|
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, 05:19 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, how many of those who were stopped should NOT have been stopped?
You assume that all who are stopped were violators. I don't assume that at all. We constantly hear from people who are on hold because of bizarre reasons, such as a traffic case being dropped without adjudication, yet flagging the system; wrong names; wrong DOB; wrong SSN. We routinely hear of people who have to get a UPIN because of problems they repeatedly have with the system. I'd say a significant percentage of those whose transactions are disrupted are having their rights trampled on. You see the large numbers of stops as a good thing; please prove that they are. If this were a red-light camera system, that were sending fines out to thousands of drivers every year, but the system were out of calibration and the vast majority of its fines were questionable, nobody would defend it. Well, not true, some people would, saying - But it stops people from running red lights! When in fact it may, to a small extent, but what it really does is generate revenue for the municipality that has the light and camera, and the company that holds the contract. |
April 15, 2013, 05:22 PM | #77 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
There is an appeals process for when mistakes are made.
If you were stopped falsely, you'll get your ability back. There were false negatives, as with anything... I've already addressed this. Not a big deal, better to err temporarily on the side of caution than forever on the side of danger. @Spats... So, basically, until we can get it perfect, you want no effort. I don't think that provides for tranquility or welfare of the citizens in the meanwhile. |
April 15, 2013, 05:25 PM | #78 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
When you're talking about making adjustments to my Constitutional rights, it's a very big deal to me.
__________________
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, 05:28 PM | #79 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Do I want to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill? Sure. Do I think UBCs stand a snowball's chance of getting that done? Absolutely not. Do I really want to sacrifice the Constitutional rights of all Americans' for feel-good legislation that will do nothing to deter criminals? I think not.
__________________
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, 05:57 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 06:22 PM | #81 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you're denied on a sale, the burden falls to you to prove your innocence. If it turns out the FBI has the wrong information, they're not going to do the footwork to correct it. If it's a case of local law enforcement records being incorrect, you'll have to find the appropriate party and make arrangements to fix it, which often involves the services of an attorney. That assumes that you can find the entity, and that they can find the information. In one case, I know a person who blew over $6000 in attorney's fees getting an uncooperative sheriff's department to dig out records from 1981, which had been stored off site and subsequently lost. All this was over a traffic fine that was mistakenly reported as unpaid. It took him almost two years. Expanding this to all gun sales? No thanks.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||||
April 15, 2013, 06:54 PM | #82 | ||
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, 07:11 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15, 2013, 07:35 PM | #84 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Sorry, but...
I must be missing the reply where I am to be assured that 4473's do not already amount to a de facto 'registry' in certain circumstances... Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 15, 2013, 08:35 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
I think you're right, and you're wrong. About 40% are friends and family, about 40% are street buys/illegal sources- most likely some level of stranger. So we won't stop the 40% of street buys, but we'll put a real dent in the 40% of friends and family. |
|
April 15, 2013, 08:37 PM | #86 | ||
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, 08:58 PM | #87 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
JimDandy, I agree that prosecution is entirely different from being stopped from the sale. If the feds won't prosecute a crime, though, the penalties sure would seem to lose a lot of the intended deterrent effect.
I don't think it will make any difference to folks on the Felonious Friends and Family Plan. Any effect that it might have will be in the "stranger sale" arena, but I just don't think a lot of felons are buying through the classifieds. I think it will just redirect felons currently using the classifieds to go to friends and family.
__________________
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, 10:28 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
You don't think John Doe will avoid buying from his sister Jane knowing there wouldn't be a 4473 and NICS check to protect her? (Though I would point out this transaction and most friend and family transactions are exempt).
And if the family is Felonius together, how did Jane get the get in the first place? From another felonius family member? It had to start with either a theft, FFL purchase, or corrupt FFL/Straw Purchase. |
April 16, 2013, 06:04 AM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
|
How can they enforce background checks in private sales with out registration?
I am not a criminal , why should I be punished/fined every time I purchase a gun? |
April 16, 2013, 06:47 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
The biggest problem I see is that the government cannot be trusted to play fair with law abiding gun owners. They have taken steps to prevent veterans from owning guns. How many veterans have already been put on a list, Diane Feinstein has said veterans should not be allowed to have guns. What kind of lump them all in one class is that non sense ? She did not say veterans with severe post traumatic stress, she said all veterans. Do you trust a congress woman of that mentality ? Then you have the government ignoring the HIPPA law and looking into peoples personal health records, that is illegal. The you have Gov. Cuomo passing a law that requires a doctor, nurse practitioner or registered nurse to provide the name and address of any person they feel might be a danger to themselves or the general public. What happened to doctor patient confidentiality ? Also how is a nurse practitioner or a register nurse qualified to judge a persons mental health ?
We all know they are after registration and eventual confiscation of all guns from law abiding citizens. Look at the FBI statistics about crime rates, they are the highest in cities and states that have the strictest gun laws already. Look at Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and California etc and it goes on and on. The highest crime is in places where the law abiding citizen is unarmed. Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, the criminals will always have guns. The government is breaking more laws to take your guns because their end purpose is to disarm the law abiding citizen, showing that the government cannot be trusted. The police cars have painted on them "to protect and to serve ", now the government is saying it is not the police's job to protect you, whats with that ? We want to disarm you and its not up to the police to protect you, so we are leaving you to the mercy of the armed criminals. All I understand is that a federal back ground check system will no doubt lead to a federal registration and at some point they will be knocking at your door demanding your guns. Look what happened in New Orleans, people were treated like common criminals, pushed around, shoved around, threatened and abused. There was rioting and looting and instead of dealing with that the police were coming around disarming the law abiding making them easy pickings for the criminals. Why weren't they dealing with the criminals that were breaking the law ? IMHO it was because they had to do something and disarming law abiding citizens was easier and safer for them than dealing with the criminals. I apologize for rambling on, but it gripes me that it is always more laws for the law abiding and nothing being done about the law breakers. |
April 16, 2013, 07:24 AM | #91 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
Quote:
Cars furthermore have a series of uses other than shooting a deadly projectile over large differences... they take people to work, haul things, etc. Now, if they were checking you in say, Wyoming, every time you walked around with a gun on your hip (or any open carry state), then you'd have a start to a decent argument... 4473 is your initial certification. After it is passed, you generally don't have to re-do it on a random basis. But again, the cars argument is never a good one... ever. 4473 is nothing more than an initial licensing, each time you buy a gun... it doesn't stay on record even, like a car license. Once you've got the gun, it's yours. Quote:
Also, in many states, if you have a CCW permit, it goes much smoother, because that is, for all intents and purposes, a license. Quote:
The 4473 is far from that! |
||||
April 16, 2013, 08:07 AM | #92 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
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 16, 2013, 08:12 AM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
|
Originally posted by Kochman
Quote:
As far as hastening the next massacre, I see absolutely zero evidence that refusing to pass UBC's would do that. Looking at the notable mass shootings in recent years, none of the shooters got their weapons through private-party transactions or some sort of "gun show loophole." The Columbine shooters got theirs through a straw purchase, the Virginia Tech, Tuscon, and Aurora shooters all passed a background check to buy theirs (largely because their mental health issues and past crimes were unreported and/or ignored by the authorities), and the Sandy Hook shooter got his through murder and theft. What I fear happening is that if we pass UBC's and the next mass shooting happens (and it eventually will if we don't address mental health, NICS reporting, and school security), the gun control advocates will bemoan that UBC's weren't enough and start pushing for the "next step" such as full-on Registration, AWB, or magazine capacity limits. |
|
April 16, 2013, 08:16 AM | #94 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
It's a right to have a deadly weapon, and they don't dis"allow" unless you're clearly in the wrong to begin with... It's completely legit to sensibly regulate it, it always was on one level or another. @Webleymkv Ok, so, tell me how you would compromise... perfect world. What is your system and how is it better than 4473s? |
|
April 16, 2013, 08:24 AM | #95 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
You're telling me that there are no false positives? That the 2A is never denied "unless you're clearly in the wrong to being with?" If your 2A right is so unimportant to you that your response is "so what if I have to ask permission," then feel free to make every one of your firearms transfers through an FFL. There's nothing stopping you now. I am well aware that the 2A has been subject to some regulation for a long, long time. That doesn't mean that I should consent to having even more restrictions placed on it. We've already gone way past what "sensible regulation" is, IMHO. I see no reason to give up any more of our 2A rights than we already have. What you're proposing is not a compromise. It's appeasement, and has a long history of failure. If one has to ask permission to do something, then that something is a priviliege, not a right.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 16, 2013, 08:33 AM | #96 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
We've gone over this. There are TEMPORARY false negatives, with a clear appeals path.
The 4473 is not a "restriction" to you, assuming you are law abiding. I honestly think a good amount of people objecting to this are people that are potentially not supposed to have guns but want them... My 2A right is incredibly important to me, so is the idea that idiots out there aren't selling guns to repeated violent offenders just because they can't get it through thei skulls and into their minds that the 4473 is not going to stop the law abiding but will stop the violent and insane... That's why I am glad we have the 4473 and am for its expansion, because it will force irresponsible gun owners, who refuse to check on their potential buyer because it would cost them a minute or two of their day and $35, to do the right thing that responsible gun owners already do. No one is asking you to give up your 2A rights by getting checked out or checking out a buyer. That's something that either was or wasn't already adjudicated. |
April 16, 2013, 09:02 AM | #97 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, if the 2A right includes Keeping and Bearing, does it not also include acquiring? If not, . . . if acquiring is subject to so many restrictions, then the RKBA is not much of a right, as it is so easily defeated.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||
April 16, 2013, 09:04 AM | #98 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
The homicide rate has been trending down for 20 years. In 93, the Clinton administration passed several anti-crime measures. Only one of those measures has been in effect for the entire 20 year downturn. Background Checks. Not assault weapons bans, and not- unless I missed it elsewhere- the grants to hire more law enforcement. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
April 16, 2013, 09:10 AM | #99 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
@Spats
Dude, if you can't handle the occasional and rare temporary restriction for those who are false negatives... then you probably lead a very upset life. Again, when life and death, err on the side of caution. We do the same thing with airplane travel, and yes, it temporarily screws some people over, but protects others. No, the 4473 doesn't prevent anyone from buying a gun that shouldn't be denied. It may slow down the process for some people temporarily. I know it doesn't slow me down in any of my purchases. The wife should file a restraining order, etc, and plan it out a little better. Get the gun beforehand. Yes, I am totally willing to have you ensure that you aren't selling to a violent sociopath with a record. That you aren't is irresponsible. I believe in responsible gun ownership. You've yet to demonstrate how the 4473 takes away your 2A rights, so, until you do, please stop repeating that nonsense. The 4473 only lets us know if someone has already had their rights adjudicated away. It is not a deciding document, it is a record check. Nothing more. No, the 2A never says acquiring a firearm is going to be a completely convenient and data free process. |
April 16, 2013, 09:14 AM | #100 | ||
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. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|