prior to the AK of course) to fire the 7.62x39 round... no modifications required. He didn't say anything about the evil grenade launcher still attached to it! LOL

furyous68
02-09-2012, 3:07 PM
In the movie S.W.A.T with Colin Farrel an LAPD helicopter was downed with a .50. Shortly thereafter, the .50 was declared an assault weapon. I suspect a lot of gun laws were passed because law makers get their info about how guns work from Hollywood. The ceramic Glock 7 from Die Hard never existed, but caused a huge amount of concern at the time.

I'm surprised that they didn't ban Angelina's gun (from Wanted) that can shoot in a circle.

It wasn't the gun.. the rounds were engraved to allow curving much like the stitching on a baseball allow for a curve ball. :p

LOL

jdberger
02-09-2012, 3:16 PM
Unfortunately they ran the story on the Today Show on NBC this morning.....

Who cares. It's like giving a sh*t about who's on "Springer" this afternoon. Matt Lauer's a tool. No one buys his shtick anymore.

We were told that unless we enacted the Brady Law the streets were going to be awash in blood.

We were told that unless we enacted the AW ban, the streets were going to be awash in blood.

We were told that Shall Issue LTC would result in streets awash in blood.

We were told that if we let the AW ban expire, the streets would be awash in blood.

Violent crime is down (from 1990). Gun ownership is up. Murders are down. Presidential candidates pump their Second Amendment bona fides (even Obama). 38 some-odd States have Shall Issue LTC. 4 have Constitutional Carry. The Brady Campaign fired Paul Helmke for incompetence. Gun Control organizations are shutting down or consolidating. The City of New York is even considering changes to the Sullivan Act.

And no one is shooting each other over parking spots at the mall.

The antis are full of crap. The American people know it. And we're winning.

repubconserv
02-09-2012, 3:31 PM
No No No!!! Not dangerous killer hollow point ammunition falling into the hands of a common citizen!! OMG we are all doomed!!! It causes great internal injuries,,,, ahhhhhggghh!!!!

Worst peice of "journalism" I have ever waisted my time on.

Back to reloading hollow points now.


.

This reminds me... I need more hollow point slugs...

SanPedroShooter
02-09-2012, 3:40 PM
Who cares. It's like giving a sh*t about who's on "Springer" this afternoon. Matt Lauer's a tool. No one buys his shtick anymore.

We were told that unless we enacted the Brady Law the streets were going to be awash in blood.

We were told that unless we enacted the AW ban, the streets were going to be awash in blood.

We were told that Shall Issue LTC would result in streets awash in blood.

We were told that if we let the AW ban expire, the streets would be awash in blood.

Violent crime is down (from 1990). Gun ownership is up. Murders are down. Presidential candidates pump their Second Amendment bona fides (even Obama). 38 some-odd States have Shall Issue LTC. 4 have Constitutional Carry. The Brady Campaign fired Paul Helmke for incompetence. Gun Control organizations are shutting down or consolidating. The City of New York is even considering changes to the Sullivan Act.

And no one is shooting each other over parking spots at the mall.

The antis are full of crap. The American people know it. And we're winning.

Thank you for your opinion. I sometimes feel like this type pf drive by "jounalism" is just written to stir the pot and get ratings. Especially when they are so poorly crafted and outrageous, it almost seems like parody.

JoeJinKY
02-09-2012, 4:24 PM
That reporter needs to be b_tch slapped until he cries like a girl. i give him 12 seconds.

Blackhawk556
02-09-2012, 5:03 PM
Question for you guys. Does anyone think it's wrong that someone with a criminal background can still buy a gun because they can skip the background check?

Let say we know for sure he wouldnt pass, is it bad then?

Stonewalker
02-09-2012, 5:10 PM
Question for you guys. Does anyone think it's wrong that someone with a criminal background can still buy a gun because they can skip the background check?

Let say we know for sure he wouldnt pass, is it bad then?

A person who "isn't allowed" to own a gun because society is afraid that he might do something bad with it shouldn't be out of prison. This is not an argument for longer prison sentences.

Ubermcoupe
02-09-2012, 5:15 PM
this type pf drive by "jounalism" is just written to stir the pot and get ratings.

Bingo!

jwkincal
02-09-2012, 5:25 PM
A person who "isn't allowed" to own a gun because society is afraid that he might do something bad with it shouldn't be out of prison. This is not an argument for longer prison sentences.

But it is an argument for a more efficacious penal system.

Blackhawk556
02-09-2012, 9:26 PM
A person who "isn't allowed" to own a gun because society is afraid that he might do something bad with it shouldn't be out of prison. This is not an argument for longer prison sentences.


i agree with you that they shouldn't be out but stuff happens and they are released.

so once they are out, what should we do to try and keep guns out of their hands??
should we require background checks even on PPTs nationwide? If background checks are required, less law abiding citizens will sell guns in "parking lots" because they will be required to do it at a store.

the black market will always exist but at least we law abiding citizens can say that we are not contributing to the problem. What do you guys think?

I'm not trying to fight for mandatory background checks here. I'm just trying to have a conversation with you guys/gals.

locosway
02-09-2012, 10:51 PM
i agree with you that they shouldn't be out but stuff happens and they are released.

so once they are out, what should we do to try and keep guns out of their hands??

Are they free?

A free society ought to be armed. If that wo/man is free and a part of society, they should be armed.

If you can't "trust" them, then why are they allowed to drive and do other things that are much more dangerous?

Free, armed. Prison, not armed. It's fairly simple.

Now, someone might bring up parole, and I'll say that they aren't free in that instance as it's basically house arrest. Once off parole and part of society, they're free.

InGrAM
02-09-2012, 11:29 PM
Question for you guys. Does anyone think it's wrong that someone with a criminal background can still buy a gun because they can skip the background check?

Let say we know for sure he wouldnt pass, is it bad then?

Should we have background checks for knives/ baseball bats/ swords/ 2x4's/ vehicles/ screw drivers/ hammers/ shovels/ firewood/ toy guns/ glass bottles? All of those things can either kill you or get you killed just as fast as a firearm.

We shouldn't have background checks at all. You live in an anti-civil rights state and it has indoctrinated you into thinking that background checks are a good thing. No offense.

Mesa Tactical
02-10-2012, 5:22 AM
Question for you guys. Does anyone think it's wrong that someone with a criminal background can still buy a gun because they can skip the background check?

Let say we know for sure he wouldnt pass, is it bad then?

If you sold a gun to someone you knew wouldn't pass a background check, then you might be engaging in a conspiracy to commit a crime.

We shouldn't have background checks at all. You live in an anti-civil rights state and it has indoctrinated you into thinking that background checks are a good thing. No offense.

Maybe he just got that impression from listening to the NRA.

SanPedroShooter
02-10-2012, 5:40 AM
He makes a fair point, and one we've all thought about before. If the article was worded like his question, then there wouldnt be a problem...

I seriously question the usefulness of background checks. Have they ever stopped a crime? Dont upwards up 90% of buyers pass them (that, of course may be explained by the math Lee Baca uses when he says he issues 90% of CCW's...) ? Arent there a relitively few prosecutions for not passing them, or trying to subvert them?

After buying my dozenth gun, do I need a check to make sure I havent commited some crime in the interim, or like brady says, "I just havent been caught"? What other product has such restictions?

On the other hand, what if NICS was open to all citizens to use? I suppose you would call with the buyers name and birthdate and get a yes or no.....

I dont think that would fly. I will give info to an FFL under threat and duress of the ATF and their masters in Washington, but not to some guy I met through the Nickel...

Mesa Tactical
02-10-2012, 5:59 AM
I seriously question the usefulness of background checks. Have they ever stopped a crime? Dont upwards up 90% of buyers pass them (that, of course may be explained by the math Lee Baca uses when he says he issues 90% of CCW's...) ? Arent there a relitively few prosecutions for not passing them, or trying to subvert them?

I saw the results of some research somewhere, maybe it was in Adam Winkler's book, that suggested NICS did prevent a fairly significant number of prohibited gun sales. Now, obviously some proportion of those who were denied later purchased a gun through some other means, but not all of them did. So in that respect NICS is keeping guns out of the hands of some prohibited people, which makes it hard to argue against, which is probably why the NRA is in favor of it.

After buying my dozenth gun, do I need a check to make sure I havent commited some crime in the interim, or like brady says, "I just havent been caught"? What other product has such restictions?

This comes up here again and again. Obviously, someone who has possessed an arsenal of firearms without causing any problems shouldn't have to jump through a lot of hoops to add to his collection. But how do you make that work? A national official database of gun owners? Don't go there.

What these people are agitating for is a national PPT system like we have here in California.

1stGenRex
02-10-2012, 6:30 AM
This comes up here again and again. Obviously, someone who has possessed an arsenal of firearms without causing any problems shouldn't have to jump through a lot of hoops to add to his collection. But how do you make that work? A national official database of gun owners? Don't go there.



Quarterly background checks? Semi annual?

emcon5
02-10-2012, 7:18 AM
This is ridiculous, and I am amazed any of you are falling for it.

If a bad guy wants a gun, he will get one. You guys seem to think that a crackhead who stole a pistol from his grandmother won't sell to Billy Gang Member without a PPT if it is the law?

Has California's law mandating FFLs, DROS and waiting periods stopped any bad guys from getting guns?

If what he is suggesting would work, then there would be almost no violent crime with firearms in CA.

For anyone confused:
2criminal
noun
1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime

If someone who is a criminal is wanting a gun to kill someone or rob a bank/mini-mart/whatever (which are by the way generally quite illegal) why would anyone think he would be unwilling to break a lesser crime of buying a gun without following the proper procedures?

They are criminals. That is what they do.

Mesa Tactical
02-10-2012, 7:46 AM
This is ridiculous, and I am amazed any of you are falling for it.

If a bad guy wants a gun, he will get one. You guys seem to think that a crackhead who stole a pistol from his grandmother won't sell to Billy Gang Member without a PPT if it is the law?

If there is anyone in this thread who hinted anything remotely like this, could you please link to the specific post?

TIA

Packy14
02-10-2012, 7:54 AM
i'm not very privy to laws outside of cali, but I think anyone who buys a gun/has a gun should be mentally sound and checked for a criminal history before being allowed to own. I deal w/ crazy people daily, I would hope they don't have guns.

locosway
02-10-2012, 7:56 AM
i'm not very privy to laws outside of cali, but I think anyone who buys a gun/has a gun should be mentally sound and checked for a criminal history before being allowed to own. I deal w/ crazy people daily, I would hope they don't have guns.

So, you think California screens for crazy people?

The system doesn't work, period.

If the system worked, there would never be murder as anyone who was unstable would be "taken care of" or denied access to weapons.

People who think the solution is more paperwork need to wake up.

Packy14
02-10-2012, 8:21 AM
Should we have background checks for knives/ baseball bats/ swords/ 2x4's/ vehicles/ screw drivers/ hammers/ shovels/ firewood/ toy guns/ glass bottles? All of those things can either kill you or get you killed just as fast as a firearm.

We shouldn't have background checks at all. You live in an anti-civil rights state and it has indoctrinated you into thinking that background checks are a good thing. No offense.

Sorry, but that is idiosy. A background check is fine, it should be promptly destroyed once the person passes, and it should be instant or as fast as it actually takes to process, and it should include any mental health holds, and any violent misdemeanors. There are alot of idiots at the range who are too dumb to be safe with a gun, it would be nice if there was a minimum IQ too. Also, if you are legally able to own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it concealed, because last time I checked my safely locked gun isn't protecting me from a group of thugs trying to rob me.

jdberger
02-10-2012, 8:47 AM
I saw the results of some research somewhere, maybe it was in Adam Winkler's book, that suggested NICS did prevent a fairly significant number of prohibited gun sales. Now, obviously some proportion of those who were denied later purchased a gun through some other means, but not all of them did. So in that respect NICS is keeping guns out of the hands of some prohibited people, which makes it hard to argue against, which is probably why the NRA is in favor of it.

Yes, that was Winkler's book. John Lott also wrote (http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967) a little on it (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/search/label/NICS) a while back.

This comes up here again and again. Obviously, someone who has possessed an arsenal of firearms without causing any problems shouldn't have to jump through a lot of hoops to add to his collection. But how do you make that work? A national official database of gun owners? Don't go there.

What these people are agitating for is a national PPT system like we have here in California.

I can't take credit for this idea, but perhaps drivers licenses could be emblazoned with "NO GUNS" for prohibited persons? For purchases from an FFL, the vendor could still swipe the card to ensure that there aren't any new restraining orders, etc. The private seller doesn't have the same obligation as an FFL, so he could simply ask to see the purchaser's license as a good faith effort to ensure that sale isn't to a prohibited person.

The "Scarlet Letter" drivers license would also work to discourage straw deals. A vendor suspicious of a straw deal could simply ask for a peek at the companion's license to ensure it's not stamped, "NO GUNS".

Is it perfect? No. But it helps AND it's LIBERTY focused.

emcon5
02-10-2012, 10:06 AM
If there is anyone in this thread who hinted anything remotely like this, could you please link to the specific post?

TIA

Posts 52 and 56 for starters.

Mesa Tactical
02-10-2012, 10:29 AM
Posts 52 and 56 for starters.

WTF? Post 52 is a question.

vincewarde
02-10-2012, 10:52 AM
IMHO one reason why Bloomberg is doing this is to distract/push back for Fast and Furious. I think he would like to shut down private face to face sales before the whole truth comes out on F&F. If and when that happens, any Federal gun control laws are going to be DOA for a very long time. In fact, this idea is DOA right now.

Vladimir
02-10-2012, 11:15 AM
Damn a 50cal can take down a heli, I can't even make that shot in Battlefield 3.

Mesa Tactical
02-10-2012, 11:27 AM
IMHO one reason why Bloomberg is doing this is to distract/push back for Fast and Furious.

I think that's just a coincidence. I believe this is his attempt to put gun control on the agenda during an election year. I bet the Democrats would wish he would just go away (win-win for him, since he's a Republican).

Bhobbs
02-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Why are these dumba**es so terrified by the AK and 7.62x39?

mdimeo
02-10-2012, 12:38 PM
My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50.

Heh. A well-thrown rock can take down a helicopter.

mdimeo
02-10-2012, 12:42 PM
(win-win for [bloomberg], since he's a Republican).

In about any other state, Bloomberg would run as a Democrat.

A typical election in New York has someone like Al Gore running as a republican against Karl Marx running as a Democrat.

odysseus
02-10-2012, 12:52 PM
In about any other state, Bloomberg would run as a Democrat.

A typical election in New York has someone like Al Gore running as a republican against Karl Marx running as a Democrat.

Further more for NY City, Karl Marx was a centrist that didn't take it far enough outside of his study office and lead the way on the streets like Lenin. :p

Agent Orange
02-10-2012, 1:05 PM
Crack me up. Again, our own worst enemy. :facepalm:

InGrAM
02-10-2012, 1:43 PM
Sorry, but that is idiosy. A background check is fine, it should be promptly destroyed once the person passes, and it should be instant or as fast as it actually takes to process, and it should include any mental health holds, and any violent misdemeanors. There are alot of idiots at the range who are too dumb to be safe with a gun, it would be nice if there was a minimum IQ too. Also, if you are legally able to own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it concealed, because last time I checked my safely locked gun isn't protecting me from a group of thugs trying to rob me.

You obviously have never lived in a state that is cash in carry. When you do, come back and talk to the group.

Also, your comment about having to pass an IQ test before you can own a firearm is a sign of your idiocy. IQ tests are fundamentally flawed and biased. You might want to think before you post elitist garbage like that. :facepalm:

jdberger
02-10-2012, 2:01 PM
Damn a 50cal can take down a heli, I can't even make that shot in Battlefield 3.

Most helicopters are made of thin, light metals. A 30-30 could take down a helicopter if it hits the right cluster of wires.

Wherryj
02-10-2012, 2:11 PM
The "gun show loophole" is now the "online sales loophole?"

I think a more accurate term for it is the "freedom of speech and assembly loophole."

Yeah, that loophole.

I once bought a car from my partner and I never did a PTP. Don't let anyone know, but I exploited the "personal property loophole". It is a potentially deadly item if used improperly. The kinetic energy has even been known to exceed that of ".50 caliber helicopter shredding, heat seeking incendiary rifles".

vincewarde
02-10-2012, 3:49 PM
For the instant check system to have any positive effect, then people who attempt to buy guns illegally need to be prosecuted. Just denying the gun purchase and sending the prohibited person on their way doesn't accomplish that much.

The funny thing is that there have been three presidents since Brady NICS checks started. The Clinton administration prosecuted less than 20 people, the Bush administration prosecuted many more, and the Obama administration has gone back to the Clinton policy and numbers.

In at least one case under the Clinton administration, a prohibited person attempted to buy a gun from a dealer and was denied. He then bought a gun on the black market and kill a law enforcement officer. He should have been in jail, not on the street.

This begs the question, "Why do Democratic administrations fail to enforce gun laws?"

Guess what? I have an opinion about that :)

1) To do so would cost them votes. I believe that there are enough people involved in criminal activity, and much more significantly their family and friends, to impact elections. These people are OK with "blaming the guns" because it helps them to rationalize either their activities, or again more significantly, the activities of their close friends and relatives. I'm not saying that these people are a majority in any community, or that this is limited to any one culture or community - but I believe that there are enough to affect elections - and that most of these folks are part of the Democratic base.

2) The anti-gun movement's first rule about gun laws is that they should NEVER be enforced against criminals. Enforcement against the otherwise law abiding is more than OK, but if you enforce these laws against criminals there is always the chance they might work. If they work, this severely limits the ability to pass further restrictions upon gun ownership. On the other hand, if "gun crime" does not go down, the anti-gun rights movement can say, "We tried less restrictive laws, but they didn't work. We need new, more restrictive laws."

Thank God that the general public has caught on to this, and this is a big part of the reason why new gun laws are so unpopular in most of the country. People don't want them when current laws are not being enforced.

Finally, the black market will NEVER be eliminated. That's why handgun crime has gone up since all handguns were banned.

wayneinFL
02-10-2012, 4:36 PM
I saw the results of some research somewhere, maybe it was in Adam Winkler's book, that suggested NICS did prevent a fairly significant number of prohibited gun sales. Now, obviously some proportion of those who were denied later purchased a gun through some other means, but not all of them did. So in that respect NICS is keeping guns out of the hands of some prohibited people, which makes it hard to argue against, which is probably why the NRA is in favor of it

I'm sure it stops some sales. Sometimes it stops a sale to someone who is to no good. Sometimes it stops a sale to someone who was convicted of having too much pot 20 or 30 years ago and just wants a firearm to protect his family.

So the guy who is up to no good steps out of the shop and buys a gun from a friend and ignores your PPT law, just like he ignores the law that says he can't own a gun. Or he sends his girlfriend to the shop to buy the gun in a straw sale. I can almost guarantee you someone in your state is trading a gun in an illegal transaction as I type this.

If someone is still dangerous, he should be in prison, because he is dangerous with or without a gun. And he has no respect for laws against stealing or killing, so why would he respect the law against possessing a firearm?

If someone is reformed, has paid his debt to society, and is a free man, then why shouldn't he have a gun? If you're letting dangerous back out to roam the streets, you have a bigger problem than how to keep guns out of their hands. You can't watch them all 24 hours a day.

Vladimir
02-10-2012, 5:15 PM
Sorry, but that is idiosy. A background check is fine, it should be promptly destroyed once the person passes, and it should be instant or as fast as it actually takes to process, and it should include any mental health holds, and any violent misdemeanors. There are alot of idiots at the range who are too dumb to be safe with a gun, it would be nice if there was a minimum IQ too. Also, if you are legally able to own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it concealed, because last time I checked my safely locked gun isn't protecting me from a group of thugs trying to rob me.

alright, so who decides if your intelligent enough to use a gun? An IQ test? Because that totally has to do with the functions of a mechanical device. Theres people around the globe that dont even know how to read or write, yet they depend on their guns everyday. Probably one of the dumbest comments i've seen on this site.

Most helicopters are made of thin, light metals. A 30-30 could take down a helicopter if it hits the right cluster of wires.

I know, I was using sarcasm.

Kauf
02-11-2012, 12:41 PM
Freaking AK-47? Is this a new model? Freaking idiots. My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50. In California the main reason they banned the 50BMG was because it supposedly could take down a commercial airliner, even though one has never been taken down, and probably never in the movies either.

And that it can "shoot through SEVEN buildings" I believe that is a Pelosi quote. Is that like "Here at Barrett Firearms, we guarantee that our weapon can shoot through seven buildings or your money back!" ehh i digress.

Also, "34 people are murdered every day in gun violence..." really where is that statistic from? I highly doubt there are that many MURDERS every day. How many of those are gun related suicides, police related shootings, self defense justifiable homicides, gang and drug related shootings, and then just flat our murders. 34 isn't sounding like a very good number anymore.

Finally, the moral of the story is KNOW who you are selling to. They may be a criminal which would obviously be bad, or they may also be an undercover news team who just goes around buying up weapons to have them destroyed. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a new tactic for them. Buy guns just to destroy them...

SilverTauron
02-11-2012, 2:14 PM
Sure it's convenient to be able to cash and carry, and for the mentally sound law abiding citizen, its great...

Intriguing. Who is a "mentally sound law abiding citizen?".Professional mental heath professionals can't answer that question easily, but its reassuring to know that you have solved the puzzle of human consciousness.




but there are many who need to be prevented from having guns, sorry, maybe you are one of them. There should also be some cut off for intelligence, however low it may be, because I see some really stupid people at the range doing really stupid dangerous things, should a mentally retarded person have guns?


Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to have a lot of things. For the sake of public safety, since stupid people do stupid things with cars, printers, knives, pens, computers, alcohol, money,clothing, perhaps we should summarily jail everyone under a certain IQ level to ensure their stupidity causes no suffering or problems.

But now we are spending taxpayer dollars housing morons.Not a very wise use of funds. So lets just shoot them out of hand. SACRE BLEU! That's too far you'd say. Well, I retort with the statement that you may as well just commit mass murder. You have already denied these stupid people their civil rights to a T, so you may as well just pull the pin on the grenade for the last civil right you wouldn't want to deprive them of.

See, the dangers of that line of thinking? Once one gets it in their head that Category X of people shouldn't be armed, then it stands to reason category X of people shouldn't be trusted with anything. Including their lives.







Sorry if you're too stupid to realize that maybe some people who are not excluded persons may still not have the baseline intelligence to safely use a gun. I digress, the main point was not on intelligence, but having an effective background check system that also does not intrude on our freedoms. And no, I don't think our current system is adequate.

What you seek is impossible. It would be the legislative equivalent of Congress demanding The Sun submit a permit to rise and set every day.

You would say that's an absurd comparison, as the Sun is an astrological body beyond the control of a legislative assembly.


I would submit that like the Sun a criminal is similarly beyond the control of a piece of legislative paper.

If a crook has decided to murder, rape, pillage, and steal with a firearm he will not be deterred by a one-page document demanding that he be honest under penalty of a one month jail sentence. Seung Hui-Cho sure wasn't deterred when he lied about his mental health record as he bought the firearms used in the Virginia Tech massacre.

This of course assumes the perpetrator buys the guns himself to begin with. A smart criminal would have a third party with a clean record straw purchase the firearms for him, as the shooters in the Columbine event did. What is the difference between a straw purchase by a clean person and a legal purchase by the intended owner of the firearm? None on paper.

Thus, the 'background check' system is akin to a rocket which explodes on the launchpad. It is a concept that will go nowhere except sideways. The only proven deterrents to criminal behavior are not in a one-page questionnaire, but based on the principles of armed citizens, a well funded and managed police force, and a judiciary which keeps criminals behind bars after catching them.

repubconserv
02-11-2012, 4:23 PM
For the instant check system to have any positive effect, then people who attempt to buy guns illegally need to be prosecuted. Just denying the gun purchase and sending the prohibited person on their way doesn't accomplish that much.

The funny thing is that there have been three presidents since Brady NICS checks started. The Clinton administration prosecuted less than 20 people, the Bush administration prosecuted many more, and the Obama administration has gone back to the Clinton policy and numbers.

In at least one case under the Clinton administration, a prohibited person attempted to buy a gun from a dealer and was denied. He then bought a gun on the black market and kill a law enforcement officer. He should have been in jail, not on the street.

This begs the question, "Why do Democratic administrations fail to enforce gun laws?"

Guess what? I have an opinion about that :)

1) To do so would cost them votes. I believe that there are enough people involved in criminal activity, and much more significantly their family and friends, to impact elections. These people are OK with "blaming the guns" because it helps them to rationalize either their activities, or again more significantly, the activities of their close friends and relatives. I'm not saying that these people are a majority in any community, or that this is limited to any one culture or community - but I believe that there are enough to affect elections - and that most of these folks are part of the Democratic base.

2) The anti-gun movement's first rule about gun laws is that they should NEVER be enforced against criminals. Enforcement against the otherwise law abiding is more than OK, but if you enforce these laws against criminals there is always the chance they might work. If they work, this severely limits the ability to pass further restrictions upon gun ownership. On the other hand, if "gun crime" does not go down, the anti-gun rights movement can say, "We tried less restrictive laws, but they didn't work. We need new, more restrictive laws."

Thank God that the general public has caught on to this, and this is a big part of the reason why new gun laws are so unpopular in most of the country. People don't want them when current laws are not being enforced.

Finally, the black market will NEVER be eliminated. That's why handgun crime has gone up since all handguns were banned.

Awesome. Totally agree

Sure it's convenient to be able to cash and carry, and for the mentally sound law abiding citizen, its great... but there are many who need to be prevented from having guns, sorry, maybe you are one of them. There should also be some cut off for intelligence, however low it may be, because I see some really stupid people at the range doing really stupid dangerous things, should a mentally retarded person have guns? Sorry if you're too stupid to realize that maybe some people who are not excluded persons may still not have the baseline intelligence to safely use a gun. I digress, the main point was not on intelligence, but having an effective background check system that also does not intrude on our freedoms. And no, I don't think our current system is adequate.

:facepalm: This guy.... I nominate him for the next Banhammer termination.

Silver tauron had a brilliant response to this lunacy.

InGrAM
02-11-2012, 9:12 PM
Sure it's convenient to be able to cash and carry, and for the mentally sound law abiding citizen, its great... but there are many who need to be prevented from having guns, sorry, maybe you are one of them. There should also be some cut off for intelligence, however low it may be, because I see some really stupid people at the range doing really stupid dangerous things, should a mentally retarded person have guns? Sorry if you're too stupid to realize that maybe some people who are not excluded persons may still not have the baseline intelligence to safely use a gun. I digress, the main point was not on intelligence, but having an effective background check system that also does not intrude on our freedoms. And no, I don't think our current system is adequate.

Wow, everything you just typed made you should like the most indoctrinated lost soul I have ever talked to. Keep digging that hole. With your mindset and your personal attacks on me just shows your immaturity. You obviously can not handle a decent conversation between two adults without insults. It is clear that you are an indoctrinated, patsy for the anti-civil rights groups out there. Quit trolling calguns and go back to the brady FB page. You'll find a lot more people on there that you will side with.

Hmm, taking Americans citizens firearms away because they can't pass and IQ test.... Which like I have already said are fundamentally flawed and bias. You are treading on thin ice there. Sounds a hell of a lot like a fascist/socialist/commie mindset to me. You might want to stop having your professors spoon feed you anti civil rights nonsense. It might open your eyes up a bit. Then maybe you can have a decent conversation without ****ting all over your argument by attacking someone that doesn't share your view points.

Just some friendly words of advice

Databyter
02-11-2012, 9:24 PM
In what I suspect to be a concerted push by liberal media sources, the myth of the "gun show loophole" rears its ugly head.

I dont even know where to begin with an article like this.... Lets just say I have a new found respect for the "editorial board" at the Washington Post...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/

Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.

NBC News hired Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help with our investigation. Barborini said that the online sales loophole permits what he called “a weapons bazaar for criminals. There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.”

We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol – no questions asked.

Many weapons used in deadly gun violence can be traced back to private sales.

For our next meeting, we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage, even telling the seller point-blank that we probably couldn’t pass a background check. Another seller showed up with a tactical shotgun, an assault rifle and his 7-year-old son. Remember, our buyers could have been dangerous felons!

But the scariest transaction came after dark in a pharmacy parking lot. The online ad was for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, the most powerful gun legally sold in the U.S.: bullet range 5 miles. It can pierce armored vehicles, even bring down a helicopter. But the seller was so laid-back, you’d think he was hocking a used bicycle.

And it’s happening nationwide. In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg led another investigation, buying guns in 14 states, even after the buyers said they couldn’t pass a background check.

Oh my goodness.

Are these setups straw buys? I was going to call my local ATF field office and report them.

Also I was incredibly impressed with the comments left after the last WAPO smear job. I feel like writing stories that are written for the lowest common denominator, light on facts and reality, using hyperbole and lurid early 20th century pulp fiction descriptors are the last gasp of the losing side. We are watching these bull**** purveyors and we outnumber them. Of course, in American politics the winner is usually who shouts the loudest, so leave a comment and donate to the NRA/SAF/CGF.

Inquiring minds want to know in the interest of fairness and unbaised reporting;

How many non-dangerous guns did they buy?

How do you shoot down a helicopter from 5 miles away with a single shot bolt action?

Are non hollow point rounds internal organ friendly?

The People want to know!

Vladimir
02-11-2012, 9:34 PM
You obviously can not handle a decent conversation between two adults without insults.

I think you gave this person too much credit by claiming he/her an adult.

forgiven
02-11-2012, 9:45 PM
Freaking AK-47? Is this a new model? Freaking idiots. My favorite is that you can take down a helicopter with a 50. In California the main reason they banned the 50BMG was because it supposedly could take down a commercial airliner, even though one has never been taken down, and probably never in the movies either.

Yeah I remember this. Had a so-called pro-gunner at work tell me he agreed with the ban because he seen a show on tv.:eek:

Cokebottle
02-11-2012, 10:13 PM
I thought all sales ppr or ffl had to ho through an ffl for a background check, then you carry home...

Anyone care to enlighten me?
In California, you are correct.

In Arizona, and at least 35 other "free states", those sales were completely legal (aside from the buyers admitting that they could not pass BG).

The "gun show loophole" does not exist in California. In other states, it refers to the gun show as being a place where people can meet each other to buy/sell guns from private sellers as well as FFLs.

In every state, an FFL is required to complete a 4473 and run a background check. That applies at gun shows as well.

"Online loophole"?
Simply a reference to the internet making it easier for private parties to find buyers/sellers.

Cokebottle
02-11-2012, 10:17 PM
Sure it's convenient to be able to cash and carry, and for the mentally sound law abiding citizen, its great... but there are many who need to be prevented from having guns, sorry, maybe you are one of them. There should also be some cut off for intelligence, however low it may be, because I see some really stupid people at the range doing really stupid dangerous things, should a mentally retarded person have guns? Sorry if you're too stupid to realize that maybe some people who are not excluded persons may still not have the baseline intelligence to safely use a gun. I digress, the main point was not on intelligence, but having an effective background check system that also does not intrude on our freedoms. And no, I don't think our current system is adequate.
And just how is a law going to stop an illegal transfer from taking place to a person who is doing cash and carry because they can't pass background check?

That is where "common sense gun control laws" fall on their face.
Criminals ALREADY have guns, even though it is illegal for them to do so.
They bought them cash and carry from another criminal.

Dutch3
02-12-2012, 5:20 AM
And just how is a law going to stop an illegal transfer from taking place to a person who is doing cash and carry because they can't pass background check?



It won't. Just like ammunition laws such as AB 962 won't prevent prohibited persons from buying ammunition.

high_lander
02-12-2012, 5:35 AM
Not really a gunshow loophole. I have sold two guns to private parties in parking lots. It's called selling private property. Of course this was in TX, not in CA.

SanPedroShooter
02-12-2012, 7:10 AM
Yes, that was Winkler's book. John Lott also wrote (http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967) a little on it (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/search/label/NICS) a while back.



I can't take credit for this idea, but perhaps drivers licenses could be emblazoned with "NO GUNS" for prohibited persons? For purchases from an FFL, the vendor could still swipe the card to ensure that there aren't any new restraining orders, etc. The private seller doesn't have the same obligation as an FFL, so he could simply ask to see the purchaser's license as a good faith effort to ensure that sale isn't to a prohibited person.

The "Scarlet Letter" drivers license would also work to discourage straw deals. A vendor suspicious of a straw deal could simply ask for a peek at the companion's license to ensure it's not stamped, "NO GUNS".

Is it perfect? No. But it helps AND it's LIBERTY focused.

This is a very intriguing idea. I would like see some more comment on it. When you go to get your DL at the DMV, then run a NICS check and put your CCW and "gun endorsement" on the license. I belive they do this in Idaho, for CHL anyway. If you dont pass, NO GUNS is printed on it, like the NOT 21 UNTILL 2013 like you see on a teenagers DL. Or maybe "GUN OKAY" which entitles you to carry and skip background checks. Unless we can totaly do away with permits and checks of any kind, which I dont think is likely, at least in the case of NICS checks at FFLs. I would like to hear arguments against it.

When you go to sell to private party, you take a quick peek at the buyers DL and you see the CHL endorsement, or NO GUNS in red, no sale. Of course, you couldnt force people to check, but if their was any suspicion, you could practice some due dilligence at any rate. I have no issue with PPTs, people are free to dispose of their private property anyway they see fit, but I do not want to sell to prohibited person if it can be avoided.

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 7:53 AM
This is a very intriguing idea. I would like see some more comment on it. When you go to get your DL at the DMV, then run a NICS check and put your CCW and "gun endorsement" on the license. I belive they do this in Idaho, for CHL anyway. If you dont pass, NO GUNS is printed on it, like the NOT 21 UNTILL 2013 like you see on a teenagers DL. Or maybe "GUN OKAY" which entitles you to carry and skip background checks. Unless we can totaly do away with permits and checks of any kind, which I dont think is likely, at least in the case of NICS checks at FFLs. I would like to hear arguments against it.

When you go to sell to private party, you take a quick peek at the buyers DL and you see the CHL endorsement, or NO GUNS in red, no sale. Of course, you couldnt force people to check, but if their was any suspicion, you could practice some due dilligence at any rate. I have no issue with PPTs, people are free to dispose of their private property anyway they see fit, but I do not want to sell to prohibited person if it can be avoided.

If a prohibited person wants a gun,they'll get one.None of us here wish to arm a felon,but we must get used to the concept that all commercial transactions have risk.FFLs deal with that on a daily basis.

The background check system is a failure.Since its enactment multiple criminals have been able to acquire arms despite being what the law catgorizes as a 'prohibited person'.The NICS system is much more likely to obstruct or deny a legal gun owner's purchase than it ever will stop a crook from getting a fiream.All of us in this country who legally buy guns are one clerical error from being denied the purchase of arms at any time.May God have mercy on your rights if a crook commits a crime using your identity,as the burden of proof will shift to YOU why the government should permit you to buy arms,while the felon who caused all this is running around able to get whatever gun he wishes without a single piece of ID required.

SanPedroShooter
02-12-2012, 7:59 AM
I generally agree, although I dont think it is politicaly possible to get around. Here is a question I almost never see anyone answer. If people break the law, why have a law at all? If people are going to speed, why have a speed limit, if people run stop signs, why have them?

I have seen this question asked verbatim by gun grabbers and never have seen it answerd properly.

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 8:11 AM
I generally agree, although I dont think it is politicaly possible to get around. Here is a question I almost never see anyone answer. If people break the law, why have a law at all? If people are going to speed, why have a speed limit, if people run stop signs, why have them?

I have seen this question asked verbatim by gun grabbers and never have seen it answerd properly.

That is because the question is demanding that the respondent prove a negative.The gun counterlobby never uses actual logical principles in arguing their point.

Were I posed such a question-and being a pro gun university student,I probably will someday-I would state that cars and guns are not an accurate comparison.Thousands of people die annually on our nations highways ,but as a society we accept that the path to prevention of traffic fatalities rests with the responsibility of the driver.We do not demand that a buyer of a Camaro submit a tax stamp and six month background check before letting the buyer drive off the lot.
Society neither demands that a car dealer call the DMV for a drivers history check before selling John Q a Ford sedan,and a rancher buying a 3500 pickup need not submit a 'justifyable need based' request to a circuit court to permit him to buy a heavy duty truck.We all undertand that at a certain point with cars the government needs to step back and step out,and automobiles are not even mentioned in the source document for the laws of America.

G-Man WC
02-12-2012, 8:15 AM
Where is the show on the Eric Holder loophole??????

Correct. The headlines SHOULD read:
"Fast And Furious" Just Might Be President Obama's Watergate

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/28/fast-and-furious-just-might-be-president-obamas-watergate/

Packy14
02-12-2012, 1:29 PM
Wow, everything you just typed made you should like the most indoctrinated lost soul I have ever talked to. Keep digging that hole. With your mindset and your personal attacks on me just shows your immaturity. You obviously can not handle a decent conversation between two adults without insults. It is clear that you are an indoctrinated, patsy for the anti-civil rights groups out there. Quit trolling calguns and go back to the brady FB page. You'll find a lot more people on there that you will side with.

Hmm, taking Americans citizens firearms away because they can't pass and IQ test.... Which like I have already said are fundamentally flawed and bias. You are treading on thin ice there. Sounds a hell of a lot like a fascist/socialist/commie mindset to me. You might want to stop having your professors spoon feed you anti civil rights nonsense. It might open your eyes up a bit. Then maybe you can have a decent conversation without ****ting all over your argument by attacking someone that doesn't share your view points.

Just some friendly words of advice


I am far from an indoctrinated anti-civil rights brady supporter, keep your friendly advice for someone who wants it, friend. It would not be hard to have mental health admits recorded in a system to flag when attempting to purchase a gun, its just a lack of will that prevents it. I love how on CG anytime someone disagrees with the flock mentality they are labeled a fascist. I love guns, trust me. I believe it is what separates America from Europe, and every other socialist or communist country, although one might argue that with our current leadership we are mirroring them more and more. I do however, think it's a joke to have the system we have if its anything more than a 35$ taxation on gun purchases, because it's useless, not because it fails to prevent criminal purchases in alley's but because it fails to prevent legal purchases by people who are a danger to themselves or others... i.e. the mentally unsound. That is my point, sorry if you have a problem with that. Please do keep your foolish accusations directed at more willing targets.

InGrAM
02-12-2012, 1:57 PM
I am far from an indoctrinated anti-civil rights brady supporter, keep your friendly advice for someone who wants it, friend. It would not be hard to have mental health admits recorded in a system to flag when attempting to purchase a gun, its just a lack of will that prevents it. I love how on CG anytime someone disagrees with the flock mentality they are labeled a fascist. I love guns, trust me. I believe it is what separates America from Europe, and every other socialist or communist country, although one might argue that with our current leadership we are mirroring them more and more. I do however, think it's a joke to have the system we have if its anything more than a 35$ taxation on gun purchases, because it's useless, not because it fails to prevent criminal purchases in alley's but because it fails to prevent legal purchases by people who are a danger to themselves or others... i.e. the mentally unsound. That is my point, sorry if you have a problem with that. Please do keep your foolish accusations directed at more willing targets.


Wow, No more name calling? I recall you were the one that had a problem with my position on US citizens not needing a background check to buy firearms. You might want to go back and look. You made no point and you used insults to try and undermine my view point on background checks, which was simply my opinion to a question another member posted. Maybe, you should be the one to keep your ideas to yourself considering your view point, that before people should be able to own a firearm they need to pass an IQ test.... Also, a number of other members have posted arguing against your "IQ test" to own guns mentality. You might want to respond to them as well ;)


Sorry all, I'm done distracting from OP. Carry on.

SilverTauron
02-12-2012, 2:03 PM
I am far from an indoctrinated anti-civil rights brady supporter, keep your friendly advice for someone who wants it, friend. It would not be hard to have mental health admits recorded in a system to flag when attempting to purchase a gun, its just a lack of will that prevents it.

Mistakes happen. It is human nature. With a government agency maintaining records, mistakes are inevitable.Much as it is today, legal citizens will be denied and delayed while criminals will lie and receive the arms they desire. Assuming of course a criminal even deals with an FFL to start with.

If Senator Feinstein snapped her fingers and disarmed every citizen, policeman, soldier, and shut down every firearms company on the planet , there would still be plenty of guns in circulation trading hands in the ghettos and criminal safehouses of America to render the entire exercise moot. I daresay the goblins wouldn't even notice a difference.

Stopping illegal use and acquisition of guns via an expanded background check makes as much sense as trying to stop car theft by adding ten questions on the drivers license test.


I love how on CG anytime someone disagrees with the flock mentality they are labeled a fascist. I love guns, trust me. I believe it is what separates America from Europe, and every other socialist or communist country, although one might argue that with our current leadership we are mirroring them more and more. I do however, think it's a joke to have the system we have if its anything more than a 35$ taxation on gun purchases, because it's useless, not because it fails to prevent criminal purchases in alley's but because it fails to prevent legal purchases by people who are a danger to themselves or others... i.e. the mentally unsound. That is my point, sorry if you have a problem with that. Please do keep your foolish accusations directed at more willing targets.

There is no flock mentality. There are ideas that are practical, and ideas that are foolish. Yours is in the latter category. Without possession of a 100% accurate time machine, we will never know who is a danger to society. I have personally witnessed an ordained minister attempt to assault someone. If someone with more degrees then a thermometer who is a sitting member of a church board resorts to violence without prior provocation, anyone is a threat to anyone else. That is the way of the world before we were born, and it will stay that way when all of us are buried.

There are two reactions to that revelation. We can assure our own security and pass laws accordingly, or we can pretend we can see the future and criminalize traits we THINK predict criminal behavior. Because anyone can be a threat at any time, that thinking process results in criminalizing everyone-except the people making the rules.


Security is an illusion. The only person responsible for your welfare is you,not a 8"X11" piece of paper in a gun store.

Packy14
02-12-2012, 2:20 PM
Mistakes happen. It is human nature. With a government agency maintaining records, mistakes are inevitable.Much as it is today, legal citizens will be denied and delayed while criminals will lie and receive the arms they desire. Assuming of course a criminal even deals with an FFL to start with.

If Senator Feinstein snapped her fingers and disarmed every citizen, policeman, soldier, and shut down every firearms company on the planet , there would still be plenty of guns in circulation trading hands in the ghettos and criminal safehouses of America to render the entire exercise moot. I daresay the goblins wouldn't even notice a difference.

Stopping illegal use and acquisition of guns via an expanded background check makes as much sense as trying to stop car theft by adding ten questions on the drivers license test.



There is no flock mentality. There are ideas that are practical, and ideas that are foolish. Yours is in the latter category. Without possession of a 100% accurate time machine, we will never know who is a danger to society. I have personally witnessed an ordained minister attempt to assault someone. If someone with more degrees then a thermometer who is a sitting member of a church board resorts to violence without prior provocation, anyone is a threat to anyone else. That is the way of the world before we were born, and it will stay that way when all of us are buried.

There are two reactions to that revelation. We can assure our own security and pass laws accordingly, or we can pretend we can see the future and criminalize traits we THINK predict criminal behavior. Because anyone can be a threat at any time, that thinking process results in criminalizing everyone-except the people making the rules.


Security is an illusion. The only person responsible for your welfare is you,not a 8"X11" piece of paper in a gun store.


Danger to self or others is grounds for a 5150 (a 3 day mental health medical hold), if you have been 5150'd, you have to be cleared by a judge to legally own a gun... the problem is, the current DROS system does not query 5150 admits, its up to the person to admit they have been 5150'd or 5250'd (a longer involuntary hold (2 weeks) for danger to self or others). I'm not talking about crystal balls or magic hats, i'm talking about how the system currently is useless and what it should include; my aside on IQ's was to address how many people who own guns are not very smart with them, but that is what it is. The way people on this thread sound, they think everyone should have guns, regardless of their inclination to be violent with them; sorry I don't agree, while it is a right, it's also a privilege that comes with responsibility. Once again, what I am saying has no bearing on illegal sales to prohibited people, no law will prevent that, because outright criminals don't care about following laws...that is why they are criminals lol. Please read and think before you respond.

jdberger
02-13-2012, 8:59 AM
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

winnre
02-13-2012, 1:36 PM
And that it can "shoot through SEVEN buildings" I believe that is a Pelosi quote. Is that like "Here at Barrett Firearms, we guarantee that our weapon can shoot through seven buildings or your money back!" ehh i digress.

I hope they outlawed the 88 magnum.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQvtfHJZTUc