|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 15, 2013, 02:18 PM | #26 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
I don't know, JimDandy. I continue to have reservations about having to demonstrate eligibility to exercise a right. Unless I missed something, DOJ seems to think that we shouldn't be required to present ID to vote, . . . that's a different topic, though.
It's not just a pass/fail/false-positive problem, either. Even though I'd pass the check, I'd have to go through the process of having the check done, which will entail some costs (maybe a fee, maybe just gas, time), regardless of the outcome.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 15, 2013, 02:21 PM | #27 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:22 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
|
I think this: myself and most people I know understand there is only one way to prevent crimes with guns. They also understand there will be many steps taken and failures of said steps, to eventually end up with the actual solution.
The problem I see is there are more people than I thought existed who are willing to help design these steps. Just don't be in to big a hurry, after all, they will fail and the next steps follow quickly. If you want to prevent crimes with guns, get rid of guns. Forms do not prevent crimes, lists do not prevent crimes, so whats next? |
April 15, 2013, 02:23 PM | #30 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 15, 2013, 02:25 PM | #31 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Your stance that you don't want to be regulated.
|
April 15, 2013, 02:26 PM | #32 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:26 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:32 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:32 PM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
However, I have no desire to place additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, particularly in light of: (1) my belief that only those who are already inclined to abide by the law will adhere to such restrictions; (2) my belief that such additional restrictions will have no desirable effect on crime rates. There's really not much to reconcile here. Just because the RKBA has been regulated in the past is no reason for me to voluntarily submit to more regulation. Here's one of my favorite bits on this: Ok. I'll play. (Read the part about the cake.)
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 15, 2013, 02:32 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:34 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
Don't they have to have the gun in hand in order to "trace" it? ADDING: NEVER MIND...I read that as ATF is able to trace guns and recover them as oppsed to guns being recovered and then traced... I need coffee... |
|
April 15, 2013, 02:35 PM | #38 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 15, 2013, 02:37 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Ok, Kochman, since you are using the prevention of 120,000 sales number to support your argument, why don't you now tell us how many of those were a) prosecuted, or b) convicted for attempting an unlawful purchase? (I think you will find the numbers amazingly low, as in possibly only in double digits.)
Then, why don't you tell us how many of those were disruptions due to clerical error, or similar names or birthdates? One would not expect those to be prosecuted, but how many of them were actually valid, as opposed to delay or disruption of the buyer's rights? The feds don't generally prosecute over 4473 issues. There is a high rate of false positives in the system. So please, if you are going to claim it is an effective tool for fighting crime, instead of a major pain for victims of administrative screw-ups, please show how many criminals were prosecuted convicted, and how many dangerous mental cases were committed, as a result of the system. |
April 15, 2013, 02:37 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:39 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Spats, I could believe those were DOJ numbers. I have, after all, seen DOJ numbers where around 80,000 sales were blocked by NICS, but only 77 cases were referred for prosecution...
As Biden said, they just don't have time to prosecute that paperwork stuff. Either that, or over 99% of the blocked transactions were not legitimate. |
April 15, 2013, 02:39 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Yes ATW525...
I already edited my previous post to that affect... ADDING: I'd love to see the official stats on that... |
April 15, 2013, 02:42 PM | #43 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
@Spats,
How do we know who is law abiding without a background check? Source for 120k was provided when I first mentioned it, it's hyperlinked... just scroll back up. @Mleake, Less than 1% of those 120k were prosecuted (conviction rate was 100% I think, it's all in the link). That's a failure clearly. However, at least it wasn't 120k jerks with guns that shouldn't have them... ideally we'd follow up better, and that's part of what this gun bill does, allegedly. The numbers for false negatives are already there in the link I believe, it wasn't a high number. You can also have a false negative trying to board a plane... that's just how systems that have 300 million people are... The fact that the 4473 wasn't used properly in 2002-2003 doesn't mean it can't be used properly in the future, surely you agree. |
April 15, 2013, 02:44 PM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Another point; CBI-Colorado...
The recent Denver Post item about the CBI(CO Bureau of Investigation) & the back-log of background checks/new firearm buyers shows how complex & error-filled these new gun laws(background requirements) are.
To take 7 days for a new gun purchase/state check is way out of line. These new laws & standards will need 100s of new staff, offices, supplies, etc. CF |
April 15, 2013, 02:49 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, the fact that a Universal Background Check system could be used by an anti-gun government to confiscate guns isn't something you deny, just because it hasn't happened yet, don't you agree?
How many false positives do you think are worth it, to prevent gun purchases that were not worth prosecuting? Would you endorse random roadblocks, every day of the week, at the entrance of your neighborhood in order to screen for potential DUI drivers? Surely the hassle and inconvenience to the vast majority would be worth it, to save the lives of those the drunk drivers might kill, no? (BTW, I have had family members SEVERELY injured by drunk drivers, to include facial reconstruction and neck repair surgery, and yet I don't endorse unending roadblocks.) |
April 15, 2013, 02:49 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 02:53 PM | #47 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
MLeake,
I don't deny that certain systems of UBC could lead to registry, confiscation. 4473s, no. Re: false positives vs prosections... completely unrelated, they should be prosecuting more frequently was part and parcel of what I'm saying... and there are provisions for that in the current bill (this doesn't guarantee enforcement, obviously). It does beg the question, what are current prosecution rates 10 years later under O'bama? Regarding check points... no, because you walking around isn't the same as you wanting to buy a lethal weapon. If you won't acknowledge that guns are lethal weaponry, which we have the right to own, then it's kind of hard to debate... in other words, that's apples and oranges. I think the roadblocks for DUI are illegal, personally... invasion of privacy. |
April 15, 2013, 02:59 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
Can you confirm that they go through and yearly destroy the bound book that is 20 years old? |
|
April 15, 2013, 03:03 PM | #49 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 15, 2013, 03:06 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|