The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 16, 2013, 09:19 AM   #101
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Passports are both, exit and leaving, documents.
Visas are permission to enter/stay.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:21 AM   #102
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Dude, if you can't handle the occasional and rare temporary restriction for those who are false negatives... then you probably lead a very upset life. Again, when life and death, err on the side of caution.
He's made a decent case for the flip side of erring on the side of caution as well.
The woman being stalked by her abusive ex husband might not be able to wait for a 7 day period.

Plan it out a little better? Should she apply the restraining order to her face so when he ignores it and beats her, it'll soften the blow? We love the rhetoric sound bite- when seconds count the police are minutes away.

I believe it wouldn't be an overall bad thing for every transfer of title to go through a background check. I also believe there will be instances where it would be bad. This is not a perfect world, and us folks running around in it aren't perfect either.

Finally, and remember you and I agree quite a bit here Kochman, your posts are striking me as a bit... heated. Passionate discussion is great, but we have to keep it constructive. Suggesting someone leads a very upset life is not constructive.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:22 AM   #103
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
@Spats
Dude, if you can't handle the occasional and rare temporary restriction for those who are false negatives... then you probably lead a very upset life.
Let's not make this personal.

If justice delayed is justice denied, then an undue delay in clearing a 4473 is a genuine injustice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Again, when life and death, err on the side of caution.
That is not a correct test for the protection of a civil right. The protection of civil rights will sometimes have unfortunate consequences. To err on the side of safety will necessarily obliterate any civil right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Yes, I am totally willing to have you ensure that you aren't selling to a violent sociopath with a record. That you aren't is irresponsible. I believe in responsible gun ownership.
The issue presented here is not ownership, but the transfer process. Does invoking criminal liability for the failure to complete a 4473 check "ensure that you aren't selling to a violent sociopath with a record"? I doubt you believe that it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
You've yet to demonstrate how the 4473 takes away your 2A rights, so, until you do, please stop repeating that nonsense.
The 4473 only lets us know if someone has already had their rights adjudicated away. It is not a deciding document, it is a record check. Nothing more.
If the record check prevents me from illegally obtaining the device I need in order to exercise a civil right, then that record check is the mechanism by which I am prevented from exercising the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
No, the 2A never says acquiring a firearm is going to be a completely convenient and data free process
Yet, where the exercise of a right is made gratuitously difficult or expensive, it is fair to ask whether the difficulty and expense is required for the purpose of showing the exercise of the right itself.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:24 AM   #104
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Beating and leaving of a spouse isn't generally an overnight development...
Any stranger to stranger sale should be vetted. That's my opinion.

I really get tired of people thinking they are losing their rights because they have to fill out a form which simply reports if they've already lost their rights. It simply isn't accurate, and when you point that out to them and they continue to argue the same point, they create confusion and fear amongst people, and that's not a good thing, as it leads to knee-jerk reactions...

I was raised to be a responsible gun owner. I kind of expect gun owners to be responsible and thoughtful.

@Z
Any such unjustified loss is temporary. That's the key word.
And the 4473 is hardly "undue hardship".
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:26 AM   #105
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Passport law being "cited" for analogous discussion with Spats et al Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:28 AM   #106
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Kochman, could we step back for a bit of perspective?

You have suggested something like a 4473 check for intra-state transfers amongst unlicensed individuals. This is a misapplication of the federal system.

The 4473 check system exists for the purpose of regulating federal licensees. It exists so that federal licensees do not transfer arms to legally prohibited individuals.

That system is not designed to prohibit all arms transfers to prohibited individuals. Indeed, firearms are a common item. The central problem with your proposal is that it cannot work for the end to which you put it; no law will prevent a determined criminal from obtaining a common item.

Expanding the 4473 check to unlicensed individuals burdens and an importent civil right toward no good end.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:31 AM   #107
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Again, when life and death, err on the side of caution.
I am erring on the side of caution. I am erring on the side of caution for those people who really do need a gun right now. I am erring on the side of caution in favor of 2A rights.

Appeasement has not worked in the past, and I see no reason to believe that it will work in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
We do the same thing with airplane travel, and yes, it temporarily screws some people over, but protects others.
Airplane travel isn't a constitutionally-protected right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
No, the 4473 doesn't prevent anyone from buying a gun that shouldn't be denied. It may slow down the process for some people temporarily. I know it doesn't slow me down in any of my purchases. The wife should file a restraining order, etc, and plan it out a little better. Get the gun beforehand.
Plan it out better?!? Call the local battered women's shelter and tell those women that they should have planned it out better. I'm sure that will go over well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Yes, I am totally willing to have you ensure that you aren't selling to a violent sociopath with a record. That you aren't is irresponsible. I believe in responsible gun ownership.
I believe in responsible gun ownership, too, but I'm not willing to concede more ground in the 2A realm. As the law stands, it's illegal for me to sell a firearm to anyone when I "know or have reasonable cause to believe" that their possession of same would be illegal. I think that's enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
You've yet to demonstrate how the 4473 takes away your 2A rights, so, until you do, please stop repeating that nonsense.
We've covered that. Your unwillingness to comprehend it notwithstanding, the short answer is that delaying a right is temporarily denying a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
The 4473 only lets us know if someone has already had their rights adjudicated away. It is not a deciding document, it is a record check. Nothing more.
Yes, and it's used in a NICS check, which is a deciding process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
No, the 2A never says acquiring a firearm is going to be a completely convenient and data free process.
Constitutional rights are rarely convenient, either for the citizen or the government. So?

As for passports, like I said, it's been some time since I traveled out of the country. Perhaps they've changed the procedures since I last traveled abroad (~7 years ago), but I cannot recall having ever had my passport checked on the way out of the USA. The operative phrase here may be: "cannot recall."
__________________
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 April 16, 2013, 09:32 AM   #108
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
@Z
Any such unjustified loss is temporary. That's the key word.
And the 4473 is hardly "undue hardship".
Everything is temporary. An unjust prison sentence of 25 years to life is temporary. That you temporarily abridge a civil right is not an excuse for abridging it.

You may not consider handing your personal information over to a stranger so that some third party somewhere, for a fee, can issue a thumbs-up or thumbs down on whether you will be permitted to exercise a right.

Your assertion that this hardship is not undue is conclusory; I do not share it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:34 AM   #109
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
@Z
I said that a check should be done. Currently the 4473 is the mechanism.
There is no reason use of 4473 couldn't be expanded to the unlicensed from what I can tell.

Regarding the response of "that won't stop a determined criminal.
1) Nothing will stop a determined criminal...
2) So, in lieu of that, we have a duty to make it harder.
3) It will stop a law abiding citizen from selling the gun to the gun when the 4473 comes back as negative... because they won't want to get hemmed up in the aftermath for selling to a known criminal. As it stands now, we don't know the guy's a criminal (except for those claiming clairvoyance and the ability to "sniff them out" based on their 5 minute chat with the potential buyer of course, we should definitely respect that claim)
4) It will force the criminal to be strictly black market.
5) When a criminal does killings with an illegal gun, it doesn't make the news.
6) When a criminal does the killings with a legally purchased gun despite him not being able to buy legally, it does make the news and doesn't help our cause.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:43 AM   #110
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
Airplane travel isn't a constitutionally-protected right.
Yes, it is. It isn't specifically mentioned, but it is mentioned in the COTUS. If fact, you have to get licensed (passport) to leave the country in any way shape or form for foreign travel (outside of US & Canada, Puerto Rico etc are US soil), you have to do less to buy a gun.

Quote:
We've covered that. Your unwillingness to comprehend it notwithstanding, the short answer is that delaying a right is temporarily denying a right.
That's not taking the right away. That's what I asked. What right did you lose?
To lose something is a more permanent state than a temporary situation.

Quote:
Yes, and it's used in a NICS check, which is a deciding process.
No, the NICS isn't a deciding process either. It is, like the 4473, part of the mechanism used to check if you have had your rights adjudicated away, which is when the decision process took place.

Regarding passport travel on the way out, I've had mine checked. It's generally a temporary thing as we aren't in the business of telling people they can't leave... unlike places like the former USSR. They could have a visa, etc, but maybe not allowed to leave.
Point being, it is still a mechanism/function of the passport, and yes, I've had my passport checked leaving the country. I faced more scrutiny leaving the US to enter Quebec than I did actually entering Quebec (2011).


Regarding the woman in the shelter. That same check prevents her husband from buying a gun and using it without a waiting period on her...
In the meanwhile, restraining orders are quick and shelters are available, etc.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:47 AM   #111
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
@Z
I said that a check should be done. Currently the 4473 is the mechanism.
There is no reason use of 4473 couldn't be expanded to the unlicensed from what I can tell.
I agree that it could be expanded, I do not agree that it should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Regarding the response of "that won't stop a determined criminal.
1) Nothing will stop a determined criminal...
2) So, in lieu of that, we have a duty to make it harder.
Yet, having unlicensed individuals engage in 4473 checks does not make it harder for someone who does not want to do the check. That is why it is not useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
3) It will stop a law abiding citizen from selling the gun to the gun when the 4473 comes back as negative... because they won't want to get hemmed up in the aftermath for selling to a known criminal. As it stands now, we don't know the guy's a criminal (except for those claiming clairvoyance and the ability to "sniff them out" based on their 5 minute chat with the potential buyer of course, we should definitely respect that claim)
It is possible that a felon would be stupid enough to attempt a purchase with a 4473 check, and that the purchase would be frustrated when the check comes back negative.

Do you understand that this does not keep the felon from getting a gun?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
4) It will force the criminal to be strictly black market.
That criminal's possession of a firearm is already illegal. Do you really think that making it extra super double illegal helps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
5) When a criminal does killings with an illegal gun, it doesn't make the news.
6) When a criminal does the killings with a legally purchased gun despite him not being able to buy legally, it does make the news and doesn't help our cause.
I think the most difficult part of defending civil liberties is in defending the exercise of those liberties against those who exaggerate the cost of exercising them and minimize the burden of infringement.

There are very few things I can guarantee, but I believe I can guarantee this: somewhere at some point in the future someone will be wrongly killed with a legally purchased firearm, and there is nothing you can propose which will prevent that.

I can also guarantee that people will speak and write dangerously and vote unwisely. Foresight restrains us from attempting to prevent those errors because our experience is that the solution is worse than the problem.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:48 AM   #112
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
It will stop a law abiding citizen from selling the gun to the gun when the 4473 comes back as negative... because they won't want to get hemmed up in the aftermath for selling to a known criminal. As it stands now, we don't know the guy's a criminal (except for those claiming clairvoyance and the ability to "sniff them out" based on their 5 minute chat with the potential buyer of course, we should definitely respect that claim)
Why not keep checks voluntary, but impose criminal penalties for people who transfer them to prohibited persons if they choose to forego the check?
ATW525 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:53 AM   #113
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
It is possible that a felon would be stupid enough to attempt a purchase with a 4473 check, and that the purchase would be frustrated when the check comes back negative.

Do you understand that this does not keep the felon from getting a gun?
As I previously cited here, it does.
Between 2002-2003, over 120k people were denied firearms due to 4473.
That kept them from getting the gun from FFLs.
If we expanded that to all stranger-stranger transfers, it would prevent all but family and black market acquisitions.

Quote:
That criminal's possession of a firearm is already illegal. Do you really think that making it extra super double illegal helps?
Absolutely, because it makes it extra super double more expensive, at a minimum, and is yet another charge you can throw at them during the commission of a crime if they use their illegal gun...
Charges - Crime, illegal possession of firearm, illegal purchase of firearm (instead of, ooops, he bought it at a gun show)

Quote:
There are very few things I can guarantee, but I believe I can guarantee this: somewhere at some point in the future someone will be wrongly killed with a legally purchased firearm, and there is nothing you can propose which will prevent that.
And why does this mean we shouldn't use a 4473?
I've documented that it has stopped a lot of potential crimes (of that 120k, you can't honestly tell me that nothing was prevented).

@ATW
Quote:
Why not keep checks voluntary, but impose criminal penalties for people who transfer them to prohibited persons if they choose to forego the check?
That's de facto the same... because people will not always use the form even if it is law. However, it will punish the irresponsible, which is the same thing you recommend. I support that.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:55 AM   #114
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,934
Originally posted by Kochman
Quote:
@Webleymkv
Ok, so, tell me how you would compromise... perfect world.
What is your system and how is it better than 4473s?
Well, in a perfect world there would be no need for background checks because those who committed a crime so heinous that they could no longer be trusted with a firearm would remain locked up or, depending on the severity of their crime, be executed and those so mentally ill would remain institutionalized until their disease could be treated to the point that they are no longer a danger to the public. Through all the debate, I keep asking myself why, if we have people that have proven themselves too evil or insane to be trusted with a gun, are we letting such people go free to present a danger to society in the first place.

However, since our society, in the name of political correctness, refuses to treat mental illness and punish crime appropriately, NICS and 4473's are a necessary evil for licensed FFL's. As I said earlier, ensuring that one does not sell a gun to a prohibited person through a private-party transaction is, in my mind, a matter of personal responsibility but obviously selling only to close personal acquaintences or people with CCL's is impractical for an FFL.

Insofar as what can be done to improve the current system, I agree with you that the prosecution rate for people who lie on the 4473 is ridiculously and unacceptably low. Perhaps if we prosecute and incarcerate the people to lie on the 4473, we can remove them from society before they get a gun by some other means. The prosecution of straw purchases is also very low and, while straw purchase can be a very difficult thing to prove to begin with, I've seen little that the ATF has done to enforce the law (quite the opposite considering Fast & Furious). Finally, it would probably be a good idea to revise the Gun Control Act of 1968 to more clearly define what, exactly, constitutes dealing in firearms thus requiring an FFL (this is extremely vague in the way the law is currently worded).

As far as what can be done to prevent another shooting like Sandy Hook, first and foremost we must do something about school security. The unfortunate fact is that no matter how many laws we pass, there will always be evil and deranged people who wish to do harm to innocents. As it stands, schools are an all-too-inviting target not only because they are often inadequately protected, if protected at all, but also because the most surefire way to get attention from the sensationalist media is to murder a bunch of children. The way I see it, the most effective means to protect our schools is through armed security of some sort be it a uniformed police officer, allowing teachers to carry, or some sort of volunteer program within the community.

Secondly, there desperately needs to be reform in mental health care. I am currently a nursing student and part of my clinical rotations included a psychiatric unit. I am here to tell you that it is a revolving door of people regularly and repeatedly brought in by the police. While the mental health care system of decades past was deplorable due to too quick and easy institutionalization and downright barbaric treatments, I think that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. While the standard for involuntary committal remains "a danger to self or others," proving that standard is extremely difficult. While not necessarily suicidal or homicidal, the altered mental state and resulting impaired judgement makes many mental health patients a legitimate threat to themselves or others albeit an unintentional one.

Finally, I think that people need to begin to realize that the media bears some culpability in these incidents as well. I'm not talking about violent movies and video games here as I think someone who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality is probably already deeply disturbed. Instead, I'm talking about the senationalist coverage that such incidents recieve. It seems to me that most of these mass shooters desire to make some sort of deranged statement and doing so requires a large audience. Given the manner in which the media bombard us with pictures of the victims, their families, and the shooter everytime such a thing happens, I cannot help but think about the next mass shooter watching and taking notes somewhere. You may have noticed that I do not mention the names of mass shooters in my posts, this is intentional. By devoting so much attention to such people we give them exactly what they wanted and I, for one, don't want these individuals to be remembered. My hope is that if enough people refuse to give attention to the shooter, perhaps the murder of innocent children will lose whatever sick appeal that it seems to have to these people.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 09:55 AM   #115
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
I keep harping on this one item all the time. There is not one person who can deny what I am about to write, is false.

Back in the day, we had the right to freely travel wherever we wanted, whenever we wanted. That right included all the various (at that time) means to travel with.
By foot? Check.
By Horse? Check.
By Carriage? Check.
By wagon? Check.
By Boat or Ship? Check.
If we could buy the item of transportation, we could use it without the say-so of any government body. Ownership of the item guaranteed the right to use the item for the purpose for which we bought the item. It was our right.

Then came the "horseless carriage." Mass production changed the nature of this particular game. Prices of the device came down to the point that ordinary people could afford the device. One didn't need to own lots of land to feed the beast. Nor any of the other impediments to having living animals. A whole new way to travel was introduced and people embraced this new method with zeal.

Registration of those vehicles used in commerce, was not an afterthought. It had already been implemented in ages past. So the various authorities demanded that those in commerce be registered. Shortly after this, licensees were demanded of those who drove these commercial vehicles.

However, those who had registered commercial vehicles and those who were licensed to drive these vehicles began demanding improvements to the structure of the roads they traveled upon. Some cities, counties and then the States, found that they could induce the people to register their vehicles, on a voluntary basis, in order to help pay for these improvements.

In short order, many of the governments found this to be a "cash cow." As the improvements did not cost as much as the money the "volunteers" were giving. By the 1930's, legislation began sweeping the States to make registrations (a personal property tax, if the truth be known), mandatory.

The next problem was that traffic began to get much heavier, in and around the metropolitan centers. Accidents were commonplace, as there were no rules of the road. So rules were authored and voluntary licenses were issued, on the premise that one who passed the licensing tests knew the rules by which to drive and were thus immune from certain aspects of lawsuits arising form accidents.

Another cash cow. States saw the money flowing in and passed laws taking full authority of registrations and licensing away from local authorities and occupied the entire field of public and private movement upon the public roads.

By the end of the forties, most States had mandatory registration. Laws were in place that made it unlawful to place a private vehicle on a public road, without first being registered. Another aspect of this, was reciprocity between the States was negotiated and became a reality. By the end of the fifties, drivers licences became mandatory in all States. Reciprocity was in effect in all States.

The only thing that involved the Federal government was interstate transport. They were there at the beginning with the first DOT rules being made back in the twenties.

By the start of the sixties, what was once a right, was now an established privilege. All with the consent of the very people who once had this unalienable right to travel. Unless it involved a mechanically driven vehicle. We had no right to take that vehicle upon the public roads, unless we first registered the vehicle and then registered ourselves (as fit to drive by the rules of the road).

How do I know this all to be true? I've studied the history of automobiles and our mobile society. It's all there. Out in the open, if you only care to look for yourselves.

This is what is wrong with background checks, registration of first our guns and next ourselves. If you don't see the parallel, then you haven't studied your history.

Those of you that don't see anything wrong with having to prove you are worthy to exercise a fundamental right, are as guilty as our ancesters who never thought about giving up their right to travel.

The rest of you can keep arguing about the "reasonableness" of such laws. I'm against all of them. They ultimately and irrevocably reduce the right to a privilege.

Granted, the NICS check will not be going away. Nor will the 4473's. They have been and will continue to be found constitutional. But that doesn't mean I have to like them. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I have to give in to more restrictions. Shame on you, if you hold a contrary view, as you obviously haven't done your homework, as it regards a conversion of a right to a privilege.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:02 AM   #116
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Very well said, Al. Very well said, indeed.

The grabbers' may indeed be able to put our necks into nooses. But let's not buy the rope and tie the knot for them.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:02 AM   #117
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,824
When I first started shooting I did a lot of buying/selling/trading guns as I tried different models out. Almost all done FTF locally and arranged on various internet boards. Around here the cheapest walk-in regular hour gun shop has a fee of $30 for a transfer. Some shops won't even do it. None of the big box store do and they are taking over. Would have cost me an additional $1000 over a few years had I had to pay them $30 for each purchase and sale of a firearm. It would have made no one safer.
Additionally, my local shop is only open until 6pm. It isn't easy to meet someone so close to end of work, especially when many people are not permitted to have firearms at work, even in their car. It just makes a huge mess.

In the states that require using an FFL compliance is not high, even among otherwise law abiding citizens.
If FFLs were required to do a transfer of a private transfer free I might go for it, but the gun shops aren't going to like that.

If I could walk into any Sheriffs office 24 hours a day and have someone run the background check I might think about supporting this legislation. As it is now this bill WILL put a burden on me AND many others.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:03 AM   #118
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Do you understand that this does not keep the felon from getting a gun?
As I previously cited here, it does.
Between 2002-2003, over 120k people were denied firearms due to 4473.
That kept them from getting the gun from FFLs.
If we expanded that to all stranger-stranger transfers, it would prevent all but family and black market acquisitions.
Emphasis added. Note the bolded language. Your citation does not indicate that those individuals were unable to procure firearms. It indicates they were denied an FFL transfer. From the text of your response, I can tell that you understand that denying someone a legal transfer does not deny them the possession of a common item.

Since your suggestion would not deny the possession of a common item to the prohibited population, it cannot achieve its suggested end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Absolutely, because it makes it extra super double more expensive, at a minimum, and is yet another charge you can throw at them during the commission of a crime if they use their illegal gun...
Charges - Crime, illegal possession of firearm, illegal purchase of firearm (instead of, ooops, he bought it at a gun show)
Your response has two components. First, avoiding a records check for which a fee is required does not increase the cost of a transaction. On the contrary, it decreases the cost. That result is perverse.

Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
There are very few things I can guarantee, but I believe I can guarantee this: somewhere at some point in the future someone will be wrongly killed with a legally purchased firearm, and there is nothing you can propose which will prevent that.

And why does this mean we shouldn't use a 4473?
Because it does not prevent anyone from wrongly killing another person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
I've documented that it has stopped a lot of potential crimes (of that 120k, you can't honestly tell me that nothing was prevented).
You have not documented that a crime has been stopped. You have described the commission of a separate crime. I can honestly tell you that no one is prevented the possession of a firearm simply because he is denied 4473 transfer.

Your speculation that felons with murder in their hearts were prevented from accomplishing those murders when they were denied a 4473 transfer is implausible.

The burden on the civil right involved is not speculative.

Last edited by zukiphile; April 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:10 AM   #119
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Well, Al, you still have that right.

You may travel by any means available to you that you can afford.

I may engage someone to drive me from Bangor, WA to Bangor, ME.

If I so choose I may go through the process to legally fly myself from Dedham, MA, to Dedham IA. (That process would probably include the building a heliport in those two locations.)

I can pay Amtrak, or I can buy my own train and hire/become the professionals to run it.

If I wanted to walk from Salem, OR, to Salem, MA, I can do it as long as I purchase a continuous tract of land wide enough to walk it. OR file suit with the United States for prohibiting hiking along the Interstate roads. OR find a path from location to location that does not involve said roads.

Every method of travel is still available to me if I choose to exercise it, and/or Pay the money to have it exercised for me.

The principle of denying one form of travel when another is available does have it's corollaries in the right to bear arms. A jurisdiction may ban concealed carry, or Open Carry but not both.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:10 AM   #120
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,824
The few people I know of who were stopped at an NICS check had a misdemeanor drug conviction decades before or had something sealed/expunged they thought wouldn't come up and it did.

In all cases, they hired a lawyer to "fix it" and were approved in 6 months.
As long as militaries in the third world have millions of firearms they will be available in the first world for a reasonable price, especially to criminal organizations. Anyone who has done even a cursory investigation of arms trafficking knows this fact.

Al makes a very good point also.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:15 AM   #121
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
@Webleymkv
I mainly agree with you. Very well thought out post.
4473 is a necessary evil... expansion of it isn't a bad thing, because, as you said, it is necessary. I would expand it to all stranger-stranger sales...

@Al Norris
I'll take on that clip.
Driving is not a right, we all know this. Just because it was unregulated once doesn't mean it should have been. It was never a right simply because it wasn't regulated.
Travel is a right, per the Constitution.
Whatever your mode of transport, once you hit a national border, there were checks in place. Not throughout history, but within any of ours lives.

"Crying over spilled milk" is unproductive. We live within the reality we live in, and it can be adjusted, but it's a process, just like it was a process to get it where it is now.
Things get regulated. We can regulate smartly, from our side... or, when we fail to self-regulate, and repeated cases of it are made clear, there will be support for the other side which will regulate much more draconically.

@johnwilliamson062
Yes, those checks could have made someone safer. How do you know none of your sales were to felons who then committed crimes?
I have cited examples of 120k plus interventions that prevented felons from getting guns.
Yes, it does put a burden on you, but it isn't undue.
I agree that it should be made easier, and refined.

@Z
If they were stopped from an FFL, and we expanded the FFL system to nearly everyone, it would be... stopping them.

Quote:
Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.
Yes, pay attention to the 3rd specific charge... illegal purchase... that's different than illegal possession...

I've documented that 120k plus cases of stopping people had occured in that 2 year period, but you're saying it didn't stop anything?

How does one document that a crime which never occured was prevented? You can't prove a negative.

The burden is minimal. I've done this 4473 so many times, I walk in and out within 20 minutes, every single time. That's nothing compared to a lifetime of gun ownership with that particular weapon.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:18 AM   #122
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
If FFLs were required to do a transfer of a private transfer free I might go for it, but the gun shops aren't going to like that.
I vacillate on that topic quite a bit. I don't believe they should be making money off of a service provided by the government. But they do pay the guy that sits there on the phone for you. If they were limited to strictly recouping the cost of paying that guy to sit there on the phone servicing you- that's the middle ground I wouldn't mind.

Quote:
If I could walk into any Sheriffs office 24 hours a day and have someone run the background check I might think about supporting this legislation. As it is now this bill WILL put a burden on me AND many others.
Oh, I don't want that. At that point one of two things happens. The Sheriff keeps the 4473, which is bad, or the stranger keeps the 4473, which is bad. Let's not enable registries or identity theft any more than we have to. Keep the 4473's in the brick and mortar bound book.

Additionally, lets not stick someone who just lost their parent with the onerous task of going through their papers for a 4473 form to mail to the ATF, assuming they even know there IS a 4473 form to mail, or that they would have to do so.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:21 AM   #123
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Apples and Oranges Jim.

You may travel by any means you can pay for, as opposed to traveling in your own vehicle.

As for your open v. concealed carry? It didn't come first. The vehicle thing was first.

And ... You have just proved my point.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:28 AM   #124
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
@Z
If they were stopped from an FFL, and we expanded the FFL system to nearly everyone, it would be... Itopping them.
Your second premise does not work. Simply passing a criminal prohibition cannot put "nearly" everyone through that system.

If criminal prohibition were the remedy, we already would not have a problem of prohibited persons with firearms, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
Quote:
Second, the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is already illegal.
Yes, pay attention to the 3rd specific charge... illegal purchase... that's different than illegal possession...
Your extra charge did not escape my attention.

It really is not different. Where ever you find a prohibited person illegally possessing a firearm, you already have a charge. The manner by which he came by the item will already have been a crime.

What you would like to add to this formula is criminal liability for the seller, effectively drafting other individuals into the task of enforcing state prohibitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
I've documented that 120k plus cases of stopping people had occured in that 2 year period, but you're saying it didn't stop anything?
It would be easy to determine what I have written by scrolling up and reading it. I did not write that "it didn't stop anything"; I wrote that it denied an FFL transfer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
How does one document that a crime which never occured was prevented? You can't prove a negative.
Indeed, that is a significant problem with the argument for your proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochamn
The burden is minimal. I've done this 4473 so many times, I walk in and out within 20 minutes, every single time. That's nothing compared to a lifetime of gun ownership with that particular weapon.
That you consider a purchase from an FFL minimal does not bind anyone else to the same conclusion.

As a practical matter and under your proposal, if I, an unlicensed individual, would like to purchase an item from an individual across the street from me, do I now have to participate in a three party transaction at somewhere other than one of our homes?

What if I would like to purchase from someone 200 miles away from me, but I am delayed, not denied. Do I now have to make that trip twice?
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 10:29 AM   #125
Closing The Gap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: Michigan/Nevada
Posts: 253
It only stopped 49,450 felons according to the cited information on the subject not 120,000. Although the rest were justly stopped.

Please continue with the debate. I am enjoying the back and forth. While I have a firm opinion that lines up with spats and others I cannot formulate it as well as them through my text. I'll let them do the heavy lifting on this one. Thanks!
__________________
Half the country hates my business, the other half my hobby.
Closing The Gap 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 05:40 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 0.16436 seconds with 7 queries