The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 5, 2013, 05:04 PM   #26
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
It is perfectly legal to purchase a gun from a gun dealer at a gun show without a background check....IF the gun being purchased is not on his FFL book and is part of his personal collection.
Correct, it is perfectly legal to purchase from a dealer without a background check under certain circumstances at a gun shows in most states at most places. So JohnKSa friends are correct.

In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check. Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 06:02 PM   #27
Dalek
Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2013
Posts: 64
Hmmmm

Not in CO. as we have some rather strange laws, ever since Columbine. Not that they are enforced in any regular manner.

Personally, I see the frenzy on the part of our opposition as being a direct result of their argument being based on emotion, not reason. Any reasonable person can see, for instance, that the numbers simply do not support their positions. Gun folks are just well, forgive me, wonderfully "dull" when it comes to breaking laws or being violent. We tend to be the folks who still get misty-eyed when the National Anthem is played. We tend to be the folks who get a catch in the throat when we hear that a member of the military has given their life for our nation. We still smile with pride when we see Old Glory fly.

We just do not rub banks, shoot up schools or deal drugs. All of which are the sort that spark the howls for new laws and bans.
Dalek is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 10:44 PM   #28
Magnum Mike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 334
Quote:
Correct, it is perfectly legal to purchase from a dealer without a background check under certain circumstances at a gun shows in most states at most places. So JohnKSa friends are correct.
JohnKSA did not say that!
This is what he said!!
Quote:
I have found that nearly every person I have talked to believes that it is legal to purchase a gun from a dealer at a gunshow without a background check. A person with that belief will almost certainly say they're in favor of expanding background checks without realizing that what they want is already existing law
Magnum Mike is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 10:54 PM   #29
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,497
Quote:
It is perfectly legal to purchase a gun from a gun dealer at a gunshow withou a background check....IF the gun being purchased is not on his FFL book and is part of his personal collection.
That is correct. However, although a dealer is involved, as far as the law is concerned, these are private sales, not dealer sales in any conventional sense.
Quote:
Correct, it is perfectly legal to purchase from a dealer without a background check under certain circumstances at a gun shows in most states at most places. So JohnKSa friends are correct.
The private sales allowance that makes it legal for licensed persons to sell privately owned firearms in private sales is really the exception to the rule of how dealers must legally operate, it's not the rule.

The people I'm talking about are not correct because what they believe is that things are fundamentally different in terms of the legality of transfers/background checks at gunshows. They aren't. If a sale requires a background check, it still requires a background check if it takes place at a gunshow. If a sale doesn't require a background check at a gunshow it doesn't require a background check anywhere.

The people I'm talking about are under the impression that there is a legal way for commercial/business-related/dealer-stocked firearm sales to take place without a form 4473 and without a background check.

My point about people being generally uninformed about the current laws regarding firearm transfers is unaffected by the fact that licensed persons can sell privately owned firearms in exactly the same manner as unlicensed persons can sell privately owned firearms.

That point is, people who don't understand the existing laws and who are asked basic questions about changing the laws without clarification will likely answer questions about expanding background checks in such a way that their answers only reveal how misinformed they are and won't really provide any useful information about what they think should and shouldn't be legal.
Quote:
I was offered a Sun Devil ar-15 for $2100.00 and when I gave the dealer my drvers license he refused to take it and asked if I had cash.....or I had to pay a credit card fee. I was in a neighboring state at the time.
If he was attempting to make a private sale across state lines, he was attempting to violate federal law, and you also would have been in violation had you taken him up on his offer.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 11:00 PM   #30
Plumbnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
Its 20 miles to the state line.......if thats true then hundreds of guns are being bought and sold illegaly every week.

I've never heard of anyone doing anything about it or even talk about doig anything about it.
Plumbnut is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 11:22 PM   #31
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,497
It is not legal for a private sale of a firearm to take place across a state line without involving a licensed dealer (FFL holder).

It IS legal for an FFL to sell a firearm (with a form 4473 and background check) to a citizen of another state in a face-to-face transaction assuming that the purchase and possession of the firearm in question is legal in both the state where the purchase takes place and the state where the purchaser resides.

So you could legally buy a gun from dealer stock (commercial sale) at the show assuming that both states involved (your state of residence and the state where the show takes place) allow such a transfer and as long as the transaction took place face-to-face and you filled out the 4473 and were background checked.

However, it would not be legal for you to purchase a privately owned gun (i.e. a private sale from a dealer's personal collection or sale from an unlicensed person--NOT a commercial sale from dealer stock) at a gunshow in another state.
Quote:
I've never heard of anyone doing anything about it or even talk about doig anything about it.
This is another serious issue that needs to be considered in the context of this discussion. If we already have laws regarding firearm transfers that virtually no one knows about and that are virtually unenforced, what is the value of passing more laws of the same type?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 11:23 PM   #32
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,718
AlabamaShooter --

Thanks for the link to the poll but the 82% figure was not in favor of UBC, which is how you put it. The question asked was:
Quote:
Do you favor or oppose expanding background checks on gun buyers?
82% favored expanded checks. That is obviously different than a universal check which would include Dad leaving his collection to his kids.

More fundamentally, I'll second JohnSKa's point that many people out there think it is perfectly legal to go to a gun show and purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a background check. That's because the Brady Bunch and the cooperating media have pounded on the "Gun Show Loophole" so much.

I think we should get a friendly member of Congress to introduce a bill called "The Gun Show Loophole Act." It would require all buyers at a gun show purchasing from a firearms dealer to pass a background check. We could put some teeth into it by making it unlawful to lie on the federal form.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 11:37 PM   #33
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,497
Quote:
know for a fact that FFL dealers set up booths with their personal guns....and they may have 100 of them ad sell them without checks. I watched it happen a few weeks ago.
That is legal as long as they abide by the laws that govern the private sale by dealers of their own privately owned firearms. They can't sell new guns that way, and they can't sell guns out of their business stock that way.

The BATF does audit FFL holders on a regular basis, and if they try to shuffle guns out of their business stock so that they can sell them in private sales, theyr'e going to eventually be caught and go to jail.
Quote:
I know for a fact a FFL dealertried to sell me a sn devil Ar without a background check for cash or a credit card with a fee of 3% in a neighboring state. I handed him my ID and he didn't even glance at it.
That would be an illegal sale, as described.
Quote:
so what you guys are telling is there is alot of illega sales happening at gunshows by FFl dealers.
Well, the one you described that the dealer tried to involve you in was illegal. I'm sure that other illegal sales do take place, however, I'm not sure why they would only take place at gunshows. If a dealer is crooked, he doesn't really get any protection by only being crooked at a gunshow. In fact, he's probably more likely to get caught by a sting at a gunshow than at his regular place of business.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 11:43 PM   #34
Plumbnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
Thats just it.....they dont have a regular place of business. Well other than their garage.

They pay 50 bucks for a table and set up shop on the weekend. They dont operate a real business IMO. IMO they have alot of guns and their old and retired.....they need money. They used guns as an investment and especially now that the markts hot.....their dumping them.

I assure you I'm no idiot. One thing I know is business and money.
Plumbnut is offline  
Old May 5, 2013, 11:50 PM   #35
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,497
A standard FFL holder must have some place that they can officially call their business location for the BATFE to come when it is time for an audit. It can be their house/garage.

It is not legal for a standard FFL holder to have an FFL without operating a business. The BATFE will shut them down. They are pretty aggressive about this kind of enforcement.

It's legal for an FFL holder to do most (even all) of his business at gunshows, but that doesn't get them off the hook in terms of having an official business address (even if it's their home) nor in terms of regular audits and maintainin the proper paperwork.

I'm sure that some of them are breaking the law, but if it's true that illegal dealer sales are widespread, that's more evidence against passing new laws, not an argument for passing new ones. If the BATFE isn't enforcing current laws, it doesn't make sense to pass even more laws that won't be enforced.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old May 6, 2013, 08:10 AM   #36
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
The people I'm talking about are under the impression that there is a legal way for commercial/business-related/dealer-stocked firearm sales to take place without a form 4473 and without a background check.
When the end result is essentially the same it makes little difference in the mechanism that made it happen.


Quote:
82% favored expanded checks. That is obviously different than a universal check which would include Dad leaving his collection to his kids.
I stand corrected.

As an aside the poll also gave a higher approval rating to the NRA than it did to the Democratic Party. Since gun control is a party platform now that speaks volumes towards the validity of the poll.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old May 6, 2013, 10:43 AM   #37
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,803
Let's stay on topic. Personal tales of questionable veracity aren't relevant. I deleted a sequence of such.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 6, 2013, 02:05 PM   #38
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Here are some recent volleys from said campaign:

From the deep opposition:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...te-rights.html

Summary: Gun owners are deranged psychotics:

Quote:
But the idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality. And the idea that a group of Americans possesses an absolute “right” to own and keep weapons that can—and in practice do—kill numerous innocent people in seconds, destroying families and communities and tearing at the nation’s collective soul, is barbaric and psychotic. As the old saying goes: if you want to shoot an assault weapon, go enlist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...demic-violence

Summary: I own a gun too and think that only a few scary conspiracy nutters are the ones behind the push back against "common sense regulation"


Quote:
The research I did for those stories also reinforced my belief that it's a very vocal minority in America whose affection for the right to bear arms isn't anything to do with hunting or target shooting. It's about arming themselves to the teeth so they can rise up against an oppressive government should the need arise. Because, you know, that kind of thing happens a lot in America. And they're going to be really effective against the most powerful military force in the world, if the need should ever arise.

These are some of the same people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, that the Boston bombings were a "false flag" and that President Obama was born in Kenya. Appropriately enough, the NRA caps off its Saturday night's shenanigans this weekend with a "Stand and Fight" rally featuring Glenn Beck, who happens to be promoting his new anti-gun control polemic.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so frightening. Up until the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, these were voices that many outside the United States fortunately hadn't heard all that often. But I'm actually glad they now have. In the past, when there hadn't been a school shooting for a while, this constituency just felt like a joke; but now, everyone can see that they have the ability to prevent common-sense measures designed to stem the tide of gun violence here in America.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old May 6, 2013, 05:12 PM   #39
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,718
Quote:
Since gun control is a party platform now that speaks volumes towards the validity of the poll.
Or it speaks volumes about the validity of the platform.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old May 6, 2013, 10:17 PM   #40
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,497
Quote:
When the end result is essentially the same it makes little difference in the mechanism that made it happen.
Flawed logic.

Stealing a gun from a dealer creates an end result that is essentially the same as buying from a dealer. Either way, a gun moves from the dealer's possession to the possession of the person in question. Clearly the mechanism can make a HUGE difference even when the result is the same.
Quote:
Summary: Gun owners are deranged psychotics:
That's their best strategy--painting us all as deranged psychotics.

Our best strategy is countering with common sense and logic. NOT giving in so that they'll like us better. They won't ever like us better because they have a fundamentally different view of reality than we do.

But that's all neither here nor there. You claimed that the poll results are telling. I stated why I believe they are not and explained why. So far, other than pointing out a limited exception that allows a dealer to sell his privately owned firearms in the same manner as any other citizen can sell privately owned firearms, no one has really addressed the main issue I raised.

I'm not trying to "win the argument", I think it's an important point that needs to be raised and here is why.

If the problem, as I claim, is that the anti-gunners are playing on the ignorance of the general population about existing gun laws, then the solution is doing whatever possible to educate the general population about the gun laws in question.

Giving in because the anti-gunners have successfully made it appear that public opinion is behind their current push for legislation is counter productive and plays into their strategy.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 05:41 AM   #41
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
You ever notice how on the Internet, someone who is losing an argument based on facts soon resorts to ad hominem? The recent push for gun control and its follow up is just that same practice writ large. Look at the pieces above:

1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics.
2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown.
3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people.

The problem is, in the United States there are around 80-100 million gun owners. So people are unlikely to buy that line because chances are very high they know a gun owner who doesn't fit that stereotype. The whole purpose of these types of articles is to try and shame gun owners into the closet - to stop them from pointing out the facts and the stupidity of our existing laws. To get them to shut up anout the hundreds of thousands of people denied on a background check who were never prosecuted.

The only way such childish tactics work against us is if we allow them to silence us or drag us into responding in kind. It is like the last gasp of a dying animal when you see those kinds of efforts.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 10:44 AM   #42
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,803
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ats-90986.html

This is an interesting piece. The gist is that by attacking progun Democrats, Bloomberg will cause their loss in upcoming elections. Reid told Bloomberg this - and he didn't care.

The rationale is that the wave of antigun sentiment will promote an antigun Democrat's chances. This is an empirical question.

It does show that the war isn't over, so to speak.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 11:00 AM   #43
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
You ever notice how on the Internet, someone who is losing an argument based on facts soon resorts to ad hominem? The recent push for gun control and its follow up is just that same practice writ large. Look at the pieces above:

1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics.
2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown.
3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people.

The problem is, in the United States there are around 80-100 million gun owners.
I agree, but take seriously the popularity of reactions to polls about facile quasi-solutions like universal background checks.

That there are in the US something between 80 and 150 million gun owners does not mean that there are between 80 and 150 million principled advocates of an important civil right. My sense is that many of those owners might readily accept changes that do not appear to be an immediate problem for them personally.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 12:51 PM   #44
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,537
Quote:
1. Gun owners are deranged psychotics.
2. Gun owners are personally responsible for Newtown.
3. Gun owners are white racists who want to shoot dark-skinned people.
When I see or hear things like that in an argument, I know I've won. What's more, I want gun owners to see the antis calling them names.

I was in New York a few weeks back, and even folks who were mildly supportive of things like the Toomey/Manchin amendment were very put off by being called rednecks and child murderers.

Do a Google search for "gun control political cartoon" and you'll see that portrayal writ large. The antis really misread the situation, and thinking they were lampooning a stereotypical minority, they outraged a diverse majority.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 01:29 PM   #45
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Flawed logic.

Stealing a gun from a dealer creates an end result that is essentially the same as buying from a dealer.
Different result.

The ways we were discussing involved legal transfers.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 02:14 PM   #46
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 835
One fatal flaw of Universal Background Checks is that there isn't anything "universal" about them.

Like all gun laws, UBCs only apply to those inclined to obey laws.

A gang member from MS-13, or the Crips or Bloods, who wants to transfer a handgun to another gang member is unlikely to first go get a background check.

The fatal flaw doesn't involve those buyers who will comply, regardless of whether they comply at a gun show or at a dealer's showroom. The flaw concerns those who will not comply.

The problem is simply that noncompliance would be extremely difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence. If Smith wants to sell Jones a handgun, and they agree to transact this sale without a UBC, first, no one knows the sale ever took place. Second, no formal evidence exists that the sale ever occurred - that Smith once owned the pistol, nor that Jones now owns it.

If pressed, Smith can claim he never owned the handgun, and -assuming Smith didn't fill out a Form 4473 when he acquired the gun - there isn't any evidence that Smith ever owned it or even possessed it to begin with. Nothing ties the firearm to Smith as a seller.

Ergo UBC laws are often currently unenforceable.

What most people who answer survey's don't understand is that only if Universal Gun Reistration is implemented can UBC laws be enforced. Under UGR, which links all firearms with a Smith or a Jones somewhere, now law enforcement can ask the question: "How did Smith's pistol wind up in Jone's possession?"

Once the government can mandate all firearms be tied to owners (a daunting task on its own), the matter of firearms sellers and buyers who fail to comply with UBC laws can be addressed. But UGR is a necessary condition for UBC.

IMHO this is why anti-gun activists are so frenzied on the matter of UBC laws. They intend to foist them on an uninformed public - which believes UBC sound 'reasonable', and then start begin bloviating about the "UBC Loopholes" which render them unenforceable so that one year later UGR bills can be passed.

Most everyone can agree that firearms probably should be kept out of the hands of convicted gang members and the mentally ill, etc. UBC laws no doubt appear to many citizens like a reasonable place to start.

It isn't until citizens understand that UBC laws are currently essentially unenforceable, and thus meaningless without universal gun registration, that many begin to see where this is leading and why UBC laws are a step in the wrong direction.

JMHO. YMMV.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 06:08 PM   #47
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
This is an interesting piece. The gist is that by attacking progun Democrats, Bloomberg will cause their loss in upcoming elections. Reid told Bloomberg this - and he didn't care.
Lie down with dogs... Interesting that former Republican Bloomberg is so focused on punishing Dems but is only now getting around to theowing a few desultory ads at Republicans.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 06:19 PM   #48
Plumbnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
Quote:
In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check.

Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.

I was told by Tom Servo that you can only by a gun privately in the state in which you have residence without going through a FFL dealer and having a background check.

Same for the FTL classifieds......you must have resodency in the state or have it sent to a FFL in your state.

Just making sure you know this....I sure didn't and I live close to two other states that I go to gunshows in on a regular basis.

I'm glad he told me. May have saved me some trouble.

Quote:
Like all gun laws, UBCs only apply to those inclined to obey laws.
Thats true with almost any law. Laws do not stop crime....they make it a crime.

Problem is laws are not enforced and when they are...the criminals are not kept in jail long enough most of the time.
Plumbnut is offline  
Old May 7, 2013, 06:37 PM   #49
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumnut
Quote:
In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check.

Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.

I was told by Tom Servo that you can only by a gun privately in the state in which you have residence without going through a FFL dealer and having a background check.
It's illegal if you're not FROM that state.

The Classified ads here on The Firing Line are required to abide by the same Federal and State laws requiring background checks, as applicable to the residence of each party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumnut
Thats true with almost any law. Laws do not stop crime....they make it a crime.
Of course laws "create" crime, as in defining something as a crime. They also prevent crime. They don't prevent ALL crime but they DO prevent the commission of crime by those who are inclined to follow laws and/or are afraid of the consequences.

Take speed limits as an example. Do you think people would drive 65 on the interstate if it wasn't illegal to drive 100? Most would not. They do because of the penalty. Some still don't, but there can be NO doubt that there would be more, faster drivers without the penalties.

Since it is indisputable that folks who are not inclined to follow the law... i.e. criminals... do not currently and will not in the future follow the laws, what then is the point in creating more laws which, by definition, will only be followed by the folks who you're not worried about anyway?
__________________
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 May 7, 2013, 07:32 PM   #50
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Of course laws "create" crime, as in defining something as a crime. They also prevent crime. They don't prevent ALL crime but they DO prevent the commission of crime by those who are inclined to follow laws and/or are afraid of the consequences.

Take speed limits as an example. Do you think people would drive 65 on the interstate if it wasn't illegal to drive 100? Most would not. They do because of the penalty. Some still don't, but there can be NO doubt that there would be more, faster drivers without the penalties.

Since it is indisputable that folks who are not inclined to follow the law... i.e. criminals... do not currently and will not in the future follow the laws, what then is the point in creating more laws which, by definition, will only be followed by the folks who you're not worried about anyway?
That would be the point of the background checks. To help prevent an unintentional transfer to a prohibited person by "most people".
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter 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 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15694 seconds with 7 queries