|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 3, 2013, 07:04 PM | #326 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, we have recent Supreme Court decisions that indicate the Second Amendment applies to individuals, and that weapons in common use are protected; previously, the Court had ruled that weapons suited for militia use were protected.
So, we now have a broad spectrum of weapons that are considered protected, and the antis have lost the argument about the Second Amendment being for the purpose of equipping state militias, only. That changes the dynamic. Laws that might be passed have a serious Achilles heel that they did not previously have. Also, having seen what happened in 1994, gun owners have a better grass-roots organization and focus, now. So, could laws be passed? Yes, of course, but they might not stand up to Constitutional challenges. Meanwhile, millions of gun owners are actively working to prevent passage of those laws in the first place. Last edited by MLeake; February 3, 2013 at 08:24 PM. Reason: "antis" not "states" |
February 3, 2013, 08:17 PM | #327 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||||
February 4, 2013, 08:46 AM | #328 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
I live in New Mexico, what people think of as being the heart of the "Old West." Billy the Kid country. Yet last Monday and today the house Judiciary committee is having hearings on HB-77 to restrict private sales. Another house rep has crafted a bill along the lines of the one passed in NY outlawing "assault weapons" and high cap mags (HB 42). These reps are liberals who have different values from most of the people they actually represent. Lying about your intentions to get into office is not unheard of. I attended the hearing last week and will again today. Lat week there was huge turnout from people who do not want these laws passed and the bill stalled. They made changes and resubmitted. Hopefully today we will kill it. The reps have different reasons for making these attempts- in some cases, they truly are trying to make a name for themselves by justifying their existence and trying to become the authors of new legislation. That looks good for them for their future political careers, at the expense of the people and their liberties. |
|
February 4, 2013, 09:22 AM | #329 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
http://www.loveworldchristiannetwork...eHZx&cate=aW50 They have background check and hoops to jump through out the wazoo in order to get a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico |
|
February 4, 2013, 12:45 PM | #330 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
If the government can set the conditions for legal firearm ownership then they can set the conditions for the purchase. Enforcement for following the law needs to be upon the purchaser to prove legal ownership and not the seller. They already have the authority to regulate trade under the ICC so really the only opposition is that we don't want them to do it. That is a tough sell with them throwing up dead babies on the TV every couple of hours that are not even a part of the equation we are discussing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|||||
February 4, 2013, 01:02 PM | #331 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
I still don't understand the registration argument. Here is the perfect chance to crush registration. Quote:
Quote:
I am curious. Have you bought many guns in private party sales? Quote:
The reason there is little support is because there has been no valid impartial research. One of the dumbest (among many dumb things) the NRA did was assist in cutting off funding for research and then not do any "impartial" research on their own. This left a huge vacuum to be filled by the Bloombergers. While they were busy patting themselves on the back Bloomberg was funding anti gun research at John Hopkins and other places with tens of millions of dollars over many years. This gives them the cover of authority and a huge head start. Foolish to let the adversary to get a head of you like that. All it will do is reduce the supply of guns that are available with a background check, provided that people mostly comply with the law.
__________________
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. Last edited by Alabama Shooter; February 4, 2013 at 01:13 PM. |
||||||
February 4, 2013, 04:35 PM | #332 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
As far as "getting a gun," it's not just about getting a gun. If my father chooses to give me a gun, why should I have to wait for a NICS check to come back? The way it's being pushed, it's simply because some unhinged third party has done something bad with a gun. That's not a very good reason to limit my rights. There's no evidence that I had anything to do with any mass shooting, anywhere, at any time. The same argument applies to millions of gun owners. A right delayed is a right denied. The burden is on the government to show that it has a sufficient reason for denying the rights of gun owners. It has not met that burden. Quote:
The registration argument. Without having the legislation in place, this is largely speculation. With that said . . . As things stand right now, it's virtually impossible to prosecute anyone for failing to go through a background check on a private sale. Let's leave current FFL/NICS checks out of it for the moment, and focus on the prosecution of a private intrastate transaction. In order to prosecute someone for accepting a transfer without the use of whatever system is put in place by the UBCs, the State will have to show: 1) That Defendant John Doe accepted the tranfer of a firearm; 2) After the effective date of the legislation; 3) Without using the UBC system.. Remember that John has an A5 right not to be compelled to testify against himself, so the State will have to prove its case without John's help. If John is already a prohibited person, then I suspect that US v. Haynes (1968) will prohibit his prosecution in the first place. If John is not a prohibited person, how will the State prove that he accepted the transfer after the effective date of the legislation? Chances are that the State will need the testimony of Ted Transferor, who sold John the firearm. Problem: Ted has also committed a crime in transferring the firearm without the use of the UBC system. That means that Teddy also has an A5 right to not testify. So the only thing that the State can really prove on this one is that John is in possession of a firearm after the effective date of the legislation. The only way that the UBC law will be enforceable is if the gov't goes ahead and pushes for full registration of firearms. If that happens, then the State will be able to prove that: (1) John is in possession of; (2) a firearm registered to Ted; (3) after the effective date of registration; and (4) without the appropriate UBC.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||
February 4, 2013, 04:44 PM | #333 | ||
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
||
February 4, 2013, 05:00 PM | #334 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
I lost a magazine somewhere in my house. I just can't find it. Nothing fancy, a 92S 15 shot. It's not a big deal here in New Mexico, but it could be a really big deal if I lived under Bloomberg's "Divine Shadow". Put on your best Brooklyn accent, and tell the nice officer "You found it."
|
February 4, 2013, 05:11 PM | #335 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
We're being asked to accept a burdensome, defective system that won't stop guns from getting into the wrong hands.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 4, 2013, 05:20 PM | #336 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Can you imagine what a pain in the neck this would have been if we had to find a dealer in the middle? Find a dealer, wait in line, pay $35, actually $70 for both transfers, possibly make two trips for a conditional approval/non approval, or waiting period. And what happens when I hand my guns down to my kids and grandchildren? Even if they regulate it at $10 a transfer, I'm paying at least $10,000 to have my guns down. It's all horse crap. And can't be enforced without registration anyway. How else are they going to prove you transferred it and didn't already own it before the background check law? And what are they going to do about guns without serial numbers? They really weren't required until 68. |
||
February 4, 2013, 05:21 PM | #337 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
And all the while, criminals will still be stealing guns and trading them for crack...
|
February 4, 2013, 05:23 PM | #338 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
What a pile of crap. So, it cost $25.00 for a tranfer. This is less than a box of ammo.
Lets face it, the truth is there is a group of business folks out there making a side living off buying and selling guns. They don't mean to sell to the wrong person but for a few bucks they might or might not care less. They will never know. They also want to limit their cost of business and do not want a record of transfer for tax reasons. Not to mention the cost of an FFL permit. They do not want to account for their total income. Tell me if I am wrong on this point. Secondary gun sells are not the only type of business not wanting to report income. Then you sell to a kin of yours, does everyone care whether they are spousal abuser or not or whether they suffer from PSTD? This includes gifts to others. I understand the NRA Stand and I agree with it. There is a lot of other crap out there with private sales. I never want to sell to the wrong buyer and have that on my conscience. I wish ever seller had the same morality. It is not a certainty, but at least the seller will know he did all he or she could do in the sell of a firearm. |
February 4, 2013, 05:26 PM | #339 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; February 4, 2013 at 05:32 PM. |
|||
February 5, 2013, 06:40 AM | #340 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,286
|
How about if we take one part "Presumed innocent until proven guilty",and one part "Shall not be infringed",add one part"Guns don't kill people,people kill people"Blend.
Sip and ponder this. Suppose to buy a gun or vote,maybe even to buy beer,you show your drivers liscense,card gets swiped,mag strip gets read..... How about,instead of a newspaper posting names and addresses of lawful gun owners,violent and prohibited people are a matter of public record? No,you cannot vote.You cannot be served alchohol.You cannot buy a gun.You made death threats on MySpace.You got drunk and beat your wife,etc. That puts the burden where it belongs.And if,as a prohibited person,you attempt to purchase a firearm,law enforcement is notified. For us law abiding citizens,we do not require permission or approval. |
February 5, 2013, 11:30 AM | #341 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 5, 2013, 12:09 PM | #342 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, if done voluntarily, it's "responsible ownership."
If mandated by the government, it is gun control. If government can dictate that guns must be stored, then government can dictate: 1) a minimum thickness, weight, and other specifications for a storage device - this could potentially be cost-prohibitive for many people, and an anti jurisdiction could deliberately set standards that typical citizens could not afford; 2) that ALL guns must be stored - there is a lawsuit going on in California, IIRC, about a city requiring gun owners to lock up all guns at night, and the plaintiff arguing that he might not have time to unlock and load his nightstand gun in the event of a break-in; 3) criminal penalties for failure to meet arbitrary standards. That's all gun control, by any other name. |
February 5, 2013, 02:07 PM | #343 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
I get the sentiment, the "Oh my, If I hadn't sold him that gun" thing. But it's an object, you didn't provide motivation and if he is motivated he will find a way with or without your gun. I simply do not understand this idea that you can prevent these things without foreknowledge of his intentions. That study I did of the 16 mass shooting that occurred in 2012, did anyone fail to get the idea that almost every one was completely unavoidable by background check. In at least 10 cases the criminal/madman wasn't a criminal or a madman until he started shooting people. Sometimes times it was with stolen firearms. Usually it was legally owned weapons from people who had no reason to be listed as prohibited possessors at all.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
February 5, 2013, 02:40 PM | #344 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
I see firearms control as the baning or limiting in some way firearms ownership and use. I found this after a quick Internet search. I am sure there are thousands like it. Quote:
If the the parents were required to store firearms safely similar could be prevented. Last edited by manta49; February 5, 2013 at 02:46 PM. |
||
February 5, 2013, 03:33 PM | #345 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 5, 2013, 03:55 PM | #346 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
First, accidental deaths by firearms are so rare that most studies don't even list them separately, instead lumping them in with all statistically minor causes, under "Other". "Other" combined together add to small percentages, firearms alone are not a blip on the radar. Second, responsible persons already prevent unauthorized access in some reasonable way. Third, unreasonable persons will not comply with any such safe storage laws. Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law. |
|
February 5, 2013, 04:15 PM | #347 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
I think publishing reasonable guidelines on storage and aggressively prosecuting those who are found grossly negligent (not through inspection, but rather from "after the fact" investigation) might be a good way to handle the storage issue. This is still very different from ubc's.... Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; February 5, 2013 at 04:29 PM. |
|
February 5, 2013, 04:18 PM | #348 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 5, 2013, 04:28 PM | #349 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It's a secondary point.
1) The law is unnecessary. 2) The law will be ineffective. Why then? |
February 5, 2013, 04:56 PM | #350 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Passing laws to fix a virtually nonexistent problem might feel like a good idea, but the net effect is a loss of liberty to folks who didn't need the law to be responsible in the first place.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
|
|