|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 20, 2009, 04:17 PM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
They use the word gunshow to elicit an emotional response with their ultimate goal being the banning of private sales. Once they have gunshow specific legislation they will push for more. Quote:
They want to register firearms so they can come get certain ones when they feel the need. The ultimate goal of the antis is not crime prevention it is the abolition of firearm ownership in the US. No registration ever. |
||
January 20, 2009, 04:20 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Al,
Actually, I have downloaded my own copy of Gunfacts and it is great. However, per private sales, do the statistics they quote (and maybe I am missing it) about the low percentage of crime guns coming from gun shows refer to those guns purchased from FFLs and not private sales? See I am not sure if private sales is or can be measured well at gun shows since there is no records kept of them. Maybe I am nit picking but the nub of the issue is private sales not all gun show sales. Is that clear? Anyway, the law the anti's say they want should not prohibit private sales or hurt gun shows. It would add to the expense of selling a firearm privately and probably be stupid for a grandfather handing down his shotgun to his grandson. But the way I understand it you could not sell a gun to anyone without the buyer going through a background check. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
January 20, 2009, 04:21 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
Quote:
Basically, nearly all of the proposals burden gun show partcipants and hosts to the point that the shows aren't worth the trouble. |
|
January 20, 2009, 04:27 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
January 20, 2009, 04:40 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Any law declaring more than 3 gun owners to be a gun show and then requireing some sort of additional hurdle in order to assemble as such would seem to me to be a clear violation of the the right to assemble.
|
January 20, 2009, 06:40 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
|
Quote:
Seriously though. Criminals are, um, CRIMINALS! They are going to get guns period. That's why gun control doesn't work. Because criminals errrr, BREAK THE LAWS. All of them! Whenever they feel like it. Gun control laws often only work against the law-abiding citizen such as when he unknowingly and accidentally does something without knowing that he's breaking the law. The anti-gun propaganda works so well that we don't even know what is legal and most people think everything is illegal!
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me. Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it. |
|
January 20, 2009, 08:52 PM | #57 | |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Quote:
The only point I "might" concede in regards to FTF transfers is that an honest law abiding guy might have a gun to sell, and a scumbag dresses himself up decently and acts responsibly just long enough to pass the visual inspection and interview associated with a firearms sale. Or, reverse the rolls. I'd hate to buy a hot gun, or a murder weapon. I'd love to see a VOLUNTARY, free NICS system accessible by private parties for my own satisfaction. It would not log a transaction from buyer or seller, or care what type of gun is being transferred. It would just take a (Driver's License #?) and respond with "Eligible to buy" or "Not eligible to buy." Right now I only sell to those who carry CCW cards, which acts as an informal background check... and many do the same. The second it becomes as trace-able and onerous as a 4473 NICS system though, I don't support it. Records, logs, traces... bleh.:barf: |
|
January 21, 2009, 08:36 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
add to that is the fact that criminals who own a weapon will be protected from having to register it, because it is illegal for a felon to own a gun, and registering the gun would be self incriminating. Therefore, the 5th amendment protects felons from gun registration.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
January 21, 2009, 09:49 AM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
Quote:
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
|
January 21, 2009, 10:11 AM | #60 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"No, I am saying that the hysteria some throw out that any legislation on the issue of gun control inevitably leads to more restrictive legislation is nonsense."
Funny, in the late 1980s and early 1990s many people were claiming the same thing about the proposals then being floated for an AW ban. Hysteria! Fear mongering! NRA only trying to scare people to raise money! Then came that wonderful little day in late 1994 when it actually passed, and was signed into law. I remember selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines to many of those people, at a significant mark up that was a direct result of the law. Many of them were saying things like "I never thought it would happen!" Many of them, most who had never even lifted a finger to do anything to make their position known to their legislators, were screaming bloody murder about how "NRA LET ME DOWN!" Well, what did you do to help yourself? "What? Why should I have done anything? NRA was supposed to do it all!" Fools. Imbecillic, moronic fools who should have just signed on with the Democrats and Brady Campaign for all the good they did for themselves and their fellow gunowners. Fools. Imbecillic, moronic fools who should not be allowed to own firearms if all they can do is whine. Unfortunately, that same sense of complacency and dogged determination to believe that nothing will ever change for the worse seems to have taken root again, and worse, flourished. How quickly people forget, how quickly people are WILLING to forget. And if a new AW ban passes? They'll again be the people crying loudest and longest about how "X let me down," or "I never thought this would happen so I didn't bother to do anything!" Pathetic. The FIRST thing I did the day after the November election? Contacted my new Senator and Representative, even before they were sworn into office, making my position on gun rights known, and tellling them what I expect out of them. Unfortunately, that seems to be too much trouble for most people. |
January 21, 2009, 10:55 AM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
|
Quote:
Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on ME! |
|
January 21, 2009, 05:53 PM | #62 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 31, 2008
Location: youngsville nc
Posts: 195
|
the only thing that concerns me about it is a felon coming to a show and buying said gun with no check . and or mr honest buying a ak that was last used by a cop killer . now i know it would be a pain in the ass but but background checks should be done befroe show entry
|
January 21, 2009, 06:55 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
|
Quote:
Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter. The silence was deafening.
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me. Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it. |
|
January 21, 2009, 07:25 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I think someone here should help author the legislation.
It should require that all Federally licensed firearm dealers doing business at gun shows be required to conduct transactions the same as if they were conducted at a permanent location, i.e. a gun store. This would eliminate the gun show loophole. The new bill should further require that any background checks and waiting periods mandated by state and federal law be observed by the licensed dealers, just the same at the gun show as at any other place of business. Now, quick, let's hurry up and pass it, so we may begin keeping illegal guns off the streets. By the way, while campaigning to pass the new bill, let's not forget to run a PR campaign that demonizes anyone who refuses to support this life-saving legislation. We can not get this through fast enough so that we are able to quickly turn our attention to the next piece of important legislation, the new AWB. Ths bill permanently forbids felons, the mentally ill, and users of illegal drugs from owning, acquiring, or having possession of any automatic assault weapon. Now let's get to work. Orchid Hunter, are you with us on this? |
January 21, 2009, 08:45 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
So under your system I would have to wait for 2 days before being allowed entry. |
|
January 21, 2009, 10:14 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,804
|
Over Heard at Gunshow
I heard several dealers complaining about all the people walking the rows of tables selling their personal guns was driving the dealers profits down.
This was 1-17-9 at the Lakeland Gunshow just down Interstate 4 from the SHOT show on the same weekend.:barf: |
January 21, 2009, 10:49 PM | #67 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"Over at www.shotgunworld.com another forum member and I challenged all the members to do just that. I even provided a link that will give you your congressman's name and contact information AND provided a sample letter.
The silence was deafening." Not surprising. Shotgunners, as a class, and in my experience, are largely antigun. But, they don't see their shotguns as guns. They're "sporting implements" of such rarity and beauty that no right-thinking congressman would ever come looking to ban them. They're implements of the GENTLEMEN'S SET. I can't tell you how many shotgunners I have met who fall into that category. |
January 21, 2009, 11:00 PM | #68 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Now mind you I have been to shows where prominently displayed at the table was "Private sale, cash Only, No Background Check". Sort of a drag when you see the same guy with a table full doing that show after show
WildperhapsthattheloopholeAlaska TM |
January 21, 2009, 11:06 PM | #69 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 1, 2008
Posts: 320
|
When now VP Joe Biden said "There not going to take my Beretta from me" he was speaking of a shotgun, not a handgun. orchidhunter
|
January 22, 2009, 12:02 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
Many hunters see gun ownership as being about hunting. This is why you see politicians of all stripes constantly say things like "I support the right of Americans to own guns for hunting." It reassures the "guns are only for hunting" crowd. They don't get worked up over any issues involving guns except those that directly affect their hunting implements. They don't see why an AWB is a problem. "Why would anyone need one of those, you can't hunt with it" so they say. They don't get worked up over issues involving handguns because they don't own any and don't see the need. They aren't bothered by gun registration. "If you aren't doing anything illegal what's wrong with registration?" they say. The biggest problem with much of the firearm community is that we are divided. And many of the issues are not important to everyone. I don't CCW, as I haven't bothered to get a permit, but I still think it is an important issue for gun rights. As long as we push for CCW it's puts the gun control folks on the defensive. Many in the gun community don't own semi-automatic military wanabe rifles. But those who don't should understand that allowing the government to ban certain types of firearms opens the door to them doing so in the future. Are semi-auto shotguns next? What about semi-auto pistols? Is the type of firearm you own going to be the next target? The same thing goes for .50 cal rifles. I can't afford one and even if I could afford the rifle the ammunition is expensive. However, if we lose out on this, what gets banned next? We can't let the argument of "Nobody 'needs those for (insert purpose here), so they should be banned." Using that argument you can ban almost anything in the world. |
|
January 22, 2009, 02:17 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,273
|
I sat at a table as a private party with an enfield bbl'd action in .416 Rem.When I sold it,we had to do a background check and yellow sheet at the show.This was in Denver,Co.
I do believe in supporting the local gun shop,but the old tradition of the gun show is also about seeing things that we won't see in a gun shop.I don't go to a gun show to look at new guns.As far as I am concerned,the guys who bring a shop full of new gun inventory can stay home. I can buy or order new guns from my local shop. I want the treasures the individual brings to the show.An old sight,an action,etc.I like the layouts of parts and individuals selling their Sterlingworth or a used scope. I am pretty offended by the ffl holders if they want to compromise my Liberty to capture a few more sales.Orchid,if you would post your business name I'll hope you go out of business. I demand the right to private sale.However,I am not opposed to a level playing field,like a Gun show kiosk for private sales that would perform a background check and yellow sheet as a service. BTW,I think the criteria on a background approval should be a good faith attempt at compliance.If the authorities cannot provide the results in a timely fashion,the sale should go through. |
January 22, 2009, 06:24 AM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
in my trade setting up at a industry show usually requires an insurance rider(for the rented venue), a business liscence, and sometimes a tax resale number. it keeps out the bootleggers without requiring legislation aimed at homeowners and private collectors. like HiBC said...often those guys got the interesting stuff. in other words, if the organizers didnt want to fill the 10x10 booths for a few bux per, those guys wouldnt be there....and it would be a trade show, instead of a swap meet.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
January 22, 2009, 08:04 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
The gun show loop hole does not exist. It is a term used to strike fear into the hearts of people who know nothing about gun laws. Private sales are legal. All FFL holders perform the required back ground checks even at gun shows.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
January 22, 2009, 08:47 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
- automatic weapons - Destructive devices - armored vehicles - other weapons Each person has their own line, depending on what his favorite weapon is. My point is this: If you can trust your neighbor to not kill you by running you over when you go to the mailbox, poisoning you when his wife gives you a batch of cookies, or shooting you with his single shot .22, then why are you worried that he will do so with any other weapon he may have? The 2A is about weapons to preserve and secure a free state. Any weapon that can be used for that IMO is covered. This means that WMDs, which cannot free a state, but merely destroy it, are pretty much the only weapons that are subject to regulation.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|
January 22, 2009, 09:30 AM | #75 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|