The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 2, 2013, 01:23 PM   #151
Trip20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2005
Location: WI
Posts: 2,181
The problem I see with the posed topic is that the OP starts off with the false premise (my opinion) that one of the two sides is in fact 'extreme'. To partake in the discussion means we have to accept this, else we change the discussion entirely, which results in the OP continually having to bring us back to his original parameters.
__________________
Get Involved!
Trip20 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 01:57 PM   #152
Xaak
Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: NYC, L.A. and Va
Posts: 62
Fairness

The battle lines are often drawn and both sides always want to keep a little extra in their pockets should they ever be in the unenviable position that the should need to yield ground.

Here's my one give... The gun show sale by private citizen
(known to the other side as the gun show loophole)

I have probably lost a fair amount of money selling my firearms to a dealer so there was enough in retail for him to make resale profit, getting a receipt, and knowing that they passed hands in an environment I "feel" makes me comfortable that the firearms will not be in the hands of someone that would use them inappropriately. I sure hope that Joe is an upstanding guy who isn't selling them to a drug cartel jk.

I am concerned when I go to gun shows and I see people selling all sorts of firearms to people with cash in hand in personal sales with nothing more than a hand shake. We do have laws that regulate who can, and cannot, purchase and no pro gun person including myself disagree that felons and mentally incompetent individuals should be restricted. So why can't we set up transfer stations at the gun shows that do a background check for a reasonable fee? I know for one, I would be happy to get a good price for my less used, sellable firearms, knowing that I was selling it to someone that was legally allowed to purchase it.

That said, I also understand any time you give the anti-gun folks an inch, they take all 16 inches of the barrel AND the flash hider of your AR. I presume to give nothing unless my back is against the wall, but then again, it is the right to keep and bear arms that was afforded us in the 2nd amendment so that we could be free from the same tyranny that is presenting itself in taking our guns (rights). It is the same government formed through the Constitution that is trying to nullify part of it. That is ALSO not permitted under the Constitution.

My feeling is, if the gun show personal sale went through a transfer station, I'd be cool with it. Hell, I'd likely use it. But I also think that the Feds have proven they cannot be the ones to implement these programs. In fact, take into account the fiscal "cliff". Wouldn't you like to just go into your boss, tell him you need some holiday time off, take those days, then come back, angry that they were cut short, then decide the best action is to throw some crap at him to cover up that you won't get the job done for six more months? I'd be fired. The people in Washington should be fired. And I think they have too much on their plate to do the job we hired them to do, rather than come impose threats against me as a law abiding, constitution protected, legal gun owning citizen. I'm just not that lenient of an employer!

CAN OF WORMS - Our government officials are now using what NATO said about disarmament to propose more gun control. NATO? Don't we OWN that? I know WE PAY FOR IT! (Just another reason why when you're PRO GUN, you cannot be reasonable)
__________________
The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. ~ Samuel Adams ~
Xaak is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:14 PM   #153
ChasingWhitetail91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 336
Yes i am. Both sides have good points as well as their fair share of extremism. Noone will give an inch so both sides are pushing for a foot.
__________________
Abraham Lincoln made all men free, Samuel Colt made them equal.
ChasingWhitetail91 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:23 PM   #154
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,700
I won't give the antis ANYTHING, or even consider it, until they give back the '86 machinegun ban and the '89 import ban. Give me back the rights that were stolen from me and promise NO MORE GUN BANS of any kind, and then I might be interested in listening to "ideas".

Last edited by Skans; January 2, 2013 at 02:41 PM.
Skans is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:24 PM   #155
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaak
I am concerned when I go to gun shows and I see people selling all sorts of firearms to people with cash in hand in personal sales with nothing more than a hand shake. We do have laws that regulate who can, and cannot, purchase and no pro gun person including myself disagree that felons and mentally incompetent individuals should be restricted. So why can't we set up transfer stations at the gun shows that do a background check for a reasonable fee? I know for one, I would be happy to get a good price for my less used, sellable firearms, knowing that I was selling it to someone that was legally allowed to purchase it.
The "Gun Show Loophole" is a fantasy. A complete fantasy. It's not unique to gun shows and, let me guarantee you, eliminating the loophole from gunshows would be STEP 1 only. The next obvious step is eliminating ALL private sales, because that's the REAL "loophole". Where the sales happens to occur is completely irrelevant.

What the Anti's hate (in regards to a "loophole") is private sales without background checks.

It's a slippery slope and we're already WAY down. We've just recently begun to arrest our downward speed and maybe come to a stop. Now is not the time to negotiate some new wax for our skis. Now is the time to climb back to a reasonable landing place, get off the slope and STAY THERE.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 02:45 PM   #156
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
I wasn't involved with firearms when the background check laws were passed. Here in Florida, it happened a few years before the Brady Bill. In the late 80's I was working in Kmart and was selling a rifle. The buyer was unusually annoyed with the background check- it was taking a long time, and he complained about it. I told him I thought it was a good idea. He told me if someone couldn't pass a background check, all he would have to do is send someone else in with the money and have him pay for the gun and go through the background check, or go buy a gun from someone besides a dealer.

As a kid (16 or 17), I hadn't really thought about it. Here we are 20 years later and we still have the same problem- people who shouldn't have guns are still getting guns. And I'm sure in the wake of the Newtown murders, we're going to see a bill requiring gun show sales to go through a dealer. (Never mind that it had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.)

20 years later we'll see it isn't working and we'll ban private sales entirely.

20 years after that we'll see that isn't working and we'll ban more classes of guns. If we're down to single shot shotguns by then, we'll ban knives.

And the murders will continue, because we keep implementing the placebo of gun control, instead of fixing the problem.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 03:03 PM   #157
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingWhitetail91
Both sides have good points as well as their fair share of extremism.
Well, if thats true, would you mind naming two, or three good ideas the antis have? Also, how about naming two, or three things that are extremist about the RKBA point of view?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old January 2, 2013, 03:07 PM   #158
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
Well, if thats true, would you mind naming two, or three good ideas the antis have?
Hell, I'd settle for one.

Challenge Accepted?
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 03:32 PM   #159
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
He told me if someone couldn't pass a background check, all he would have to do is send someone else in with the money and have him pay for the gun and go through the background check
That's called a straw purchase, and it should be...oh, right. Those are already against the law. In fact, they're punishable by a 10-year prison sentence.

Of course, they still keep happening because nobody ever gets sentenced to 10 years for them. Most folks get probation.

Of all the ugly gun control measures of the 1990s, the NICS system is the least offensive. It has its problems (which is a whole 'nuther thread), but if we didn't have it, we'd have something far more onerous.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:42 PM   #160
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaak
Here's my one give... The gun show sale by private citizen
(known to the other side as the gun show loophole)
See? They even fooled you. They talk a lot about the "gun show loophole" but below Senator Charles Schumer shows what they really mean when they use those words:

Quote:
Senate Bill 436 - Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011

TITLE II--REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR EVERY FIREARM SALE
Even the title above is deceptive because the language of the bill is not limited to sales, but extends to "transfers" which include:

Quote:
... a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title ...
Yes, according to Chuck Schumer, you too could potentially commit a felony by doing nothing more than handing a gun to someone under the wrong circumstances.

At any rate ... back to talking about extremism.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:56 PM   #161
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
Here's my one give... The gun show sale by private citizen
And completely ineffective unless you require a background check/4473 on all private sales ....which would be a de facto registration system and opens the door to making felons of every schmuck who ever misplaces paperwork on any gun they sold ......

.... anything they can do to expand their power and discourage ownership, especially things they only have to threaten to do .....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:28 PM   #162
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
And completely ineffective unless you require a background check/4473 on all private sales
I'm not even sure how that would be implemented. The 4473 exists specifically for the use of FFL's. The ATF won't send a bundle of those to a private citizen, and even if they did, the regulations are incompatible.

You'd need a whole new set of regulations dictating how individuals would need to keep records, and the ATF sure doesn't have the manpower to do inspections.

Same goes for the NICS system.

Such an apparatus would require rewriting huge portions of § 922.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:43 PM   #163
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
You'd need a whole new set of regulations dictating how individuals would need to keep records, and the ATF sure doesn't have the manpower to do inspections.
I would submit that they would not enforce it on everyone uniformly- the power is in the threat to use it. How many people get prosecuted for attempted purchase by a prohibited person/lying on a 4473 as it is now? These should be slam-dunk cases, right? Yet the only actions I see are against the FFLs themselves. The Sandy Point nutter tried to buy a gun- was he charged?

" Law abiding citizens can not be ruled, so laws must be passed to make them criminals ...."
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:45 PM   #164
tynman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 251
We cant give anymore. You give them a inch they want to take a yard...

We have to stop thinking that the government is the answer to all our problems, They are not they are the cause of most of them. I always said anything the government touches turns to crap, just look at welfare, dyfes you see how well they work and that is only 2 to mention. The next wonderful thing will be health care. Wait and see how well that will turn out for us all...

I tired of them saying let taxes them more that will fix it. Yeah tax the people that buy the guns legally. Cause the criminals that use the guns for nothing but bad will be the first ones in that tax line....

I don't need uncle SAM reaching deeper into my pockets to fix more of the problems they have created. They tax us and they live happy on the high hog while we try to make our bills every month. They don't need guns they have state police or secret service to protect them.(Which our tax dollar pays for)
But we should let them tell us what we need in our lives...
NO THANK YOU
tynman is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:52 PM   #165
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaak
. . . . So why can't we set up transfer stations at the gun shows that do a background check for a reasonable fee? I know for one, I would be happy to get a good price for my less used, sellable firearms, knowing that I was selling it to someone that was legally allowed to purchase it. . . . .

My feeling is, if the gun show personal sale went through a transfer station, I'd be cool with it. Hell, I'd likely use it. . . .
As far as I know, there's nothing stopping you from getting an FFL to do the transfer for you. That said, I'll stand by what I've said in other threads: There is no gun show loophole. It's a fiction.

Welcome to The Firing Line, Xaak!
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:57 PM   #166
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I'm not even sure how that would be implemented.
Schumer has a very specific implementation plan in his bill.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 06:10 PM   #167
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
Quote:
What? And undermine their power? If they actually prosecuted these felons, then they'd have to do some actual work..... and the problem would get smaller. Smaller Problem = Smaller Budget.

Far better to use the resources they have to make more potential criminals, rather than deal with the ones they have in a slam dunk case.......

Selective enforcement is a power all it's own ....... they can make people jump just by threatening to do something, without actually haveing to do anything at all ..... leaves more time for politically motivated activities like F&F ......
@JimBob

Don't know how I missed this post from you but even though you phrased everything in a humorous manner, the fact remains that you're absolutely right.

It is about next years budget and a smoke and mirror display to make it appear that they are getting "something" done.

It's all nonsense and I think we all know this.

Enforcing the law would do so much more good than any ban or new law.

It's really very simple. "IF YOU ARE FLAGGED AS TRYING TO PURCHASE A GUN UNLAWFULLY AT A GUN SHOP AND YOUR BACKGROUND CHECK SHOWS YOU HAVE A FELONY RELATED TO DRUG TRAFFICKING OR FIREARMS THEN YOU SHALL BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW."

The Above Is An Actual Law That Is Not Being Enforced! So I'm Trying To Make Those Who Don't Know About It Into The Informed.

Sorry for the all caps method of posting but that law should be shouted from the rooftops. It should be shouted from the NRA, it should be a rallying point.

Not only does repeating the non-enforcement of this law show that we are trying to be part of the solution but it also shows that we are responsible folks and not, what they perceive as "Gun Nuts."

I wish I could swear but I can't and won't but it just enrages me that we've got perfectly good laws on the books that are not being enforced.

Yes there are horrible shootings and massacres and not all of them can be stopped but we can reduce a fair amount of crime by locking up the criminals who are attempting to purchase a gun. I mean it's a no brainer. Just do it already Gosh Dangit!
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 06:33 PM   #168
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by overthere
- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership.
Are you aware that Connecticut is, in many ways, one of the most highly-regulated states insofar as firearms are concerned? I have previously posted in other threads (and maybe in this one) all the laws that were in effect, and which did nothing to prevent the Sandy Hook massacre:

* State AWB in force
* Mandatory locked storage of all firearms if minors in the house
* Stolen or lost guns must be reported to police within 72 hours
* Mandatory 8-hour (minimum) class for CCW, mandatory state-certified class for hunting license
* ALL handgun sales (even private) must have pre-approval from state police, and buyer must have permit or certificate of eligibility

I don't think anyone is arguing that gun owners should not be responsible for their actions. But you analogy of yelling "Fire!" in a theater is flawed. It is NOT illegal to do so. However, it IS illegal to do if there is no fire, and your purpose is only to induce panic. To relate that to firearms, it should not be illegal to own, carry or shoot firearms, but it should be (and it is) illegal to use a firearm to commit a crime (such as robbery, assault, or murder).

Since those acts are already illegal, and since it has been shown that more gun control laws cannot prevent such crimes, why should be be in favor of enacting yet more useless, ineffective laws on top of the approximately 20,000 gun laws already in effect around the country?

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; January 2, 2013 at 06:46 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 06:43 PM   #169
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
Don't know how I missed this post from you but even though you phrased everything in a humorous manner, the fact remains that you're absolutely right.
Oh, I was not trying to be funny .....

...... but if I did not laugh at the absurdity of it all, there'd be trouble.

The idea that we need more laws, when the folks in charge of this stuff can't or won't enforce the stuff on the books already is just ludicrous..... Laws only have an effect on those worried about breaking them.

Yet they just keep on piling them on, like they are doing something constructive ......

..... at some point, folks will, out of frustration, reach a point where enough is enough, and they'll say, "Shiny! Let's be Bad Guys!"
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:02 PM   #170
taylor351
Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2010
Posts: 35
Illinois legislation/Emmanual/Quinn is currently trying to pass an all semi-automatic ban. With rumors that even a pump shotgun may be outlawed. I do not think that we should give any ground to these people, as they look as the ground giving as a stepping stone to the next step.
taylor351 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:20 PM   #171
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
I'm not even sure how that would be implemented. The 4473 exists specifically for the use of FFL's. The ATF won't send a bundle of those to a private citizen, and even if they did, the regulations are incompatible.

You'd need a whole new set of regulations dictating how individuals would need to keep records, and the ATF sure doesn't have the manpower to do inspections.

Same goes for the NICS system.

Such an apparatus would require rewriting huge portions of § 922.
No, it wouldn't. All they would have to do is require that every sale go through a dealer. That way any honest person where I live would have to pay $40 plus sales tax on any private sale. Or they could require that dealers complete a transfer for some arbitrary fee, say, $10. Then the buyer and seller would stand in line an hour while the dealer completed sales to his customers.

It would be almost impossible to enforce.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:49 PM   #172
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
Schumer has a very specific implementation plan in his bill.
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had a draft or a number yet.

So, the bill states that private individuals need to conduct the transfer through an FFL or a law enforcement agency. An exception exists for folks with concealed-carry permits. There's a specific section exempting private sellers from keeping records.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 08:02 PM   #173
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Thanks for the link. I didn't know it had a draft or a number yet.
The bill is from the last session of Congress. I would not expect a new version to be any better.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 08:39 PM   #174
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,738
If my position seems extreme to anyone, I do not apologize. Perhpas growing up in Free AZ has given me what someone from New Jersey or NYC might call a "warped" viewpoint on firearms and unilateral personal disarmament, but I believe I am closer to what our Founding Fathers had, than what they twisters of words have in mind.











__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 08:40 PM   #175
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,738
Those are some older firearms rights posters I made, feel free to disagree or disparage, but my attitude is the same.

__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

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 06:08 AM.


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 0.14531 seconds with 7 queries