Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-10-2019, 9:16 AM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 18,590
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

there is not enough tradeoff in gun laws my mom now wants to ban ars and aks but i say if they are banned someone will just use a mini 14 or something else

the problem with all the gun death statistics is that these deaths probably would have taken place without a gun anyway

as to background checks it should be streamlined and encrypted this is how it should go

buyer calls phone number and is given a one time use code number seller calls number and gives that code number with state id number and gets a ok sell to this person the system should be encrypted and self destroying

Last edited by bohoki; 08-10-2019 at 9:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-11-2019, 5:29 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Editors" at The National Review state...

Quote:
Mitch McConnell has confirmed that when the Senate reconvenes in September to discuss new federal gun-control measures, “universal background checks” will “lead the discussion.” If that is the case, the Senate should listen carefully to the proposals on offer, and then politely decline to assent...

Upholding the Constitution is a task that falls to all of government’s branches, not solely to the Supreme Court...

Apologists for the idea like to dissemble on this question by insisting that the records would be kept by third parties or that they would be decentralized. But this, of course, is to miss the point. If the government has access to information about who owns which guns, and where, then it has access to a registry...

Why would we extend the federal government beyond its established legal role, institute an invasive national gun registry, make it more difficult for peaceful Americans to remain in compliance with the law, and increase the number of people in prison for arcane malum prohibitum infractions in pursuit of a policy that doesn’t help?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-11-2019, 8:48 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,127
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
there is not enough tradeoff in gun laws my mom now wants to ban ars and aks but i say if they are banned someone will just use a mini 14 or something else
I had a conversation with a friend who is middle of the road on guns. Owns a couple, shoots enough to be proficient but that's about it. I asked him if getting the ability to buy across state lines in exchange for UBC was OK with him and his response was "can't you do that already?". This, from a smart guy who pays attention to politics and current events. One wonders what most of the country knows about gun laws.

If we're stuck with some form of UBC then buying across state lines is something we'd better get in return.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:30 AM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugly Hombre View Post
Ok back ground checks

IF and AFTER

You build the wall, New Democrat Bolsheviks- Authorize- and provide the money

And- deport all illegal alien criminals- stop them from coming in, make it- illegally entering the country- a felony with no chance of return to our country.

And- initiate back ground checks in depth- for people who want to immigrate here, merit based only.

Commit a felony crime five years after entering the country? loss of citizenship- deported to home of origin.

National voter ID

National standard for CCP/CCW

Enforce all Federal drug laws. Jail those elected officials- who enabled the sales of illegal drugs, contrary to federal law, taxed it and became wealthy from the sales of illegal drugs.

Stop issuing DL's to illegal alien criminals. Nation wide.

Harsh penalties and immediate deportation for illegal aliens who commit crimes on our soil.

After you do the above- we can talk.
....................
I've so often wondered why we never see(at least publicly), the GOP and Dems offering to trade on issues.
For example, GOP agrees to more background checks, IF the Dems agree to much stricter laws against abortion.

Anyone know why we never seem to see deal-making like this?
__________________

NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:39 AM
aklon's Avatar
aklon aklon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Leandro, Alameda County
Posts: 2,374
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebia View Post
Talking about it till the heats off, his checks will also include something that the dems wont agree to. Slowly fades away...
Extend these same style background checks to voter registration, welfare recipients, and people running for office.

Just propose that and watch how fast the whole idea of a background check dies.
__________________
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhaur
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-13-2019, 5:15 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
....................
I've so often wondered why we never see(at least publicly), the GOP and Dems offering to trade on issues.
For example, GOP agrees to more background checks, IF the Dems agree to much stricter laws against abortion.

Anyone know why we never seem to see deal-making like this?
Because the 'dealing' will never end. Meanwhile, the 'deals' made open the door(s) for more nefarious actions. For instance, when it comes to background checks, The National Review posted an article today entitled...

The Promise and Pitfalls of Universal Background Checks

The thought process is that if we're going to 'lose' something, then background checks are among the 'better bargains' we could make...

Quote:
...They are politically feasible, might actually reduce gun violence on the margins, and would not unduly burden law-abiding gun owners. There are countless reasons to be less trigger-happy about them than their most ardent supporters are, but if political pressure forces Republicans to give ground on something big, this might be the best way to go...
Okay. But, we have several problems and they lay them out, noting that the HOPE is that background checks will, potentially, mitigate, in part, some of those issues. In other words, UBC does not SOLVE any of the issues and, at best, only... maybe... mitigate portions of some of the issues. The larger problem, at least to me, is something noted, almost in passing...

Quote:
...The objection to keeping such records is that they constitute a de facto gun registry, albeit a scattered one, that the government could use to track down and confiscate legally purchased firearms. This seems rather unlikely, but, in fairness, gun confiscation has happened in other modern Anglosphere nations: Australia, the U.K., and Canada...
Rather unlikely? Uh...

Wayne LaPierre: “Universal Background Checks” Mean Gun Registration, Gun Bans and Confiscation

Quote:
...This scheme focuses only on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who are already prohibited under federal and state laws from even touching, much less purchasing, any firearm... Facts tell us that criminalizing private transfers of firearms among family members and friends under a universal background check system would do nothing to prevent “gun violence,” and importantly, would not have prevented the profound tragedies that gun banners use to promote such a system. Perpetrators of those acts either successfully passed background checks to get the guns or they stole the guns... What’s more, gun transfers universally requiring approval by the government cannot be enforced without mandatory gun registration, as Obama’s Justice Department has already admitted. At some point, the government has to argue, “Without registration, we won’t know who had the gun in the first place.” Whether the initial proposal includes a government registry of firearm transfers or firearm owners, that’s the end game...
When did Obama's DOJ 'admit' such a thing?

Well, there's the infamous "memo" from the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice...

Quote:
...Ammunition purchase logs are a means of checking for illegal purchases and for developing intelligence on illegal firearms...

Universal background checks
Twitter summary: Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process...

Gun registration and continuous checks for possession eligibility...

Universal checks are insufficient for ensuring that firearm owners remain eligible... The challenge to implementing this more broadly is that most states do not have a registry of firearm ownership. Currently NICS background checks are destroyed within 24 hours. Some states maintain registration of all firearms. Gun registration aims to 1) increase owner responsibility by directly connecting an owner with a gun, 2) improve law enforcement’s ability to retrieve guns from owners prohibited from possessing firearms.

Gun registration also allows for the monitoring of multiple gun purchases in a short period of time...
That memo's an interesting read. It's especially interesting as a California resident in terms of what has actually been implemented in California and what some of the studies show about what's actually going on in the State vs. what we're told is happening. For instance...

Quote:
...An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: “Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.”...
So, according to Obama's own DOJ, proposed 'gun control' measures weren't going to work without registration and the means to that would be universal background checks. On top of that, just three years after proposing universal background checks and assault weapon bans, Obama was publicly claiming he NEVER proposed taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.



The claim is that, legally, the Federal government is precluded from creating such a registry. Really? The law can't simply be... changed?



Obviously, Schumer simply misspoke, because, according to Obama, Democrats are not interested in taking anyone's guns. Uh...



Oh... Well, that's just spreading fear and paranoia. It's not like Federal law can be changed... uh... um...



Grassley said it. It's not even a 'slippery slope' argument. It's what they have definitively, publicly, and repeatedly claimed their goal to be.

Why haven't we seen 'dealing' on fundamental rights? Because neither side will be content with what they get in any, given 'deal.' They will always want more. The problem is, the more you give, trade, or deal away, the less you have to negotiate with... until... you have nothing left with which to deal. Then it's on to the next set of rights... until... you have no rights left with which to deal.

That's why. Once you 'open the door,' it becomes increasingly difficult to control who or what enters.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-13-2019, 5:49 PM
Foebia's Avatar
Foebia Foebia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: This sewer is mine!
Posts: 1,334
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Simple, he will add some sort of immigration to the checks, dems wont go for it. He already stated he had republican support but dems may not go for it...

He looks good on tv, dems fight it, nothing happens.

The Don will not give up nothing for free, everything will be a negotiation.
__________________


"Cross your feet! Kneel down! Stand up! Crawl! Right hand in! Left foot out! You're a little teapot! YOU'RE A LITTLE TEAPOT!"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-13-2019, 5:57 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebia View Post
...but dems may not go for it...
That's the inherent danger here.

The Democrats MAY actually go for it; at least at some point.

As I just pointed out, there's a reason why not everything is or should be negotiated.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-13-2019, 6:08 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
With UBC as a national requirement I ought to be able to walk into a gun store in NV or MA or AL, submit to the nationwide background check and walk out with a gun. It would be my responsibility to comply with the laws of the state I purchase in, travel through and return to. If I buy a pistol in MA and don't have an LTC, or buy a conventionally configured AK in NV and get pinched driving through Colfax, that's on me.
I wonder how Amazon manages to keep up with local state tax rates? It seems like that would be more challenging than gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-13-2019, 7:46 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

UBCs are NOT a given... As a resident where PPTs can be done face to face in a parking lot I do not want to negotiate that away.. Negotiations ALWAYS mean giving up MORE 2A rights and result in more negotiations!!! Forget it!

Last edited by Dan_Eastvale; 08-13-2019 at 7:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-13-2019, 9:28 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As Grassley noted (see Post #46), it would only require allowing them to get the camel's nose under the tent to create a quickly devolving situation. It was put more bluntly in an article which appeared in The Hill yesterday...

Quote:
...If gun control stands a chance, it will come the old-fashioned way — a power grab. Democrats will have to win control of the presidency and the Senate, while retaining the House... If any issue can transcend political affiliation, it is a ban on assault weapons. The sooner the narrative is re-written — and the public is encouraged to give up on the idea of a GOP awakening — the sooner Democrats can get a foothold into the idea that they are the only hope for reasonable gun legislation... Even tough gun control legislation will not extinguish gun violence... Banning assault weapons must be discussed as one of many changes, along with: “red flag” laws; financial support for a domestic terrorism task force; universal background checks; and increased availability of mental health treatment... If Democrats want to see a bluer shade of purple, they need to quell the fears that they are coming for all guns...
As Democrats are often wont to do, the message is... "If people don't agree, change the message, but not the intent." Put another way, the only way to succeed is to distract and misdirect, then use the 'confusion' to implement a power grab which would allow for the changes they want.

The infamous "memo" (see Post #46) from the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice clearly lays out why the author states that a so-called 'assault weapon' ban would simply be ONE of a number of changes...

Quote:
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.
Since we know "buyback" is the misleading descriptor being used for "confiscation" and there would be no exceptions, as noted in Post #46, the only way to accomplish that is via gun registration and the means declared to create gun registration are universal background checks. That makes UBC the 'camel's nose under the tent' they are desperate for.

You see, Democrats have no desire to 'compromise.' Without compromise, there is nothing to negotiate. Thus, they are demanding that we compromise our fundamental rights so they have the ability to fully strip us of the right which allows us to 'protect' the remainder of our rights once they are in a position to make a 'power grab.'

That doesn't sound like a negotiation. That sounds more like the precise reason the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-15-2019, 8:28 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 9,098
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
I wonder how Amazon manages to keep up with local state tax rates? It seems like that would be more challenging than gun laws.
I can answer that. It's not that challenging. Amazon calculates sales tax based on a variety of factors (not just the sales tax rate - if existing - of the shipping address). It's also function of the nature of the product ordered, where it's fulfilled (and where the seller is located if it's not directly sold by Amazon), where it's shipped to, whether or not it's shipped to a residential or business address, etc. Which is why the final tax charged can sometimes differ from the "estimated tax" displayed when you place the order.

However, once all those factors are known, an algorithm simply calculates how much needs to be collected for tax, and to which agency (or agencies) it will be paid.

There are also companies that specialize in providing online sellers with constantly updated tax rates for all municipalities across the U.S., and that are often integrated with turn-key ecommerce solutions.

At this point Amazon probably has in-house people keeping track of all this stuff. For a logistics powerhouse like Amazon, keeping track of sales tax rates is child's play.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-15-2019, 8:51 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 7,028
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
I wonder how Amazon manages to keep up with local state tax rates? It seems like that would be more challenging than gun laws.
It’s all very secret, but, if you promise not to divulge it, I will provide you with the special password for the secret government site.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:28 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.