|
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 |
May 5, 2013, 05:04 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check. Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
May 5, 2013, 06:02 PM | #27 |
Member
Join Date: April 10, 2013
Posts: 64
|
Hmmmm
Not in CO. as we have some rather strange laws, ever since Columbine. Not that they are enforced in any regular manner. Personally, I see the frenzy on the part of our opposition as being a direct result of their argument being based on emotion, not reason. Any reasonable person can see, for instance, that the numbers simply do not support their positions. Gun folks are just well, forgive me, wonderfully "dull" when it comes to breaking laws or being violent. We tend to be the folks who still get misty-eyed when the National Anthem is played. We tend to be the folks who get a catch in the throat when we hear that a member of the military has given their life for our nation. We still smile with pride when we see Old Glory fly. We just do not rub banks, shoot up schools or deal drugs. All of which are the sort that spark the howls for new laws and bans. |
May 5, 2013, 10:44 PM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 347
|
Quote:
This is what he said!! Quote:
|
||
May 5, 2013, 10:54 PM | #29 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
Quote:
The people I'm talking about are not correct because what they believe is that things are fundamentally different in terms of the legality of transfers/background checks at gunshows. They aren't. If a sale requires a background check, it still requires a background check if it takes place at a gunshow. If a sale doesn't require a background check at a gunshow it doesn't require a background check anywhere. The people I'm talking about are under the impression that there is a legal way for commercial/business-related/dealer-stocked firearm sales to take place without a form 4473 and without a background check. My point about people being generally uninformed about the current laws regarding firearm transfers is unaffected by the fact that licensed persons can sell privately owned firearms in exactly the same manner as unlicensed persons can sell privately owned firearms. That point is, people who don't understand the existing laws and who are asked basic questions about changing the laws without clarification will likely answer questions about expanding background checks in such a way that their answers only reveal how misinformed they are and won't really provide any useful information about what they think should and shouldn't be legal. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
May 5, 2013, 11:00 PM | #30 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
|
Its 20 miles to the state line.......if thats true then hundreds of guns are being bought and sold illegaly every week.
I've never heard of anyone doing anything about it or even talk about doig anything about it. |
May 5, 2013, 11:22 PM | #31 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
It is not legal for a private sale of a firearm to take place across a state line without involving a licensed dealer (FFL holder).
It IS legal for an FFL to sell a firearm (with a form 4473 and background check) to a citizen of another state in a face-to-face transaction assuming that the purchase and possession of the firearm in question is legal in both the state where the purchase takes place and the state where the purchaser resides. So you could legally buy a gun from dealer stock (commercial sale) at the show assuming that both states involved (your state of residence and the state where the show takes place) allow such a transfer and as long as the transaction took place face-to-face and you filled out the 4473 and were background checked. However, it would not be legal for you to purchase a privately owned gun (i.e. a private sale from a dealer's personal collection or sale from an unlicensed person--NOT a commercial sale from dealer stock) at a gunshow in another state. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
May 5, 2013, 11:23 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
AlabamaShooter --
Thanks for the link to the poll but the 82% figure was not in favor of UBC, which is how you put it. The question asked was: Quote:
More fundamentally, I'll second JohnSKa's point that many people out there think it is perfectly legal to go to a gun show and purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a background check. That's because the Brady Bunch and the cooperating media have pounded on the "Gun Show Loophole" so much. I think we should get a friendly member of Congress to introduce a bill called "The Gun Show Loophole Act." It would require all buyers at a gun show purchasing from a firearms dealer to pass a background check. We could put some teeth into it by making it unlawful to lie on the federal form. |
|
May 5, 2013, 11:37 PM | #33 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
The BATF does audit FFL holders on a regular basis, and if they try to shuffle guns out of their business stock so that they can sell them in private sales, theyr'e going to eventually be caught and go to jail. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
May 5, 2013, 11:43 PM | #34 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
|
Thats just it.....they dont have a regular place of business. Well other than their garage.
They pay 50 bucks for a table and set up shop on the weekend. They dont operate a real business IMO. IMO they have alot of guns and their old and retired.....they need money. They used guns as an investment and especially now that the markts hot.....their dumping them. I assure you I'm no idiot. One thing I know is business and money. |
May 5, 2013, 11:50 PM | #35 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
A standard FFL holder must have some place that they can officially call their business location for the BATFE to come when it is time for an audit. It can be their house/garage.
It is not legal for a standard FFL holder to have an FFL without operating a business. The BATFE will shut them down. They are pretty aggressive about this kind of enforcement. It's legal for an FFL holder to do most (even all) of his business at gunshows, but that doesn't get them off the hook in terms of having an official business address (even if it's their home) nor in terms of regular audits and maintainin the proper paperwork. I'm sure that some of them are breaking the law, but if it's true that illegal dealer sales are widespread, that's more evidence against passing new laws, not an argument for passing new ones. If the BATFE isn't enforcing current laws, it doesn't make sense to pass even more laws that won't be enforced.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
May 6, 2013, 08:10 AM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
As an aside the poll also gave a higher approval rating to the NRA than it did to the Democratic Party. Since gun control is a party platform now that speaks volumes towards the validity of the poll.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
||
May 6, 2013, 10:43 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let's stay on topic. Personal tales of questionable veracity aren't relevant. I deleted a sequence of such.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 6, 2013, 02:05 PM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Here are some recent volleys from said campaign:
From the deep opposition: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...te-rights.html Summary: Gun owners are deranged psychotics: Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...demic-violence Summary: I own a gun too and think that only a few scary conspiracy nutters are the ones behind the push back against "common sense regulation" Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
||
May 6, 2013, 05:12 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
May 6, 2013, 10:17 PM | #40 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
Stealing a gun from a dealer creates an end result that is essentially the same as buying from a dealer. Either way, a gun moves from the dealer's possession to the possession of the person in question. Clearly the mechanism can make a HUGE difference even when the result is the same. Quote:
Our best strategy is countering with common sense and logic. NOT giving in so that they'll like us better. They won't ever like us better because they have a fundamentally different view of reality than we do. But that's all neither here nor there. You claimed that the poll results are telling. I stated why I believe they are not and explained why. So far, other than pointing out a limited exception that allows a dealer to sell his privately owned firearms in the same manner as any other citizen can sell privately owned firearms, no one has really addressed the main issue I raised. I'm not trying to "win the argument", I think it's an important point that needs to be raised and here is why. If the problem, as I claim, is that the anti-gunners are playing on the ignorance of the general population about existing gun laws, then the solution is doing whatever possible to educate the general population about the gun laws in question. Giving in because the anti-gunners have successfully made it appear that public opinion is behind their current push for legislation is counter productive and plays into their strategy.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
May 7, 2013, 05:41 AM | #41 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
You ever notice how on the Internet, someone who is losing an argument based on facts soon resorts to ad hominem? The recent push for gun control and its follow up is just that same practice writ large. Look at the pieces above:
1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics. 2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown. 3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people. The problem is, in the United States there are around 80-100 million gun owners. So people are unlikely to buy that line because chances are very high they know a gun owner who doesn't fit that stereotype. The whole purpose of these types of articles is to try and shame gun owners into the closet - to stop them from pointing out the facts and the stupidity of our existing laws. To get them to shut up anout the hundreds of thousands of people denied on a background check who were never prosecuted. The only way such childish tactics work against us is if we allow them to silence us or drag us into responding in kind. It is like the last gasp of a dying animal when you see those kinds of efforts. |
May 7, 2013, 10:44 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ats-90986.html
This is an interesting piece. The gist is that by attacking progun Democrats, Bloomberg will cause their loss in upcoming elections. Reid told Bloomberg this - and he didn't care. The rationale is that the wave of antigun sentiment will promote an antigun Democrat's chances. This is an empirical question. It does show that the war isn't over, so to speak.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 7, 2013, 11:00 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
That there are in the US something between 80 and 150 million gun owners does not mean that there are between 80 and 150 million principled advocates of an important civil right. My sense is that many of those owners might readily accept changes that do not appear to be an immediate problem for them personally.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
May 7, 2013, 12:51 PM | #44 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
I was in New York a few weeks back, and even folks who were mildly supportive of things like the Toomey/Manchin amendment were very put off by being called rednecks and child murderers. Do a Google search for "gun control political cartoon" and you'll see that portrayal writ large. The antis really misread the situation, and thinking they were lampooning a stereotypical minority, they outraged a diverse majority.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 7, 2013, 01:29 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
The ways we were discussing involved legal transfers.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
May 7, 2013, 02:14 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
|
One fatal flaw of Universal Background Checks is that there isn't anything "universal" about them.
Like all gun laws, UBCs only apply to those inclined to obey laws. A gang member from MS-13, or the Crips or Bloods, who wants to transfer a handgun to another gang member is unlikely to first go get a background check. The fatal flaw doesn't involve those buyers who will comply, regardless of whether they comply at a gun show or at a dealer's showroom. The flaw concerns those who will not comply. The problem is simply that noncompliance would be extremely difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence. If Smith wants to sell Jones a handgun, and they agree to transact this sale without a UBC, first, no one knows the sale ever took place. Second, no formal evidence exists that the sale ever occurred - that Smith once owned the pistol, nor that Jones now owns it. If pressed, Smith can claim he never owned the handgun, and -assuming Smith didn't fill out a Form 4473 when he acquired the gun - there isn't any evidence that Smith ever owned it or even possessed it to begin with. Nothing ties the firearm to Smith as a seller. Ergo UBC laws are often currently unenforceable. What most people who answer survey's don't understand is that only if Universal Gun Reistration is implemented can UBC laws be enforced. Under UGR, which links all firearms with a Smith or a Jones somewhere, now law enforcement can ask the question: "How did Smith's pistol wind up in Jone's possession?" Once the government can mandate all firearms be tied to owners (a daunting task on its own), the matter of firearms sellers and buyers who fail to comply with UBC laws can be addressed. But UGR is a necessary condition for UBC. IMHO this is why anti-gun activists are so frenzied on the matter of UBC laws. They intend to foist them on an uninformed public - which believes UBC sound 'reasonable', and then start begin bloviating about the "UBC Loopholes" which render them unenforceable so that one year later UGR bills can be passed. Most everyone can agree that firearms probably should be kept out of the hands of convicted gang members and the mentally ill, etc. UBC laws no doubt appear to many citizens like a reasonable place to start. It isn't until citizens understand that UBC laws are currently essentially unenforceable, and thus meaningless without universal gun registration, that many begin to see where this is leading and why UBC laws are a step in the wrong direction. JMHO. YMMV.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case. |
May 7, 2013, 06:08 PM | #47 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
May 7, 2013, 06:19 PM | #48 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
|
Quote:
I was told by Tom Servo that you can only by a gun privately in the state in which you have residence without going through a FFL dealer and having a background check. Same for the FTL classifieds......you must have resodency in the state or have it sent to a FFL in your state. Just making sure you know this....I sure didn't and I live close to two other states that I go to gunshows in on a regular basis. I'm glad he told me. May have saved me some trouble. Quote:
Problem is laws are not enforced and when they are...the criminals are not kept in jail long enough most of the time. |
||
May 7, 2013, 06:37 PM | #49 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
The Classified ads here on The Firing Line are required to abide by the same Federal and State laws requiring background checks, as applicable to the residence of each party. Quote:
Take speed limits as an example. Do you think people would drive 65 on the interstate if it wasn't illegal to drive 100? Most would not. They do because of the penalty. Some still don't, but there can be NO doubt that there would be more, faster drivers without the penalties. Since it is indisputable that folks who are not inclined to follow the law... i.e. criminals... do not currently and will not in the future follow the laws, what then is the point in creating more laws which, by definition, will only be followed by the folks who you're not worried about anyway?
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|||
May 7, 2013, 07:32 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|