PDA

View Full Version : Is it worth while pointing out 11f?


MattyB
12-19-2012, 8:00 PM
I know there are many people that are calling for the extinction of the 2A for people with any mental condition. It also seems that a lot of antis are under the assumption that a seriously mentally ill person can purchase firearms.

So I ask, is it worth it in the overall scheme of things to point out that Section 11 part F of the ATF Transfer form will deny you the ability to purchase a firearm(s) including what they call "assualt weapons"?

Most people on the fence aren't aware of what is actually asked during a transfer, not to mention those same people are under the impression that we are purchasing full auto weapons like they see in the movies.

So I ask is there a way to impress upon the open minded (and not the religiously anti-gunners) that we already have a pretty stringent application process as well as the VERY stringent restrictions on full auto weapons and their differences with what are legal at this time?

Trenchfoot
12-19-2012, 8:32 PM
Most people on the fence aren't aware of what is actually asked during a transfer, not to mention those same people are under the impression that we are purchasing full auto weapons like they see in the movies.



I agree with the sentiment, but I am also nervous about what will happen if/when the media realizes and promotes the fact that there is virtually no difference between http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

and

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/images/5846.jpg

Harrison_Bergeron
12-19-2012, 8:51 PM
What happens behind the scenes regarding the issue?

Advertising that an FFL has to verbally ask whether someone has been diagnosed with a mental illness or held 5150 (I forget the actual wording) would be a bad thing if there is no means of verifying that the person is not lying when they answer.

MattyB
12-19-2012, 9:26 PM
What happens behind the scenes regarding the issue?

Advertising that an FFL has to verbally ask whether someone has been diagnosed with a mental illness or held 5150 (I forget the actual wording) would be a bad thing if there is no means of verifying that the person is not lying when they answer.

I'm sorry for the ignorance but doesn't the ensuing backround check verify a commitment or adjudicated metal defection?

It seems that many ill informed individuals, including those of state and national government, dont seem to know what the current laws are relating to this.

I felt that it may be worth exploring an avenue for us normal folks (not the heavy hitting lobbyists of this organization and others) to have well thought out talking points regrading our present restrictions in an attempt to quell some of the fervor for more laws on top of the ones we already have.

13withinfinity
12-19-2012, 9:27 PM
I agree with the sentiment, but I am also nervous about what will happen if/when the media realizes and promotes the fact that there is virtually no difference between

Yee and his trolls dont need to know that either so they can stick it in their SB47 bill.

nicki
12-19-2012, 10:55 PM
I agree with the sentiment, but I am also nervous about what will happen if/when the media realizes and promotes the fact that there is virtually no difference between http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

and

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/images/5846.jpg

Let's be honest, our opponents want all guns, not just the "assault weapons".

The "AWs" are "scary looking", that is why they want to ban them and once they are gone, then they will go after the rest of semi auto rifles.

Of course since handguns cause so much more problems than rifles, they will be next.

The AWs, the semi rifles, then semi pistols, then pump action long guns, then the evil long range sniper rifles, then small revolvers with barrels under 12 inches, then anything that is left that holds more than 3 rounds.

Let's look at England as an example because that is what has happened to them.

Nicki

-hanko
12-20-2012, 8:58 AM
I know there are many people that are calling for the extinction of the 2A for people with any mental condition. It also seems that a lot of antis are under the assumption that a seriously mentally ill person can purchase firearms.

So I ask, is it worth it in the overall scheme of things to point out that Section 11 part F of the ATF Transfer form will deny you the ability to purchase a firearm(s) including what they call "assualt weapons"?
Probably about as effective as the check-box for marijuana usage, particularly in CA...maybe.;)

-hanko

dustoff31
12-20-2012, 11:13 AM
I'm sorry for the ignorance but doesn't the ensuing backround check verify a commitment or adjudicated metal defection?

Yes, it does. IF the person has been committed/adjudicated, and then entered into the NICS system. One or the other of these things very often does not happen for various reasons.

The murderers in the VA Tech, Tucson, Auroura, and the recent CT instances ALL fit into this category. A great many people, including parents, doctors, and local authorities all knew that these people were crazy as loons, but they were not committed, adjudicated, or entered into the system as prohibited possessors. So we must ask ourselves, had these been dealt with properly, would we even be having this AWB conversation today? I think not. Certainly not in such an ominous manner.

Now would being listed on the NICS no-no list have been stopped any of these people if they really wanted to get a gun and murder people? Of course not. We all know that. But if our choice is between allowing crazy people to legally have access to guns, or to require them to commit additional crimes in order to obtain them and further their ends, then as I see it our course is clear.

stix213
12-20-2012, 12:01 PM
I know there are many people that are calling for the extinction of the 2A for people with any mental condition. It also seems that a lot of antis are under the assumption that a seriously mentally ill person can purchase firearms.

So I ask, is it worth it in the overall scheme of things to point out that Section 11 part F of the ATF Transfer form will deny you the ability to purchase a firearm(s) including what they call "assualt weapons"?

Most people on the fence aren't aware of what is actually asked during a transfer, not to mention those same people are under the impression that we are purchasing full auto weapons like they see in the movies.

So I ask is there a way to impress upon the open minded (and not the religiously anti-gunners) that we already have a pretty stringent application process as well as the VERY stringent restrictions on full auto weapons and their differences with what are legal at this time?

They will respond that whatever is on the transfer form now is not good enough, and with the recent shootings I am forced to agree on the mental health side.

Hoooper
12-20-2012, 12:40 PM
They will respond that whatever is on the transfer form now is not good enough, and with the recent shootings I am forced to agree on the mental health side.

is your intent to suggest that nobody with a mentally ill child/roommate/etc should be allowed to own a gun? because that would be the only way to affect the CT shootings. He did not own the guns, he stole them from his mother

Harrison_Bergeron
12-20-2012, 12:58 PM
is your intent to suggest that nobody with a mentally ill child/roommate/etc should be allowed to own a gun? because that would be the only way to affect the CT shootings. He did not own the guns, he stole them from his mother

This why constitutional principle is the only leg we have to stand on. The opposition got their perfect case.

Charging people who allow their weapons to be used illegally is useless when they are the first ones killed.

We already beat the requirement that guns be kept unloaded and locked.

Short of locking the kid up before he did anything wrong, which is a whole different Constitutional issue, there is little that could have been done to prevent the incident within the confines of the Constitution. It's a tough case, but luckily we still have the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS on the bench.

Wiz-of-Awd
12-20-2012, 1:12 PM
is your intent to suggest that nobody with a mentally ill child/roommate/etc should be allowed to own a gun? because that would be the only way to affect the CT shootings. He did not own the guns, he stole them from his mother

...and this is a big part of the anti's argument. I had a friend argue this to me yesterday - actually saying that "I was kidding myself" thinking that just because my guns were locked up, that some psycho couldn't come steal them anyway to do horrible things.

The anti's clearly want all the guns gone - not just secured, registered or other wise - just simply gone.

A.W.D.