The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 20, 2009, 04:17 PM   #51
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
AWB had a sunset clause.

3 Day waiting period expired with instacheck.

More Americans can carry a gun legally than in several generations.

Sorry but the "things only go downhill" argument does not hold water.
You're telling me that the antis will stop at only prohibiting FTF sales at gunshows?

They use the word gunshow to elicit an emotional response with their ultimate goal being the banning of private sales. Once they have gunshow specific legislation they will push for more.

Quote:
I'm thinking that a large number of guns used by criminals are obtained through straw purchases. While illegal already, a person selling the gun shortly after buying it, pretty much needs to be caught red handed, or snitched out to be arrested for said crime. The people "legally" buying these guns to straw sell them need to be held accountable. The easiest way I can see to do this is, ready, to have guns registered to their owners. Easy now, I know many of you dont like this idea, but if your not going to be using the gun in an illegal way, whats the big deal? That wouldn't prevent us from owning guns or limit in any way our use of them, it would simply hold people responsible for the guns they bought ending up in the hands of criminals. FTF transfers/sales would require one to go to your local FFL dealer with the other person involved in the transfer and simply get a backround check, and to have the registration transfered to the new owner. All previously bought guns need not be registered, only guns bought after the law was put in place.
Registration will do nothing to prevent crime and will only create a list that can be used later to confiscate certain firearms. What happens when they ban all semi autos or some other type of firearm, say handguns. At that point they will know where a lot of them are and can send agents to get them. And if you tell them you transfered said firearm I am certain they will want to know what delaer did the transfer, because by the time they have a registration they will certainly prohibit FTF sales.

They want to register firearms so they can come get certain ones when they feel the need.

The ultimate goal of the antis is not crime prevention it is the abolition of firearm ownership in the US.

No registration ever.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 04:20 PM   #52
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Al,

Actually, I have downloaded my own copy of Gunfacts and it is great. However, per private sales, do the statistics they quote (and maybe I am missing it) about the low percentage of crime guns coming from gun shows refer to those guns purchased from FFLs and not private sales? See I am not sure if private sales is or can be measured well at gun shows since there is no records kept of them. Maybe I am nit picking but the nub of the issue is private sales not all gun show sales. Is that clear? Anyway, the law the anti's say they want should not prohibit private sales or hurt gun shows. It would add to the expense of selling a firearm privately and probably be stupid for a grandfather handing down his shotgun to his grandson. But the way I understand it you could not sell a gun to anyone without the buyer going through a background check.

Quote:
Like declaring any more than 3 gun owners to be a "gun show," if all they did was to meet and discuss guns (just as one example - there are many more equally appalling "rules").
I am also not sure what the fallout of that would be and it also sounds stupid. Three of us get together at te range to talk about guns and maybe fire each others weapons and that is a gun show I can see why that one never got out of committee. But if all the law did was require private sellers to run their purchase through an FFL for a fee, what other consequences would occur? Or you would then say the requirement to FFL the purchase "destroys" the private sale?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 04:21 PM   #53
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
buzzknox, How would this legislation shut down gun shows? The vast majority of sales go thru dealers anyway right? The show itself gets no cut from the private sales other than an admission ticket.
It depends on the legislation. Some of the proposals require notifying the Attorney General (yes, of the United States itself) whenever you are planning a gun show. Along with the notification requirement is increased documentation requirements for dealers, requiring licenses to hold a gun show, sending the AG a list of every vendor at the show, etc.

Basically, nearly all of the proposals burden gun show partcipants and hosts to the point that the shows aren't worth the trouble.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 04:27 PM   #54
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
It depends on the legislation.
I agree and we must be vigilent but the issue is FTF sales with no background check. They might put all types of stuff in there but I fear if they do then that might backfire politically.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 04:40 PM   #55
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Any law declaring more than 3 gun owners to be a gun show and then requireing some sort of additional hurdle in order to assemble as such would seem to me to be a clear violation of the the right to assemble.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 06:40 PM   #56
Rich Miranda
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
I love my rights and all but aren't FTF transfers/sales the way alot of criminals obtain guns? Correct me if im wrong, because they sure cant buy guns from a store.
Dude, you been in Jersey FAR too long. Move to Texas or Arizona as soon as you can before your nads retract completely and permanently.

Seriously though. Criminals are, um, CRIMINALS! They are going to get guns period. That's why gun control doesn't work. Because criminals errrr, BREAK THE LAWS. All of them! Whenever they feel like it.

Gun control laws often only work against the law-abiding citizen such as when he unknowingly and accidentally does something without knowing that he's breaking the law.

The anti-gun propaganda works so well that we don't even know what is legal and most people think everything is illegal!
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me.
Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it.
Rich Miranda is offline  
Old January 20, 2009, 08:52 PM   #57
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
Quote:
Dude, you been in Jersey FAR too long. Move to Texas or Arizona as soon as you can before your nads retract completely and permanently.
Dude, I LOL'ed. Then I LOL'ed some more. From the safety and freedom of my flyover state living room and my safe occupied by a mix of 4473'ed and FTF'ed firearms that would scare most hoplophobes. Thank you for making my night just a bit brighter.

The only point I "might" concede in regards to FTF transfers is that an honest law abiding guy might have a gun to sell, and a scumbag dresses himself up decently and acts responsibly just long enough to pass the visual inspection and interview associated with a firearms sale.

Or, reverse the rolls. I'd hate to buy a hot gun, or a murder weapon.

I'd love to see a VOLUNTARY, free NICS system accessible by private parties for my own satisfaction. It would not log a transaction from buyer or seller, or care what type of gun is being transferred. It would just take a (Driver's License #?) and respond with "Eligible to buy" or "Not eligible to buy." Right now I only sell to those who carry CCW cards, which acts as an informal background check... and many do the same.

The second it becomes as trace-able and onerous as a 4473 NICS system though, I don't support it. Records, logs, traces... bleh.:barf:
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 08:36 AM   #58
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
add to that is the fact that criminals who own a weapon will be protected from having to register it, because it is illegal for a felon to own a gun, and registering the gun would be self incriminating. Therefore, the 5th amendment protects felons from gun registration.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 09:49 AM   #59
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
So, what you're saying is that because things have been getting better on some fronts, they will ALWAYS continue to get better?
No, I am saying that the hysteria some throw out that any legislation on the issue of gun control inevitably leads to more restrictive legislation is nonsense.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 10:11 AM   #60
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,027
"No, I am saying that the hysteria some throw out that any legislation on the issue of gun control inevitably leads to more restrictive legislation is nonsense."

Funny, in the late 1980s and early 1990s many people were claiming the same thing about the proposals then being floated for an AW ban.

Hysteria!

Fear mongering!

NRA only trying to scare people to raise money!

Then came that wonderful little day in late 1994 when it actually passed, and was signed into law.

I remember selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines to many of those people, at a significant mark up that was a direct result of the law.

Many of them were saying things like "I never thought it would happen!"

Many of them, most who had never even lifted a finger to do anything to make their position known to their legislators, were screaming bloody murder about how "NRA LET ME DOWN!"

Well, what did you do to help yourself? "What? Why should I have done anything? NRA was supposed to do it all!"

Fools. Imbecillic, moronic fools who should have just signed on with the Democrats and Brady Campaign for all the good they did for themselves and their fellow gunowners.

Fools. Imbecillic, moronic fools who should not be allowed to own firearms if all they can do is whine.

Unfortunately, that same sense of complacency and dogged determination to believe that nothing will ever change for the worse seems to have taken root again, and worse, flourished.

How quickly people forget, how quickly people are WILLING to forget.

And if a new AW ban passes?

They'll again be the people crying loudest and longest about how "X let me down," or "I never thought this would happen so I didn't bother to do anything!"

Pathetic.


The FIRST thing I did the day after the November election?

Contacted my new Senator and Representative, even before they were sworn into office, making my position on gun rights known, and tellling them what I expect out of them.

Unfortunately, that seems to be too much trouble for most people.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 10:55 AM   #61
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
I remember selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines to many of those people, at a significant mark up that was a direct result of the law.

Many of them were saying things like "I never thought it would happen!"

Many of them, most who had never even lifted a finger to do anything to make their position known to their legislators, were screaming bloody murder about how "NRA LET ME DOWN!"

Well, what did you do to help yourself? "What? Why should I have done anything? NRA was supposed to do it all!"
Yup. I remember that clearly as well.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on ME!
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 05:53 PM   #62
boatmonkey82
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2008
Location: youngsville nc
Posts: 195
the only thing that concerns me about it is a felon coming to a show and buying said gun with no check . and or mr honest buying a ak that was last used by a cop killer . now i know it would be a pain in the ass but but background checks should be done befroe show entry
boatmonkey82 is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 06:55 PM   #63
Rich Miranda
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Unfortunately, [writing their congressman] seems to be too much trouble for most people.
Agreed.

Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.

The silence was deafening.
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me.
Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it.
Rich Miranda is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 07:25 PM   #64
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
I think someone here should help author the legislation.

It should require that all Federally licensed firearm dealers doing business at gun shows be required to conduct transactions the same as if they were conducted at a permanent location, i.e. a gun store. This would eliminate the gun show loophole.

The new bill should further require that any background checks and waiting periods mandated by state and federal law be observed by the licensed dealers, just the same at the gun show as at any other place of business.

Now, quick, let's hurry up and pass it, so we may begin keeping illegal guns off the streets.

By the way, while campaigning to pass the new bill, let's not forget to run a PR campaign that demonizes anyone who refuses to support this life-saving legislation.


We can not get this through fast enough so that we are able to quickly turn our attention to the next piece of important legislation, the new AWB. Ths bill permanently forbids felons, the mentally ill, and users of illegal drugs from owning, acquiring, or having possession of any automatic assault weapon.

Now let's get to work.

Orchid Hunter, are you with us on this?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 08:45 PM   #65
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
the only thing that concerns me about it is a felon coming to a show and buying said gun with no check . and or mr honest buying a ak that was last used by a cop killer . now i know it would be a pain in the ass but but background checks should be done befroe show entry
That would suck for me because I always get delayed from the NICS. They always call two days later with a proceed.

So under your system I would have to wait for 2 days before being allowed entry.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 10:14 PM   #66
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,145
Over Heard at Gunshow

I heard several dealers complaining about all the people walking the rows of tables selling their personal guns was driving the dealers profits down.
This was 1-17-9 at the Lakeland Gunshow just down Interstate 4 from the SHOT show on the same weekend.:barf:
P5 Guy is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 10:49 PM   #67
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,027
"Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.

The silence was deafening."

Not surprising.

Shotgunners, as a class, and in my experience, are largely antigun.

But, they don't see their shotguns as guns. They're "sporting implements" of such rarity and beauty that no right-thinking congressman would ever come looking to ban them.

They're implements of the GENTLEMEN'S SET.

I can't tell you how many shotgunners I have met who fall into that category.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 11:00 PM   #68
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show

WildperhapsthattheloopholeAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old January 21, 2009, 11:06 PM   #69
orchidhunter
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2008
Posts: 320
When now VP Joe Biden said "There not going to take my Beretta from me" he was speaking of a shotgun, not a handgun. orchidhunter
orchidhunter is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 12:02 AM   #70
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.

The silence was deafening."

Not surprising.

Shotgunners, as a class, and in my experience, are largely antigun.

But, they don't see their shotguns as guns. They're "sporting implements" of such rarity and beauty that no right-thinking congressman would ever come looking to ban them.

They're implements of the GENTLEMEN'S SET.

I can't tell you how many shotgunners I have met who fall into that category.

Many hunters see gun ownership as being about hunting. This is why you see politicians of all stripes constantly say things like "I support the right of Americans to own guns for hunting." It reassures the "guns are only for hunting" crowd.

They don't get worked up over any issues involving guns except those that directly affect their hunting implements. They don't see why an AWB is a problem. "Why would anyone need one of those, you can't hunt with it" so they say.

They don't get worked up over issues involving handguns because they don't own any and don't see the need.

They aren't bothered by gun registration. "If you aren't doing anything illegal what's wrong with registration?" they say.

The biggest problem with much of the firearm community is that we are divided. And many of the issues are not important to everyone.

I don't CCW, as I haven't bothered to get a permit, but I still think it is an important issue for gun rights. As long as we push for CCW it's puts the gun control folks on the defensive.

Many in the gun community don't own semi-automatic military wanabe rifles. But those who don't should understand that allowing the government to ban certain types of firearms opens the door to them doing so in the future. Are semi-auto shotguns next? What about semi-auto pistols? Is the type of firearm you own going to be the next target?

The same thing goes for .50 cal rifles. I can't afford one and even if I could afford the rifle the ammunition is expensive. However, if we lose out on this, what gets banned next?

We can't let the argument of "Nobody 'needs those for (insert purpose here), so they should be banned." Using that argument you can ban almost anything in the world.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 02:17 AM   #71
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,640
I sat at a table as a private party with an enfield bbl'd action in .416 Rem.When I sold it,we had to do a background check and yellow sheet at the show.This was in Denver,Co.

I do believe in supporting the local gun shop,but the old tradition of the gun show is also about seeing things that we won't see in a gun shop.I don't go to a gun show to look at new guns.As far as I am concerned,the guys who bring a shop full of new gun inventory can stay home. I can buy or order new guns from my local shop.

I want the treasures the individual brings to the show.An old sight,an action,etc.I like the layouts of parts and individuals selling their Sterlingworth or a used scope.

I am pretty offended by the ffl holders if they want to compromise my Liberty to capture a few more sales.Orchid,if you would post your business name I'll hope you go out of business.

I demand the right to private sale.However,I am not opposed to a level playing field,like a Gun show kiosk for private sales that would perform a background check and yellow sheet as a service.
BTW,I think the criteria on a background approval should be a good faith attempt at compliance.If the authorities cannot provide the results in a timely fashion,the sale should go through.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 06:24 AM   #72
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
in my trade setting up at a industry show usually requires an insurance rider(for the rented venue), a business liscence, and sometimes a tax resale number. it keeps out the bootleggers without requiring legislation aimed at homeowners and private collectors. like HiBC said...often those guys got the interesting stuff. in other words, if the organizers didnt want to fill the 10x10 booths for a few bux per, those guys wouldnt be there....and it would be a trade show, instead of a swap meet.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 08:04 AM   #73
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,482
The gun show loop hole does not exist. It is a term used to strike fear into the hearts of people who know nothing about gun laws. Private sales are legal. All FFL holders perform the required back ground checks even at gun shows.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 08:47 AM   #74
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
They don't get worked up over issues involving handguns because they don't own any and don't see the need.
Kind of like the people (even on this board) who don't see the need for:

- automatic weapons
- Destructive devices
- armored vehicles
- other weapons

Each person has their own line, depending on what his favorite weapon is. My point is this: If you can trust your neighbor to not kill you by running you over when you go to the mailbox, poisoning you when his wife gives you a batch of cookies, or shooting you with his single shot .22, then why are you worried that he will do so with any other weapon he may have?

The 2A is about weapons to preserve and secure a free state. Any weapon that can be used for that IMO is covered. This means that WMDs, which cannot free a state, but merely destroy it, are pretty much the only weapons that are subject to regulation.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old January 22, 2009, 09:30 AM   #75
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Private sales are legal. All FFL holders perform the required back ground checks even at gun shows.
And there is the rub. Private sales do not require a background check and so a felon or lunatic might use that avenue to illegally obtain a gun. The merit I see in the antis argument is that this is an avenue that should be closed. If all the legislation does is cause all private sales to require background checks and that is made easy to do then I think the antis may win on this one and we in the gun world will find it hard to oppose and win.

Quote:
Kind of like the people (even on this board) who don't see the need for:

- automatic weapons
- Destructive devices
- armored vehicles
- other weapons
I was wondering when you would get around to that And yeah I am one of them who would not throw out the NFA. But that is off topic so that's it for me.

Quote:
The 2A is about weapons to preserve and secure a free state.
I think the militia is what the 2A says protects a free state.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.20104 seconds with 7 queries