The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 9, 2013, 06:57 PM   #401
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
Yes and that would be illegal and they would have to face the consciouses if caught.
Like someone who is willing to face a capital murder charge is going to worry about a secondary illegal gun charge.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 07:05 PM   #402
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Like someone who is willing to face a capital murder charge is going to worry about a secondary illegal gun charge
I doubt that everyone that would have a illegal firearm were murderers.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 07:16 PM   #403
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
*shakes head*
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 07:23 PM   #404
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn
Thirdly, people who know they won't pass a background check won't submit to one and will buy one illegally on the black market, or use something else to do their dirty deed.
Yes and that would be illegal and they would have to face the consciouses if caught. We are back to the argument that no point in having a law because some would brake the law.
Looking at this again, I think we're back to the mix-up between ownership and possession. Possession of firearms by convicted felons is already illegal. See 18 USC 922. Instituting universal background checks won't make it any more illegal, and convicted felons are unlikely to be prosecuted for failing to go through the background check.
__________________
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 February 9, 2013, 08:09 PM   #405
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Like someone who is willing to face a capital murder charge is going to worry about a secondary illegal gun charge
I doubt that everyone that would have a illegal firearm were murderers.
Well, if they're not murderers, or some other dangerous felon, and they're not contemplating carrying out some sort of crime, why are we concerned about whether they have firearms (not to mention other dangerous objects) in the first place?

Damn it, if they're dangerous, put them in prison. It's harder to get weapons in there. Quit treating the rest of us like prisoners. We shouldn't be assumed guilty, then have to prove ourselves innocent to exercise a right.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 08:21 PM   #406
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal
Because the congress people know that's the hardest obstacle they have to overcome.
Aw, it's not hard at all.

They just make the preamble to every law they pass, "Because this affects interstate commerce," and away ... we ... go.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:00 PM   #407
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
I doubt that everyone that would have a illegal firearm were murderers.
You have ceased making any sense at all.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:40 PM   #408
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49 View Post
I doubt that everyone that would have a illegal firearm were murderers.
Ok. Touché. I concede that was for hyperbole in what i perceived was not an oppositional group. But generally the gun crime isn't high on their list of desired offenses.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:18 AM   #409
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Ok, so now the "ordinary citizens" are encouraged to go around the "filters" of the NRA.

http://youtu.be/IzuHp2G_E_s


Basically the lie is that "the people" want this, but the NRA is keeping that message away from Congress.

So he wants "all the little people" to call the Capitol switchboard and beg government to protect them from evil guns, because the NRA is keeping the will of the people hidden.

We, the people, not filtered through the NRA, need to light up the switch board.

Does anyone remember the number?
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:56 AM   #410
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn View Post
"My question is the rest of the population in America as against gun control as most on this forum. ?"

No, but most of them just don't care, are driven by passion instead of reason, and their brains are poisoned by too much MTV.
Exactly! The real question is: Who exactly is passionate for gun control in the general population. No One! It us only activist politicians and paid organizations driving for gun control. The majority of voters are lukewarm either way, with a significant minority passionately against it.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 04:11 AM   #411
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
First there isn't a law against mentally ill owning guns, and there really needs to be.
Why? I don't much care if the mentally ill own guns. I am very concerned about them possessing firearms. Oh, and there most certainly is a law against both selling to those who have been adjudicated mentally ill, and against possession by those who have been adjudicated mentally ill. See 18 U.S.C 922
Posted by Spats:
Why? I don't much care if the mentally ill own guns. I am very concerned about them possessing firearms. Oh, and there most certainly is a law against both selling to those who have been adjudicated mentally ill, and against possession by those who have been adjudicated mentally ill. See 18 U.S.C 922
Most guns that are possessed are possessed by their owners. Unless you want the govt auditing your possessions, the transaction where ownership occurs and possession is taken is the audit-able point. By definition, if you don't want the mentally ill possessing guns you sure don't want them owning them. Glad to have you aboard!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Secondly existing laws aren't enforced and they do not sufficiently enable enforcement.
Posted by Spats
So adding more laws that cannot or will not be enforced seems like the right answer?
Yes. Often additional law is required to enable enforcement of existing law. As a very simple example, speeding is illegal in my state. There is an additional statute that permits the police to use devices to monitor the speed of cars, so the speeding law can be enforced.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Saying a felon can't own a gun, but not making sure a check is done when one is sold is exactly like not doing ID checks when selling alcohol. If people aren't checked out by those selling, a kid who should never have alcohol in the first place might become an alcoholic by the time he's twelve. ID checks when selling alcohol or tobacco is common sense, and so is background checks when selling guns.
Posted by Spats:
Hogwash. Universal background checks on private sales serve no purpose. Common sense says that felons and the mentally ill will not abide by the law, and will not or cannot be prosecuted for failing to do so.
My analogy is correct. Would you do ID checks for alcohol sales? I agree with you that felons and mentally ill will get away with what they can. I will add most people to that list. People speed where the law isn't enforced. Background checks add a point where the law can be enforced. Don't kid yourself.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Sell responsibly. Know who you are selling to, or you are part of the problem. The law against minors possessing and consuming alcohol probably doesn't do as much as the law that says stores must check IDs before selling alcohol to minors. It's this second law that makes it less readily available to them. We need another law too to make guns less readily available to the mentally ill and felons. We need to close the gun show loop hole too.
Posted by Spats: There is no gun show loophole. The laws on sales apply regardless of location.
And there is no spoon. Right Neo?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Do you not think if an alcohol show came to town where IDs weren't checked by some vendors at all, that any kid who wanted to stock up on alcohol wouldn't be there?
Posted by Spats: If you want to make that comparison, please go read some of the statistics on how many guns used in crimes can actually be traced to gun shows.
I would love to. However, those stats aren't available because of the Tiahrt amendment. Strange that a law would be passed to keep us all ignorant, but it's true.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...a-gun-research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Ti...ahrt_Amendment

I'm a fan of data, and this is one law I'd like to see done away with. Maybe this is something we could all agree on as a minimum?
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 09:38 AM   #412
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
First there isn't a law against mentally ill owning guns, and there really needs to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Why? I don't much care if the mentally ill own guns. I am very concerned about them possessing firearms. Oh, and there most certainly is a law against both selling to those who have been adjudicated mentally ill, and against possession by those who have been adjudicated mentally ill. See 18 U.S.C 922
Most guns that are possessed are possessed by their owners. Unless you want the govt auditing your possessions, the transaction where ownership occurs and possession is taken is the audit-able point. By definition, if you don't want the mentally ill possessing guns you sure don't want them owning them. Glad to have you aboard!
It doesn't work that way. While most guns are possessed by their owners, the terms "ownership" and "possession" are not synonymous, your claim of "by definition" notwithstanding. Ownership deals with who holds title to the gun. Possession deals with who physically holds the gun. It is entirely possible to own something without possessing it, and to possess something without owning it. UBCs create a hurdle to ownership, not possession.

As far as the "govt auditing your possessions," that's exactly what I expect to happen, once the govt figures out that a UBC law is unenforceable without registration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
So adding more laws that cannot or will not be enforced seems like the right answer?
Yes. Often additional law is required to enable enforcement of existing law. As a very simple example, speeding is illegal in my state. There is an additional statute that permits the police to use devices to monitor the speed of cars, so the speeding law can be enforced.
Well, if continuing to add more laws in the face of all that is your answer, let's just cut to the chase. Are you in favor of full registration of all firearms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
My analogy is correct. Would you do ID checks for alcohol sales? I agree with you that felons and mentally ill will get away with what they can. I will add most people to that list. People speed where the law isn't enforced. Background checks add a point where the law can be enforced. Don't kid yourself.
No, it's not, and I'm not. I'm not claiming that there shouldn't be any background checks at all. What I'm telling you is that UBCs on private sales will not be enforceable, particularly in the absence of full firearms registration. Have you even bothered to read Haynes v. U.S.?

Why should we enact laws that, almost by definition, will only provide more hurdles to lawful gun ownership, while having no impact on possession by felons and the mentally ill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Sell responsibly. Know who you are selling to, or you are part of the problem. The law against minors possessing and consuming alcohol probably doesn't do as much as the law that says stores must check IDs before selling alcohol to minors. It's this second law that makes it less readily available to them. We need another law too to make guns less readily available to the mentally ill and felons. We need to close the gun show loop hole too.
There is no gun show loophole. The laws on sales apply regardless of location.
And there is no spoon. Right Neo?
The "gun show loophole" is a term created by the antis, and it's a myth. There are FFL sales and private party sales. If you can find me a provision of law that exempts gun shows from those rules, I'll be glad to take a look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Do you not think if an alcohol show came to town where IDs weren't checked by some vendors at all, that any kid who wanted to stock up on alcohol wouldn't be there?
All FFLs at a gun show have to follow the rules on FFL sales. Those are the "vendors." If someone is engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and selling from their stock without going through the FFL rules, they're in violation of the law, whether they are selling at a gun show, at home, or out on the Back 40.
__________________
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 February 10, 2013, 10:38 AM   #413
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
I would love to. However, those stats aren't available because of the Tiahrt amendment. Strange that a law would be passed to keep us all ignorant, but it's true.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...a-gun-research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Ti...ahrt_Amendment

I'm a fan of data, and this is one law I'd like to see done away with. Maybe this is something we could all agree on as a minimum?
You still wouldn't know how many guns are being sold at gun shows without a background check. Even the ATF says trace data shouldn't be studied. Why? Right off the top of my head, 1. Not all guns traced are actually used in crimes. 2. Not all guns investigated are traced. 3. Not all guns traced are traceable.


"My analogy is correct. Would you do ID checks for alcohol sales? I agree with you that felons and mentally ill will get away with what they can. I will add most people to that list. People speed where the law isn't enforced. Background checks add a point where the law can be enforced. Don't kid yourself. "

I agree that the background check law will slightly inconvenience a felon who wants to get a gun- he will have to get a girlfriend or family member to buy it for him.

The problem with your analogy- these alcohol laws have reduced the amount of underage drinking, but they haven't significantly reduced the number of kids who have had alcohol at least once. Kids aren't getting drunk every weekend, but I don't think I've met anyone who hasn't had a sip of alcohol before he was 21. Everybody has done it once. The felon only has to buy the gun once. A firearm lasts longer than a six pack of beer. So UBC is not going to reduce the number of felons with guns.

So the felons will still have guns. It might take a guy a few weeks to do it, but if he wants one, he's going to get one. In the process, you've put an undue burden on the rest of us. No more driving 20 or 30 miles and meeting someone halfway for a trade. no more handing down grandpa's shotgun to your son, without dropping money at your local dealer. No more $50 22 rifles for a kid to start out on. No more loaning a shotgun to your uncle to go hunting when he comes to visit. It's going to do nothing but trip up the otherwise law-abiding people.

An incident over at calguns got me thinking. There's a guy over there who paid for a pistol from his friend. His friend died, and now he's in limbo while the family gets everything settled, because there's no one to transfer the gun to him. Imagine if I died today, just keeled over and had a heart attack- happens all the time. If we had this UBC law- even if they forced dealers to do it at $10 per transfer, I'm looking at $2000 to pass my collection down to my kids. And they can't take it until they're 18, because it all has to go through a dealer. What do we do to keep the guns? Does my wife pay $2000, wait for the kids to turn 18, and pay $2000 again? Put it in a trust? How do my kids go shooting or hunting- they don't own the guns, and the adults they go with won't be allowed to bring mine.

Useless law that's going to screw over a lot of people.

If you really want to be safe from dangerous felons, keep them in prison longer. And make it easier for us to carry.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 12:19 PM   #414
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
The alcohol analogy is far from correct.
And the first reason is that one can visually tell a child from an adult. Ok, it may be tough to tell a 17 year old from a 22 year old at times, but there is no difficulty telling a 12 year old from a 50 year old.

There is no visual way to tell a prohibited person from a non prohibited person. Are you going to propose that a convicted felon, or someone adjucated incompetent be marked indelibly, so that mark can be shown as "proof"?

Another thing to consider, the real reason background checks will not stop bad people from getting guns is that background checks only turn up info about people who are already in the system. No matter what the bad guy has done (or plans to do) the ONLY thing a background check can show is if that person has been in trouble with the law, before the attempted gun purchase.

Background checks are completely usless against the spree killer who has not broken the law before going on a rampage.

And what good does a background check to when the prospective buyer already owns a gun, or several? NOTHING! All it does then is add some complexity to the sale, waste some time, and waste govt resources.

Universal background checks is an unworkable feel good solution to an incorrectly percieved problem. And, even if adopted, what good do you think it would do when our govt "doesn't have the time" to prosecute those who break the law when trying to buy a gun? If our own govt doesn't enforce existing law, why do you think they will do any more with another layer of law added on top of what is already being ignored?

Another point, the system is flawed. Take a look, a real look, not just what some agenda driven politician spouts off, and you will find that the overwhelming majority of delays/denials by the system are false positives. Now, you think it's a good idea to increase the workload of the system by a huge amount (double? triple?)? What do you think that will cause? Most likely excessive delays, maybe even crash the system.

And here's yet another point, those people who would willingly sell to someone of "questionable status" today, will simply ignore the law. THe only real effect of a requirement for universal background checks will be to hugely increase the blackmarket, along with creating a new class of criminal, those who "transfer" a firearm without a check.

Look at the wording of the proposed laws..you won't be able to transfer (and that includes lend) a gun to anyone you know is not a prohibited person, until after the govt tells you that you can. TO me, that is total BS!

If my son comes home on leave, from defending our nation in some third world pesthole, with a machine gun that the govt gives him to use for that purpose, I can't take him shooting at the range, or hunting without first having him pass a background check before I can loan him a gun to do it with? Otherwise I am breaking the law? ITs BULL! and worse.

Why is it that these supposedly educated people in politics will not write laws that do not insult the innocent, and maybe, just maybe stand a chance of punishing the guilty? They ought to be able to do it, but I haven't seen any evidence of it, lately.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 01:33 PM   #415
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Don't know if anyone's posted it here or not. Sums up my view on the issue.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/univ...bsolutely-not/

Last edited by Spats McGee; February 10, 2013 at 01:38 PM. Reason: Removing copyrighted material
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 01:47 PM   #416
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted
You can have different views on the above. You could have the view that the law is OK and the problem is not the checks but that law enforcement needs to enforce it properly.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 02:09 PM   #417
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
You can have different views on the above. You could have the view that the law is OK and the problem is not the checks but that law enforcement needs to enforce it properly.
They have more laws than they care to enforce, so they need more laws? If law enforcement does not have the resources to enforce this, how are they going to enforce universal background checks?

The answer is they are not. The only reason they want it is to misuse the law to prosecute people selectively, and to enact backdoor registration.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 02:11 PM   #418
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
You can have different views on the above. You could have the view that the law is OK and the problem is not the checks but that law enforcement needs to enforce it properly.
This is exactly the point that has been repeated about a thousand times in this thread. What good are more laws if they aren't enforcing the ones they have that could make a difference?
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:00 PM   #419
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
This is exactly the point that has been repeated about a thousand times in this thread. What good are more laws if they aren't enforcing the ones they have that could make a difference?
They could be made to enforce the laws.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 03:26 PM   #420
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
"They could be made to enforce the laws. "

That's fine. But until they start doing that, it's useless to pile on more laws that are impossible to enforce.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 04:20 PM   #421
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
They could be made to enforce the laws.

Is this all you can do, keep retorting with one-liners? Nothing anyone says will make any difference to you, will it?

How do you just "make" them enforce the laws? If they won't or can't enforce THESE EXISTING laws, how can they enforce new laws on top of those?

Does this make any sense to you? Or are you just going to keep on disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 04:51 PM   #422
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
People so in favor of universal background checks should lead by example and get themselves re-checked annually for all your guns. Not needed for you, you say because you are law abiding and will not commit violent crime with them? Hypocrites. Either set the example you want to foist on everyone or keep quiet.

I have never met a person adamant about taxes or laws that is willing to subject themselves to a higher standard as an example. They either are not affected by said law/tax or don't feel it applies to them, just others.

Lots of sound reasoning why UBC do not work, and how they erode liberties, yet a couple of guys are so insistent this is needed. Here is a clue: If you actually own any guns it us purely by the efforts of those before you that resisted such incremental infringement laws. If people such as yourselves wrote the Bill of Rights and had majority congressional control then none if use would be owning the guns today we enjoy and rely upon.

You act as parasites enjoying the liberty to own guns but actively working to undermine that very right. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as "reasonable gun laws". Gun grabbers have repeatedly stated they are merely steps toward elimination of all guns.

Your obstinate support of more gun laws expose you as either a naive tool, hypocrite or subversive plant.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 05:12 PM   #423
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
How do you just "make" them enforce the laws? If they won't or can't enforce THESE EXISTING laws, how can they enforce new laws on top of those?
Of Course they can enforce the laws. The either don't have the resources or they are choosing not to.

I am not saying there should be any more laws or they should be enforcing the current laws.
What i am saying is that is that this notion that its beyond the American government agencies to enforce the laws if they wanted to is mistaken.


So the fact that they don't enforce some laws at the present does not follow that they couldn't in the future.
There are plenty of arguments and reasons why further gun controls should not be introduced. But the government not having the capability to so if they wanted is a poor one.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 05:28 PM   #424
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
>manta49: "They could be made to enforce the laws. "

>2ndsojourn: That's fine. But until they start doing that, it's useless to pile on more laws that are impossible to enforce.

We have an untrustworthy nephew (the government) who we think is trying to steal our jewelry (our rights), and currently has a key to the garage in order to mow the lawn (FFL transfers).

He complains that he cannot mow the lawn without a key to the main house (UBC), and manta thinks that's exactly what he needs. However, once the jewelry is gone, it's gone for good.
__________________
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

NRA Endowment Member
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 05:33 PM   #425
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
What i am saying is that is that this notion that its beyond the American government agencies to enforce the laws if they wanted to is mistaken.


There are plenty of arguments and reasons why further gun controls should not be introduced. But the government not having the capability to so if they wanted is a poor one.
I don't think anyone has said either of these things. I think you're creating something to argue against.

But it doesn't change the fact that there is no real purpose to passing new laws if the ones in existence are not being enforced.
AH.74 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 09:40 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 0.17148 seconds with 8 queries