US gun law reforms

[Plumbnut]

Mr Servo,

Read the last sentence in post number 23. What does that refer to?

[scrubcedar]

Prohibition caused the rise of Al Capone and his competitors. The drug war has created who knows how many criminals and crimes.
I wasn't arguing the point before but I could make a very good argument that severe gun restrictions would just have the same effect.
Are background checks severe restrictions in and of themselves? No. You can't have severe restrictions without starting at mandatory checks as a beginning though. This is what's scary about them.

[scrubcedar]

Plumbnut, I just read your last reply it becomes a little more clear now. My point was if you actually instituted effective background checks they would just move on to something more deadly. The gun isn't the problem, the person is.

[Plumbnut]

Well at least you agree more effective background checks would help stop some gun crimes. Its a stretch to say people will use other more deadly weapons because of more effective background checks.

Background checks are not very effective now and I agree.....a guy can buy a gun out of the newspaper(private sale) without a background check.

Theres a thread right now started talking about when all the guns will come up for sale that people have bought up and really cant afford to have. Whats to stop a criminal from buying them without a background check?

Sure a criminal can steal a gun...but thats a crime. No one ever said more effective background checks would eliminate crime.. private sale background checks would stop a criminal from buying a gun from an individual in his driveway that his uncle gave him and he wants money to go on vacation with as an example.

Again I dont see the big deal about doing a background check.

Some may suffer from paranoia about the goverment. We the people right....???? My friends are in the military...my friends are police officers.....I dont fear the goverment.

[dakota.potts]

Plumbnut,

Very few criminals buy their guns privately legally. Less than 1% buy their guns at gun shows. Some steal them. Most actually get their guns from a brother, sister, cousin, etc. But the most surprising source is FFL theft. It's not unheard of for FFL's to "lose track" of inventory and then report it stolen or missing. I guarantee you the problem will not be helped in any way.

Besides that, it's impossible to monitor without registration. So admits the government. And with registration does come confiscation. We have seen this in every state that has administered it. You can laugh it away but it is already happening and has been for years.

[scrubcedar]

Plumbnut, I don't think with the law of supply and demand working it would ever affect the criminal class as a whole. The whole drug war thing being the prime example. The ones that it would effect would be school shooter/boston bomber type, and they'll just move on to something worse. No crimes prevented, some maybe escalated. I wish I could be more positive about it. Convince me.

[jnichols2]

Plumbnut,

I have tried to lay back and just see where you are coming from. But, with all your "reasonable" desires for government control, I'm getting suspicious.

You sound like you have been keeping records of what we discuss here?

I don't know anybody else in this forum that would advocate an FBI background check on children before their father or grandfather can gift a gun to them.

As for the government coming to take them; look at how much trouble the Boston PD had tracking down one wounded 19 year old. They had to clamp down a whole town under "martial law". Look at the trouble LA had with Dorin.

I hope I'm not about to reveal any big secrets to you or Obama now; but there are well over 300 million private guns in this country -- and for a good reason. They continue to grow by 76,000 per day.

What would the Boston or LA PD have done against 10,000, or 30,000, armed and determined citizens. I spent 30 years affiliated with the Air Force and Army. During that time I only met 2 or 3 military officers that would turn their weapons on the citizenry. They were considered "frag bait".

[cvc944]

Some peple are so worried the "goverment" is making a list of guns they own so they can take them ...and at the same time some of you guys are on the internet talking ALL about your guns. Googling all kinds of gun stuff I'm sure. Whats the logic in that? Anyone ever thought about that? Maybe the goverment is making a list of everyone on this forum? Possibly they will come to your house first?

Pumbnut, this has to be your high-water mark. By the way, the correct spelling is government. No need for " ", it is a real thing. Also, most of us don't fear the government, we distrust the government. Most of us aren't paranoid, we are vigilant. And most of us don't see the UBC as common-sense or logic. S-639 failed for a reason, and you won't convince me it should have passed.

[Plumbnut]

I support background checks everytime there is a gun transfer,private or from an FFL.

If you pass the background check theres no problem.

I own plenty of guns and passed background checks on everyone of them.

I'm buying a gun today and I will be happy to fill the paperwork out and wait about 5 minutes for them to call it in......and I will walk out wth my new pistol.

You guys can get mad if you want but thats how I feel and thats my right.

I do not support any laws being passed EXCEPT background checks on private and public sales.....nothing more.

There will always be a group of people getting very upset about any gun law....and you know what?? Thats their right and I will not "bad mouth" them just because they hold a diffeent view.

Some here seem to be as intolerant of different views as the people who want to take your guns......

[2ndsojourn]

Plumbnut, you're missing a major point. More background checks are unenforceable for any firearm manufactured prior to the enactment of a new background check law, and there are over 300,000,000 million firearms in private hands. Prosecution would have to prove that the transfer took place after the new law, and in most cases it would be nearly impossible, if not totally impossible. The ONLY way to overcome that is to require gun registration.

With the current background check enforcement policy of "We don't have time for that", what makes you think enacting new background check laws will accomplish anything? Additionally, a prohibited person who knows he's going to be prosecuted for lying on the 4473 isn't going to submit to any background check.

Enforcing and prosecuting existing background check law and its violations is the only logical step. The idiots in DC and various state capitols need to understand that, but their logical thinking is clouded with emotion.

[Plumbnut]

A law could be written that would require background checks for all firearm sales/transfer both public and private. Nothing else included or hidden.

Forget anything else in the past proposals or anything added to what I stated above.

You transfer a firearm.....the person the gun is being transfered to must pass the current background checks we have today.

I have no hidden agenda.....I understand that some do.....but I dont support that.

Lets not muddy the waters here.

Plus I dont have time to type alot.....I hafta go buy my new gun before the wife finds somthing else for me to do today....

I'm no anti gun person......At all.

I just dont want idiots selling guns to anyone who has the cash and it be LEGAL.

I want so called responsible gun owners to be held responsible for their dumping a gun they dont want anymore in the newspaper to anyone who has the cash. I want them to under go the same background check we have in place now. Nothing more.

[Salvarus]

Hello everyone. I have read all of the replies to the op. i dont understand all the heated discussion about background checks. Why you ask? Because the law enforcement of this country does not prosecute violation of the background check system now in place. So with another background check law added to the existing one now how is this going to change anything?

Yes i am one those who distrust the motives of politicians who say"im not going after your guns" but in the next sentence talks about confiscation. Yes im talking about Sen. Feisntein. She is just one example.

So please forgive me if i believe there is something insidious about any new gun control acts. Any new law will not keep us safer. Chicago, New York and others are proof of that.

Regards
JR

[Plumbnut]

I know a couple of people right now that cant buy a firearm because of background checks.

They do not go to the store and try to buy a gun because they know they will be denied.

Background checks work in these cases.

I'm all for the enforcement of attempted purchase of guns by felons.

I said in a different thread where people started posting up state laws to defend their position........"Almost everything is against the law but they only enforce the ones they want and determine how and when to enforce"

So let them make a law......big deal.

I dont mind background checks I think they are useful when they are actually done.
Let an FFL dealer sell a gun without a check or ignore a failed check and see what happens to that dealer when the person buying the gun gets caught.

One FFl dealer here is doing aboiut 12 years for selling guns to people that didn't pass checks and suggesting straw purchases.

[Salvarus]

The big deal is the part that you think is not a big deal. A gun owners registry.
Can you guarantee me that this registry would not be used to confiscate our guns in the near future?

Backgrounds do stop some ppl from buying firearms. 70,000 i believe was the estimate quoted at a senate hearing.

http://youtu.be/zhkAYGJAGOA

I believe this is the hearing that quote was made. But listen to the percentage prosecuted and pay attention to the attitude of this police chief. Really disturbing to me.

Respectfully
JR

[hogdogs]

Anybody who supports UBC is knowingly or unknowingly supporting a complete database gun registry...

To disagree with this is futile and not something you will do well with in a debate...

Brent

[Plumbnut]

The 2nd ammendment is suppose to guarantee you can keep your guns....not me.

Again we are talking about background checks. I'm not wanting anything but background checks. Thats for all transfers.

Your already doing the same background checks at FFL dealers......you dont think thats a record?? LOL lets ge real.

So you dont buy guns from FFl's because there is a record being kept??

[Salvarus]

Records are not kept. They are disposed off after a time period.

Sir you are very at ease with the possibilities which is your right. I am not however. Every firearm i own i have went through a background check to own. Im a law abiding citizen. Your point is im assuming because it seems reasonable we have nothing to concerned about. With the current methodology laws are being passed which means our lawmakers are passing bills without reading them i dont feel its reasonable at all.

Respectfully
JR

[hogdogs]

Plumbnut, But here is where you are in the "unknowingly supporting a registry of firearms" camp...

You must be wise enough to realize that if you want to make it illegal to do FTF transfers than you must keep a record of the last time that firearm was legally transferred so you would know who illegally sold it to an eligible or ineligible person via a face to face transfer without a background check...

Hence, you must keep a log of all transfers or the law is toothless...

Sorry but I told you it wasn't a subject you would do well debating...

A gun registry is expressly forbidden by law!!!

Brent

[Plumbnut]

There's no debate. Background checks on transfers is a matter if time.

Watch and see. Like it or not. That's your right

I happen to support it and as an American that is also my right.

[jnichols2]

The 2nd ammendment is suppose to guarantee you can keep your guns....not me.

Again we are talking about background checks. I'm not wanting anything but background checks. Thats for all transfers.

Your already doing the same background checks at FFL dealers......you dont think thats a record?? LOL lets ge real.

So you dont buy guns from FFl's because there is a record being kept??

"TRANSFERS" is one of the words in the Toomey-Manchin Amendment that scared the bejeezus out of us. They didn't use "transfer of ownership", simply "transfer". It then went on to say if you are away from your gun for 7 days the gun will transfer to whoever is there.

What in the Hell does that mean???????

One poster thought it meant if he went on a 7 day business trip, the gun automatically transferred (ownership??) to his wife. Making both of them felons !!!!

It's when we hear: "reasonable", "transfer", "sporting", "I don't want to take your guns" that we get our guard up.

These are all anti-gun code words, and you seem to use them a lot.

Here's a hint. If you expect plain language from a Democrat, listen to his verbal promises. But don't expect plain language in any bill he writes.

The authors of Obamacare are still trying to figure out what it means, and they wrote it.

[Plumbnut]

My FFL uses the word transfer all the time.

I'm done posting. See ya

[jnichols2]

Records are not kept. They are disposed off after a time period.

That's what the law says. But in the last 12 months ATF agents have been going around to FFLs and photographing those ledgers. That's the government making a record - to keep.

At this point nothing they say is "reasonable", and we are stubbornly anti to all they say.

[Salvarus]

Gloating about the demise of our 2A rights is just well surprising. After all this where it begins. Cant you see that?

Many on capitol hill would love to confiscate all guns. Not a delusion. Its a fact voiced loudly. In the upcoming elections if the balance changes much you will indeed get your wish and much much more.

Respectfully
JR

[Salvarus]

Like you say jnichols they break their own law to what purpose we can only speculate.

[44 AMP]

Ok, we have "instant" background checks from all FFL dealers, right? The sale cannot proceed until you clear the check. Delays/denials, you don't get the gun.

Appeals take time. For those of us who have guns already, its an inconvienience. For someone who feels threatened, it may be life or death. Court orders "restaining" someone who seriously wishes you harm are notoriously ineffective.

We AGREED to accept "instant" background checks, to avoid a mandatory waiting period. Not to guarantee felons, etc couldn't get guns, but so that those of us who have done nothing wrong would not have to wait days (usually 3-5) before beingable to take possession of what we bought.

Nobody seem to remember that these days.

And for those of you who ponder such things, how do we know that, on alternate tuesdays, in 16 random states, every purchaser who's name ends in "xyz" isn't being denied?

It would only be the indiviuals affected, right? And they could appeal, and eventually get their guns, right? System glitch, so sorry....