US gun law reforms - Page 8

Skadoosh · May 9, 2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

We've already got plenty of laws that aren't being prosecuted. Additional laws only serve to make life harder on those inclined to follow them.

I am not saying to make new laws. I was making the case that the current gun laws are in place to prosecute criminals who commit crimes with a gun.

Quote:

It is a felony for a convicted felon to attempt to obtain a firearm. If he fails a background check, and is reported, he will not be prosecuted. Explain how extending background checks add "teeth" with which to prosecute criminals.

Again, I am not making case about criminal who are not being prosecuted. The laws are in place, it it up to the police and the courts to enforce them. My argument is that we have 'car windows' (and by extension, GUN LAWS) in place and that it is just illogical to not use them ...or, as the poster was arguing, to remove them simply because they don't keep criminals out.

JMac1 · May 9, 2013, 03:02 PM

Hi all, been lurking for a while reading all the great info but a previous comment in this thread pushed my buttons.
Expanding on what bandaid1 one posted; I absolutly reject the absurd notion that our founding fathers, some of the most intelligent men in history, that they were blind to the thought of progressing technology. They experienced plenty of firearm advancements in their own time.

Furthermore, the 2A is in place so we can protect ourselves, not from each other, but the government. Now.... if they can have modern firearms and we are reduced to smooth bore muskets, what is the point of the 2A? It IS ABSOLUTE, thats why they wrote it the way they did. What part of SHALL NOT is open for discussion?!

As for the OP, I'm with the 99% of this thread. Seems pointless to place more BC in place when they can't enforce the ones we have. I'm not against the idea of BC, but what they proposed is so muddy I dont trust it.

NWPilgrim · May 9, 2013, 04:15 PM

Looks like 99.999% of TFL posters are against expanding background checks are 0.001% are all for it. I have not observed that after dozens of post both ways that any opinions have been changed.

It has helped clarify for the key points:
- No correlation has ever been established that any gun law has ever reduced violent crime, therefore it is not rational to propose another gun law on the basis it might reduce violent crime

- BC are only an issue at this time because gun grabbers could not get AWB or magazine limits passed do thus was a last gasp effort to get *something* passed. Not that it was very well thought out, just that it was something to claim victory

- the ploy to appeal to some fraction of gun owners on an emotional basis works for only a very small percentage of those actively discussing the issues

- it is ridiculous to believe this is a good faith effort for public safety when the the very politicians who are adamant about it are often the same ones boldly claiming their goal is to ban all guns and they plan to chip away toward that goal whenever possible

- While many pages are written in the bills to detail the penalties and all the possible applications, precious little is written about protection from fee increases, delays, data kept for registry, etc

- Proponents of BC to this day avoid addressing the issue if why we should require a BC on a person who already owns a gun; that is just plumb nuts!

**Aguila Blanca** · May 9, 2013, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plumbnut

How would you expect a background check to be super effective when Joe Felon can buy agun out of the newspaper or anywhere other than a FFL and it be legal if the seller doesn't ask if they are a felon?

I thought this had already been covered, but we'll do it again.

It is illegal for Joe Felon to buy, sell, possess, or even pick up a firearm. Period. It is illegal for him to buy a firearm from anyone, private seller or FFL. It doesn't get any less illegal if the seller doesn't ask Joe "Are you a convicted felon?"

FFLs run background checks. Before they do so, the prospective buyer has to fill out a Federal Form 4473. One of the questions asked is if the prospective buyer has ever been convicted of a crime that would prohibit him from owning a firearm. If he answers truthfully ("Yes"), the FFL won't even run the check. So in order for an FFL to run the check, Joe Felon has to perjure himself on the Form 4473. That in itself is a Federal crime.

How many people who lied on their 4473s have the Feds arrested and prosecuted in the last year? How about the last five years?

May 9, 2013, 04:15 PM	#178
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	US gun law reforms Looks like 99.999% of TFL posters are against expanding background checks are 0.001% are all for it. I have not observed that after dozens of post both ways that any opinions have been changed. It has helped clarify for the key points: - No correlation has ever been established that any gun law has ever reduced violent crime, therefore it is not rational to propose another gun law on the basis it might reduce violent crime - BC are only an issue at this time because gun grabbers could not get AWB or magazine limits passed do thus was a last gasp effort to get something passed. Not that it was very well thought out, just that it was something to claim victory - the ploy to appeal to some fraction of gun owners on an emotional basis works for only a very small percentage of those actively discussing the issues - it is ridiculous to believe this is a good faith effort for public safety when the the very politicians who are adamant about it are often the same ones boldly claiming their goal is to ban all guns and they plan to chip away toward that goal whenever possible - While many pages are written in the bills to detail the penalties and all the possible applications, precious little is written about protection from fee increases, delays, data kept for registry, etc - Proponents of BC to this day avoid addressing the issue if why we should require a BC on a person who already owns a gun; that is just plumb nuts!

May 9, 2013, 03:02 PM	#177
JMac1 Junior Member Join Date: May 9, 2013 Posts: 1	Hi all, been lurking for a while reading all the great info but a previous comment in this thread pushed my buttons. Expanding on what bandaid1 one posted; I absolutly reject the absurd notion that our founding fathers, some of the most intelligent men in history, that they were blind to the thought of progressing technology. They experienced plenty of firearm advancements in their own time. Furthermore, the 2A is in place so we can protect ourselves, not from each other, but the government. Now.... if they can have modern firearms and we are reduced to smooth bore muskets, what is the point of the 2A? It IS ABSOLUTE, thats why they wrote it the way they did. What part of SHALL NOT is open for discussion?! As for the OP, I'm with the 99% of this thread. Seems pointless to place more BC in place when they can't enforce the ones we have. I'm not against the idea of BC, but what they proposed is so muddy I dont trust it.