PDA

View Full Version : I need a little help with an anti


Erratic
April 3, 2009, 06:05 PM
I've got a guy I recently met that needs some education. I've already convinced him that you cant just go into any old gun shop and walk out with a machine gun the same as it was a bolt action hunting rifle. He and his wife both firmly support the "assault weapons" ban because they thought that this would outlaw machine guns. I told him that although they are not illegal, they are so tightly controlled that they may as well be.

The thing I have not been able to convice him of is this. He believes that if someone cannot for whatever reason buy a gun in his home state (he used NY as an example) that they could just order it from another state and have it shipped right to his door. He just wont believe me that this is not possible. I am correct, am I not? What I need is printable documentation of this. I suppose I could just go to any gun dealer's website and print out the sentance that says "all guns and recievers must be shipped to a FFL dealer" but I was looking for a little more than that. Thanks folks!

chemgirlie
April 3, 2009, 06:11 PM
Indeed you are correct unless the person doing the ordering has an FFL. You can ship firearm pars, but not the bits that the ATF considers the actual firearm. I got my C&R a while back and can hence get C&R firearms shipped right to my house and skip the gun shop, but I had to get a background check to be able to obtain said license, and last I checked not too many murders were using WWII surplus rifles.

Here's a quote from the ATF's website:
(B7) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?[Back]

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm

Erratic
April 3, 2009, 06:19 PM
That's perfect. Thanks a lot. We bet this guy a whole night of drinks! Looks like I win. This is the problem with these antis. They just don't know the laws already in place that don't work to fight gun crime. Thanks again.

Chipperman
April 3, 2009, 06:58 PM
You can use a C&R to ship across state lines, as chemgirlie said. If the person is prohibited from owning/buying in their home state, then they also could not legally obtain a C&R and have guns shipped to them.

They could always buy a gun illegally, but if we make more restricitve laws, eventually people will get tired of breaking them, right? :rolleyes:

44 AMP
April 3, 2009, 07:55 PM
they could just order it from another state and have it shipped right to his door.

There was a time in the US when you could do that. It ended in 1968.

For over fourty years, direct mail order sales of firearms has been against Federal Law. 40 years!

Hope your anti friend ponys up for the drinks. Imagine, not knowing something like that has been illegal for over 40 years! Wonder what else he doesn't know?

You might want to tell him about the drug laws passed back then, and more recently. Or maybe tell him about the fact that we landed men on the moon!

Budzboy
April 3, 2009, 07:58 PM
W.C.Fields said it best - "Never smarten up a chump".

Old Wanderer
April 3, 2009, 08:06 PM
Show him a picture of a AR15, bet him $100 he cannot get on the internet and order one from any state or country and get it delivered to his home.....:)

(Easy Money)

shortwave
April 4, 2009, 07:56 PM
Tell him that you will pay him 500% mark-up on every firearm he has directly shipped to his house;). It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be so oppinionated about things they know nothing about. Enjoy your night of drinks and leave your guns at home:D.

hogdogs
April 4, 2009, 08:01 PM
But the crook can walk into walmart and buy a muzzle loader rifle right off the shelf and if he looks over 18 won't even have to show ID:D....
Half inch projectile accurate to 200 yards is gonna leave a mark too!:rolleyes:
Brent

Jim March
April 4, 2009, 08:17 PM
Right, muzzle-loaders aren't controlled by the Feds at all - you can have them shipped to your door. But muzzle-loaders are VERY slow to reload and take some serious practice to be able to operate reliably - you literally have to assemble each load as you go with the right amount of powder, the ball stuck in there properly and the percussion cap placed right.

Flintlock is even more annoying :).

There's one tiny loophole in all this left. You buy a percussion revolver, the sort of thing Wild Bill Hickock was into like the Colt 1851/1861, the 1858 Remington or Ruger's "Old Army" which is a semi-modern percussion "general old-timey replica" loosely patterned off the Remington.

You then get a cartridge conversion cylinder for it, to take light-loaded modern ammo.

In Arizona and likely New Mexico and Texas, you can't find used Colt 1851s in .36cal for love or money. They get bought by Mexicans, shipped south over the border in their original antique-replica condition and then converted to 38Special with cylinders built in small machine shops. The 38Spl is one of the calibers Mexican authorities consider "non-military" and hence the penalties for packing one (IF you're a Mexican national!!!!!!!!) are "lighter" (and many cops will let you slide with a small bribe).

But again, reload times vary from "slow" to "take the whole damned gun apart" depending on how good the conversion is - the Mexican El Cheapo conversions are of the latter type. Useful against one or two muggers maybe, that's about it.

hogdogs
April 4, 2009, 08:56 PM
Jim, But the modern ML is an easy albeit slow beast... Drop 3 pills of BP down the pipe followed by a sabot bullet combo rodded in and put your 209 primer in fire at "will" or what ever his name may be...
Brent

Swampghost
April 4, 2009, 09:04 PM
Why do you choose to argue with an idiot? I have more important stuff to do like go get a beer.

Chris_B
April 5, 2009, 07:38 AM
The guy's probably not an idiot.

What he is is a probably person who has tried to stay informed by watching the TV news and reading the papers, which is a pair of news sources that skew and obscure issues and facts based on political agenda

The guy is ignorant of the real laws and intents for them. Ignorance is not idiocy. Like most people, he believes that what he's told by the media regarding laws and crimes is true

When the USA hopefully wakes up, the Average Joe will understand that "the TV News" is an entertainment and sensationalist venue, and if he wants the truth on things like law, he should simply become familiar with what the law says

#18indycolts
April 5, 2009, 08:35 AM
Is he asking you for your advice? Or are you just pushing your views on him because he is against guns?

PoorSoulInJersey
April 5, 2009, 08:46 AM
Try this:

Tell him that you will personally pay for any firearm that he can get shipped directly to his door through a legal purchase and you'll buy him a year's worth of ammo for it.

Then sit back and watch him try.

trigger happy
April 5, 2009, 09:13 AM
I generally allow people to continue being ignorant, makes life easier

cjw3cma
April 5, 2009, 10:46 AM
Now you too can become an instant guru of guns by taking the RONCO "I know everything I need to know" gun knowledge pills. Just 3 pills a day for a week and you too will be able to spout tactical nonsense at your local pub. Take one of the automatic weapons pills followed by the automatic handgun pill and one of the "make it all sound convincing" pills and lo and behold - you are an instant gun guru. Impress your anti-friends with your newly gained TRUTH knowledge.

(Warning: take these pills with the special FREE kool-aid enclosed with each order - that's the only way that they will work).

WeedWacker
April 5, 2009, 03:35 PM
Why do you choose to argue with an idiot? I have more important stuff to do like go get a beer.

Note you go get beer and pay for it while this guy gets free beer from his arguing :D:cool:

Kreyzhorse
April 5, 2009, 05:54 PM
Wild Alaska's tag line (one of them anyway) is something to the effect of "You can't reason with people who's mind is closed to it."

Good luck getting your beer. :)

miroslav
April 6, 2009, 01:04 PM
I've always joked that you should never argue with an idiot because the drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

The only problem with that is if we don't start educating these people, there will eventually be more of them than us. And then they get to call the shots, and our rights go away.

I say props to Erratic for taking the time to educate an anti.

Erratic
April 7, 2009, 10:07 PM
This guy is far from an idiot. He's a professional businessperson. Very successful. I don't remember how the discussion on guns came up but I feel good educating him, and at the same time I feel he appreciates it. I don't know if he will feel better or worse knowing that the laws he thought would decrease crime have been in effect for years! I know he will pony up on the bet once I show him that link to the atf website. After reading it though, I gotta go hide my Potato cannon or "spud gun" as the ATF calls it. Who woulda thought the ATF even knew what a potato cannon was.

Rich Miranda
April 7, 2009, 10:58 PM
I don't have anything to say that y'all don't already know, but I'll say it anyway. The problem is that people think they 'know' things based on what they see and hear in the media. There is a constant political call for MORE laws to restrict firearms, so they figure there must not be enough laws.

I spoke to a 'neutral' today about gun control. He was not anti, but he did possess the false knowledge I speak of.

It's important to tell people what you think they should know for the same reason you tell your kids drugs are bad: if you don't tell them, someone may tell them the opposite and they'll believe it.

carguychris
April 8, 2009, 12:11 PM
There's one tiny loophole in all this left. You buy a percussion revolver...
There's also one other little-bitty loophole. Firearms manufactured before January 1, 1899 are considered "antiques" under the 1968 Gun Control Act and aren't regulated.

Most of the guns covered under this loophole are black-powder arms such as flintlock muskets, early breechloading single-shot rifles, and percussion revolvers, but savvy gun historians will recognize that it encompasses a few high-powered metallic cartridge revolvers, such the Colt Single Action Army and S&W Model Number Three, and it also includes the first generation of easily-reloadable military bolt-action rifles, such the Mauser Model 96 and Mosin-Nagant Model 1891.

However, most of these guns are just what their title implies- antiques. The January 1st, 1899 cutoff date is static, it's never updated, so these guns get more rare, collectible, and expensive every day. Most crooks want to do things the cheap and easy way, which is why they became crooks in the first place. The cost and difficulty involved in buying a functional pre-1899 weapon- not to mention the problem of finding suitable ammo- would deter almost all of them. It's far, far easier to steal a modern gun or buy it on the black market.

While I'm confident that a few crimes are committed each year using "antique" firearms, I seriously doubt that the number even represents one tenth of one percent of gun crime. I'm also confident that it's far smaller than the number of violent crimes committed using readily available improvised weapons such as hammers, axe handles, or chains.

{EDIT} I'd also wager that, in the vast majority of gun crimes committed using "antique" firearms, the antique was used out of pure convenience- it was used simply because it was readily available, not because the crook sought it out to avoid the background check.

johnwilliamson062
April 8, 2009, 01:01 PM
The thing I have not been able to convice him of is this. He believes that if someone cannot for whatever reason buy a gun in his home state (he used NY as an example) that they could just order it from another state and have it shipped right to his door. He just wont believe me that this is not possible.

Every once in a while someone ships a gun into the US dissassembled and labeled something like "plumbing parts." It isn't legal, but it does happen.
Drugs, especially pills get shipped in under different prescriptions some. Say Oxycotin in a bottle which reads allegre. Isn't legal.

Why is it ok with everyone that machine guns are illegal?
They are not anymore dangerous than other guns, and in untrained hands I have to imagine even less dangerous in many cases.
It isn't that they are dangerous, it is that they are POWERFUL. THe government does not want its citizens to have any power. I can't afford to feed one, but that is my thoughts on the subject.

God have mercy the first time someone decides to go on one of these mass killings with a Honda civic and they just drive around a city running people over. A lot more dangerous and a lot harder to stop than a gunmen.