|
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 |
January 31, 2013, 05:44 PM | #276 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Thanks. I thought there may have been mention of getting the gun through a private sale.
|
January 31, 2013, 05:49 PM | #277 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Yes, actually in this case I think he bought the gun from his own sister. The guys were not caught immediately and the family actually go wind of what they had done, confronted them about it, and they admitted it. That's when the sister and others in the family started to freak. Face it, they could be held accomplice if they didn't turn them in. It's a reasonable bet that's exactly where the anonymous tips came from that led to the fast arrests.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
January 31, 2013, 06:24 PM | #278 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
When I lease a house for rent what do you suppose I do before that? When I hire someone to be my personal nanny, security guard, nursemaid; what do I do before I let them do that? Is it a violation of their civil rights to ensure that someone is not unqualified To make sure that they are a bona fide and not child molester or felon before hand? Remember as individual (or a company or a municipality, whatever) I can not legally discriminate on for these things. To do so would be a violation of their rights. Can the state require that all security guards and nurses and child care workers have a background check for any position? Is this a violation of civil rights? Provided I do it the same way every time?
__________________
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. |
|
January 31, 2013, 07:13 PM | #279 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,272
|
Where are the examples you offer clearly and specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
Would you support a universal background check to vote? Surely our benevo;lent,trustworthy government would never corrupt and abuse that law,and it would certainly protect the integrity of our elections,and,after all,if it would prevent just one fraudulant vote.... Now,please,a direct answer,no sidestep Describe a workable method for the government to monitor and enforce universal background check for face to face sales. The ONLY way I can see that would be effective is 1)Require everyone to submit a complete inventory of all the firearms they have custody of2)Require everyone to submit to audits3)If you have,or do not have,any firearm on the list,it is evidence of a non-background check transaction,and a crime. Remember,we live in a country where Supreme Court Justice Roberts suupports the idea it is a crime to not buy health insurance. I fail to understand why,if murder is a capital crime,we need more laws to prevent murder. Every crime a person could possible commit with a firearm is also a very serious crime,often with extra mandatory sentencing. What we DO NOT NEED is more laws that make people into criminals or give government the means to abuse us for doing nothing more than being in non compliance with some arbitrary stupid ineffective emotional response to "do something" Sensationalizing these crimes in the media is contributing to copy catting.Perhaps we should severely restrict media coverage.After all,if it only saves one life,it will be worth it. |
January 31, 2013, 07:42 PM | #280 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
and they should also know civics, so that test would be a must Quote:
Last edited by BigD_in_FL; January 31, 2013 at 07:47 PM. |
||
February 1, 2013, 01:13 AM | #281 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
Keep piling on the onerous laws, and folks will develop a healthy disrepect for the Law .....doubt me? How 'bout that 18th Amendment? How's that working out? .....Oh, Wait...... You keep holding to that idea that you .... can make people .... "better"..... it's a foolish notion, yet you Progressives are convinced of your noble intentions ...... There are none so dangerous to your Liberty as those who believe they are are curtailing your freedoms "for your own good"! |
|
February 1, 2013, 09:09 AM | #282 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Yesterday, I was watching some of the gun control hearings from earlier this week and NY Senator Chuck Schumer (I really don't like this guy), mentioned that universal background checks should be pushed forward WITHOUT firearm registration as the court had already said that registration is "illegal". Does anybody know where he got this from? Being that he is a huge progressive and will say anything, I was very surprised that he would voluntarily concede this ground.
|
February 1, 2013, 09:36 AM | #283 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
I support universal background checks.
Every nut that runs loose with a gun is a poor reflection on the rest of us. The only people that background checks will hurt are people who shouldn't really have a gun in the first place. I live in VA. The govt already has an inventory of every firearm I bought from a dealer. The form is filled out every time I buy a gun, and it's fine by me. It's true that laws don't stop people from committing crimes. If that was the case their would be no murder. However, that doesn't me there shouldn't be a law against murder. |
February 1, 2013, 09:41 AM | #284 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
I don't think so. |
|
February 1, 2013, 12:16 PM | #285 | ||||||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Or do you disagree with my proposition on who may violate such a right and how it may be violated? If that be the case, go back and look at the language of 42 USC 1983 that I posted. It's very clear on the "color of law" language. As I said earlier, I've spent ~7 of the last 10 years in civil rights litigation. Specifically, I've defended cities, their officers and agents from lawsuits. Virtually every federal lawsuit I've ever defended has been brought under s1983, in conjunction with some other constitutional provision. Let me try another example. Quote:
Example 1: Four guys burst through my door in the middle of the night, armed with shotguns and Glocks. Nobody is home, but they rummage through my stuff, and take some guns of mine. Example 2: Exactly the same as Example 1, except that the four guys are police officers. They do not have a warrant. Example 1 is a burglary, but it's not a violation of my A4 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Example 2 is a possible A4 violation. Why? Because the guys bursting through my door are agents of (acting on behalf of) the government. The four guys in Example 1 cannot violate my A4 rights. They may have violated a bunch of my other rights, but not the A4. Quote:
As a general proposition, it would not violate someone's civil rights for the state to require someone to prove their qualifications to perform the essential functions of a job before they may hold a license to do so. Having a clean record, absent of any convictions for child abuse, child endangerment, child molestation, etc., is a perfectly valid requirement to have a license to run a day-care center or a nanny's license (if they have those), for example. It's also unrelated to any membership in the protected classes. However, job requirements, background checks, and licensing requirements could be tricky. For example, if the background check that I want to run on someone checks for "arrests" rather than "convictions," that can be problematic. Why? Historically, minority groups have gotten arrested more than whites. That means that if I reject a protected-class applicant for having more arrests (but not convictions) than another non-protected applicant, and get sued, a court could conclude that because minority groups get arrested more often than whites, I'm simply using "arrests" rather than "convictions" so that I have an excuse to not hire minorities. For RKBA purposes, though, the courts will stick with the framework already established. While employment discrimination laws are rooted in constitutional law (as all laws need to be), they follow a different analysis. Quote:
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. |
||||||||||
February 1, 2013, 01:00 PM | #286 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
I think we are dancing about, and ignoring the critical part of the discussion. Its not about whether background checks work, or if they are, or are not a good thing. It is about whether the govt has the legal authority to compel us all to use them. Certainly they can compel us, by passing a law, and enforcing it, but do they have the right to do it?
See this trend in other areas of our lives. Just because something is a good idea, and might have benefits for us as individuals, or for society in general, is it our govt's place to compel us to do it by force of law? And is it their right in general, or just for guns, and some other specific things, because they are "dangerous"? Wearing seatbelts is a good idea. Wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea. Having healthing insureance is a good idea. And we got along fairly well, I think, for generations with these good ideas. But today, it is the LAW that you MUST do or have this. And if you do not, even though there is no injury, you get punished by the govt for not having it. IS that right? Along the same line of thinking are the proposals (and in some places laws) requiring you to have your guns locked up in your home. Sure, its a fine idea, but who benefits from it when you get caught not doing it? Only the govt. I am up to my eyeballs in studies that say this, or that, is good, or bad for us. And I am fed up even further with laws and regulations based on "studies" touting the "cost" of not doing it, what ever issue is under discussion. We are being forced to go to the nth degree in so many things, to be safe, from ourselves, and to reduce the "cost" of ..whatever to society, by LAW. It seems that the concept of both individual responsibility in committing an act, (or not committing an act) and the responsibility for paying for that act appears to be an outmoded and no longer relevant concept. It is, but I don't think it ought to be. And I resent the laws that give the govt the legal right to pick my pocket, when no harm has befallen, simply in the name of safety for the masses. And worst of all is the excuse that we "need" such things. It's not just a slippery slope anymore, its a vertical cliff. Studies, like surveys can be rigged to deliver any preconcieved result. There is a "study" that claims that 99%+ of all criminals ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of commiting the crimes. Yet, at this time, no one is screaming we need to ban bread, or pass a background check to buy a loaf. Why not? after all, if it saves just one sandwich......
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 1, 2013, 01:10 PM | #287 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
First a wrong assumption Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So stop being wrong and start being right.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
||||
February 1, 2013, 02:45 PM | #288 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
|
|
February 1, 2013, 03:05 PM | #289 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
All good to know, but the statement was correct, the dealer still must destroy the record after a given time.
What enables the ATF or LE to trace a gun that was used in a crime is exactly this. The gun is seized by the police, they get the seriel number and run it through ATF. ATF links the gun to the manufacturer, to the dealer, to the name on the 4473 they have on file for the sale. If I have this wrong please someone correct me.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
February 1, 2013, 03:20 PM | #290 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
20 years is a long period of "given time."
|
February 1, 2013, 04:06 PM | #291 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
It's one thing to call on a local retailer and say "This is Agent Smith, BATFE, and we need a trace on a gun you received in 1995, SN# xxxxx-xxxxx"
Dealer goes thru records, finds the 4475, says, "OH, it was sold to a John Ibuyguns on 25 Jan, 1987." Agent Smith says "Thanx Pardner" Hangs up. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ And the alternative, Agent Smith calls the retailer and says"We won't be calling you for gun traces anymore, just mail all your 4475s in and we will call it quits. We got everything we ever will need now." "Thanx Pardner" Hangs up.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
February 1, 2013, 07:39 PM | #292 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"Dealers must keep 4473's on file for 20 years."
What happens when the gun shop closes (owner retires/dies,etc)? |
February 1, 2013, 07:42 PM | #293 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 1, 2013, 09:09 PM | #294 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
But of course none of that could possibly tempt anybody in an official position to abuse the system, and use data in unauthorized ways....
|
February 1, 2013, 09:12 PM | #295 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
February 1, 2013, 09:26 PM | #296 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
|
|
February 1, 2013, 10:24 PM | #297 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 2, 2013, 01:45 AM | #298 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
It does not have to work as advertised, it just has to encumber gun ownership, complicate the business of selling guns, create more sinecures for gubmint employees, and generate more business for the Legal Profession/"Justice" system ...... and the politicians get to say they "did something" ..... where is the downside for anybody but gun owners and those selling guns? When government mucks with the Free Market, it is always the folks using the product that suffer. |
|
February 2, 2013, 03:23 AM | #299 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
I personally don't want convicted felons who can't buy guns from a dealer buying guns at gun shows near where I live. I don't want mentally ill people buying guns. I don't want that nut in Alabama who killed the bus driver and took the kid hostage to have a gun. Universal background checks where mental illness is reported just might have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter. I think protecting the right to life of innocent people who are victimized by lunatics with guns is more important than worrying about "the govt has information on me." News Flash: They govt already has more information on you than you think. You pay taxes. You have drivers licenses. When a car is sold, the new owner registers it. Following some of y'alls logic, maybe they'll come confiscate our cars, or our houses using the info they already have on us.. and if they get our houses I'd imagine they'd get most of our guns too. Heck cars and houses aren't even protected by a constitutional amendment. Watch out for the mad run on those things when people realize that Obama is coming for them! Anyway, I know most of y'all don't agree with me, and I'm fine with that. |
||
February 2, 2013, 07:10 AM | #300 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
OCR software is nothing short of awesome in it's degree of sophistication these days. As far as the job of actually scanning the forms in goes, that's child's play. Just look at the sheer bulk of "documents" the US Post office scans. There's very few technological barriers any more when it come to data gathering, data manipulation, data storage and data retrieval. Last edited by Hal; February 2, 2013 at 08:55 AM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|