Mock

One reasonable national wait period for every gun purchase/transaction is appropriate, in my opinion.

It doesn't make good sense to establish separate wait periods for people who hold certain state-specific permits, or have already purchased firearms in the past, or anything else.

Almost every law on the books is a blanket that applies to all but only affects some. There's no rational reason that special privileges should be afforded to gun owners. That would only add administrative cost, while defeating the purpose of the transaction-specific background check and wait period.

Just because someone has purchased firearms in the past does not mean that he/she currently meets the requirements to purchase another.

https://www.facebook.com/GeraldoRivera/p...0421492311

Geraldo needs to move to Chicago where he can feel safe.

1. I would like specifics on what exactly they call a "Loop Hole"
2. Should only apply to people convicted of crimes, not just accused. Seen too many cases of people calling the law and hollering domestic abuse when its abundantly clear that both are at fault, or worse yet, the one calling is the one caused the problem. Due process is a good thing.
3. is Bullshit plain and simple. You don't sue Ford and Jack Daniels when a guy gets drunk and runs over a kid with his pickup
4. I don't see a big benefit to extending the wait time, make sure the background check goes through, not times out and move on with the sale. I have not seen any data on people buying guns and killing folks the next day, might happen, but I haven't seen any data. Leave the FFL and CCW folks alone, we are not the problem.

Actually Six, just last month here in MN a dad with depression issues (he was on meds) walked into a gun store on a Friday, bought a shotgun, and murdered his wife and 3 kids the following Monday.

It can and does happen.

The Va Tech shooter did much the same thing. Bought his guns and murdered 30+ people shortly thereafter.

(10-05-2015, 07:57 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]1. I would like specifics on what exactly they call a "Loop Hole"

Gun show non-dealer transactions, people engaged in multiple private transactions (internet transactions included).

(10-05-2015, 07:57 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]2. Should only apply to people convicted of crimes, not just accused. Seen too many cases of people calling the law and hollering domestic abuse when its abundantly clear that both are at fault, or worse yet, the one calling is the one caused the problem. Due process is a good thing.

Of course. No one is proposing that due process rights be ignored. The proposal is to expand the existing Federal law.

Presently, Federal law only prohibits gun purchases by those convicted of domestic abuse (or against whom a judge has issued a restraining/protective order) in relation to a spouse. That's too narrow. Clinton is proposing the same prohibition be extended to all convicted/restrained domestic abusers (not only marriage-related) and convicted/restrained stalkers too.

(10-05-2015, 07:57 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]3. is Bullshit plain and simple. You don't sue Ford and Jack Daniels when a guy gets drunk and runs over a kid with his pickup

I think it's bullshit too. Apparently, Geraldo disagrees with us.

But, people do in fact sue the restaurant-brewery/bar in some drunk driving cases -- which is equivalent to suing the dealer (and in some cases the manufacturer).

(10-05-2015, 07:57 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]4. I don't see a big benefit to extending the wait time, make sure the background check goes through, not times out and move on with the sale. I have not seen any data on people buying guns and killing folks the next day, might happen, but I haven't seen any data. Leave the FFL and CCW folks alone, we are not the problem.

A reasonable wait time can deter spontaneous people from committing gun violence against themselves or others. I get that.

But, I don't think extending the wait period for all is as important as holding off on delivery of the firearm until the background check is completed, no matter the length of the standard wait time. I think the law should stipulate that the wait period is a standard/target, not a guarantee.

As for CCL and FFL holders, those gun owners sometimes shoot/kill people and break the law too. And, even if that never happened, a national system that was required to track and handle separately all state-specific permit and license holders -- simply for the convenience of those holders -- would require a lot of extra cost/administration. Bad trade-off, in my opinion. Permit/license holders can simply plan a couple of days in advance, or wait a couple of days, like everybody else.


Here's a briefing/fact-sheet on Clinton's proposal. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefin...-violence/

#3 on Clinton's list should be to hold the gun owner responsible, not the dealer who sold it legally. If your crazy ass kid or whoever gets a hold of your gun and hurts or kills someone the gun owner should also be responsible. No questions unless it's proved they broke into your gun safe.

(10-05-2015, 08:52 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]As for CCL and FFL holders, those gun owners sometimes shoot/kill people and break the law too. And, even if that never happened, a national system that was required to track and handle separately all state-specific permit and license holders -- simply for the convenience of those holders -- would require a lot of extra cost/administration. Bad trade-off, in my opinion. Permit/license holders can simply plan a couple of days in advance, or wait a couple of days, like everybody else.

That blanket type law your talking about smacks of federal govt involvement and national gun registry. I don't think ANY of us in here trust the federal govt to stick to the rules.
Got to disagree with you on this one. FFL licensees are dealers, people that make a living in the firearm industry, waiting periods for them would be tantamount to putting them out of business. CCW holders do commit crimes, but the numbers are So low that it seems to me to be a lot of rights trampling for very little benefit.
I think a lot more benefit would come from fixing the loopholes, enforcing the existing laws and making the penalties for Any Gun Related Crime to be more severe
Here are a couple articals that make the point.
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles...rimes.html
http://www.guns.com/2012/11/19/proof-con...it-crimes/
http://csgv.org/resources/2013/homicides...n-florida/

I don't get your point about laws being like blankets, Six. All individual gun purchasers would simply be subject to the same minimum background check and wait time requirements under the proposal. Is that what you mean by 'blanket'? Anyway, that doesn't add any extra visibility or risk to those of you who fear big brother is gonna come take your guns.

As for the 'FFL', I didn't see anything in the proposal related to purchase process changes for already-licensed firearms dealers, so I thought 'FFL' was a Florida-specific individual owner permit/license or something with the same acronym. Sorry about that; my mistake.

For Concealed Carry permit/license holders, they should be subject to the same national purchase requirements/processes as every other individual gun-purchaser, in my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Martin O'Malley has advocated for a national gun registry. He challenged Clinton and Sanders on Sunday to endorse his below gun control platform. They have not.

O'Malley's proposal
1. A ban on the sale of combat assault weapons (I don't know what O'Malley means by "combat assault weapons" - those are already banned, as far as I know.)
2. A requirement that every person who purchases a gun gets a license and is fingerprinted;
3. Using the full power of the federal government—the largest purchaser of firearms in the country—to refuse to buy guns from any company that doesn't use the latest and best safety technology;
4. Making gun trafficking a federal crime (Clinton proposes making straw purchasing a federal crime).

After Hillary Clinton announced her gun control platform today, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders clarified his stance. He said some of his proposals are backed by the majority of law-abiding gun owners.

Sanders' proposal
1. Strengthening the instant background check system;
2. Closing the gun show loophole that lets unlicensed gun dealers sell weapons to people who wouldn't pass a background check;
3. Banning semi-automatic assault weapons "which are designed strictly for killing human beings";
4. Reforms to the country's mental health system.

I don't know of any firearm that is actually federally banned HotD. There are those that are heavily regulated like fully automatic firearms, silencers, SBR, SBS, etc. In reality its all just a money game for the feds. They really don't care what you own as long as you pay the tax stamp to own it. Now some states have banned some types of firearms and accessories, but that is at the state level.

As far as the Concealed Carry permit/license holders go, I don't understand why they should have to do the NICS check. When a person files for those permits they background check is actually completed by the CLEO at that time. So why should they be subjected to twice the amount of paperwork just because they have went through the right channels and done things the right way?

Just wondering if any of our members live in this area.

WA Gun Owners Stage The Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally In America’s History

http://www.truthandaction.org/largest-fe...history/2/

(10-06-2015, 08:02 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the Concealed Carry permit/license holders go, I don't understand why they should have to do the NICS check. When a person files for those permits they background check is actually completed by the CLEO at that time. So why should they be subjected to twice the amount of paperwork just because they have went through the right channels and done things the right way?

I suppose the argument can be made that any time after they get their permit/license they could commit a crime that would make them ineligible. However, as far as I know when a disqualifying crime occurs, those permits/licenses must be surrendered and the ability to carry the firearm is suspended pending trial outcome in most if not all states.

For example here in Texas, a class A or B misdemeanor makes you ineligible for concealed carry, and if you already have your license it's suspended upon arrest. If you're convicted, it's formally revoked and you're out of luck for at least five or more years.

That said, I don't mind doing the 5 minutes of paperwork to do the instant check when I purchase a firearm, permit holder or not. I'm also all for FFL transfers for all transactions, even private and family ones. That way the check always gets done, and it eases the liability of the seller potentially selling a weapon to someone who can't get it.

But even with all that, in most of these cases it wouldn't have stopped these mental patients from legally purchasing their guns.

Bernie has it right on #4.

People in todays world need to know how to protect themselves. Today is not the 50's.

(10-06-2015, 08:02 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know of any firearm that is actually federally banned HotD. There are those that are heavily regulated like fully automatic firearms, silencers, SBR, SBS, etc. In reality its all just a money game for the feds. They really don't care what you own as long as you pay the tax stamp to own it. Now some states have banned some types of firearms and accessories, but that is at the state level.

Thanks F.U.

I understand now. Despite suggestions by some gun enthusiasts way upthread and elsewhere, there's no federal ban on the sell of combat weapons or assault weapons, etc...

Even fully automatic weapons aren't banned nationally, despite suggestions by some gun enthusiasts way upthread and elsewhere. The military moved away from automatic machine-gun type weapons for efficiency's sake (wasted ammo, accuracy issues...) and thus they aren't as widely manufactured or available as they once were. But, they aren't banned and can be legally sold to someone for a $200 federal transfer tax if the purchaser passes a federal background check and undergoes 10-print fingerprints.

However, I think the "word game" on both sides should stop. Lots of guns are semi-automatic and don't look like military rifles; a person may own them with no intention of assaulting anyone or looking bad-ass.

So, in my opinion, while it's not wholly inaccurate to label semi-automatics "assault rifles", it would be better to call them "semi-automatics" and reserve the label "assault weapons" for automatic firing guns.

(10-06-2015, 08:02 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the Concealed Carry permit/license holders go, I don't understand why they should have to do the NICS check. When a person files for those permits they background check is actually completed by the CLEO at that time. So why should they be subjected to twice the amount of paperwork just because they have went through the right channels and done things the right way?

You want to carry a gun in public legally, you do so according to laws in that state - many of which require you to obtain a concealed carry permit. There's no gold star for civilians carrying concealed weapons and doing it "the right way". Anything less would just be breaking the law.

You and Six give me the impression that you think people who hold CCLs are an elite group that should be afforded special privileges beyond the privilege already afforded (carrying a gun in public legally). It's not rational to me. People with CCLs can break laws after getting that license to carry, just like everyone else. And, they can travel or move to another state to buy guns, just like everyone else.

Their ability to pass a national background check again can change depending on their actions since the last time they passed one, just like everyone else.

In my opinion, creating special exceptions for CCL holders when it comes to national regulations is unwarranted and less safe. It makes more sense to simply treat all individual would-be gun purchasers equally when it comes to easy national transaction-specific regulations.

But, I can see some politicians agreeing to leave CCL holder exemptions (in regards to new national regulations) up to the states for strategic reasons. And, it wouldn't surprise me if CCL holders break the law less often than other gun owners.

When it comes to carrying a firearm all states have different rules. Some of the differences are , what type firearm/weapon can be carried. Some its how they can be carried. Some its the requirements for obtaining that permit. Term limits of the permits vary. And many other things. I feel the entire system needs to be shut down and reworked. They need to make it uniform across the country. That way if a person travels they wont worry about what the rules are in each state. Some states you can open carry, while others it is strictly concealed and you cannot print. That sorta stuff gets confusing as rules change all the time. Now go ahead and laugh at this part, but I would love to be on the board that flushes the current system down the toilet and rewrites a new nation wide set of rules.

In my state you can carry a gun in a holster and in plain view without a concealed permit. its perfectly legal to have a gun in sight.

I agree with you HotD that the word games need to stop from both sides. Semi auto is just that SEMI auto. They may look like the guns of war but they don't shoot like them. Well that is unless you install a bumpfire stock. Then you get fully auto legally without paying the feds their $200.00

https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/

(10-06-2015, 11:00 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]In my state you can carry a gun in a holster and in plain view without a concealed permit. its perfectly legal to have a gun in sight.

I will have to double check that Maggot. I say that because when I went out to Sturgis I had to make sure I did not print when I carried.

After just a quick search what I am seeing is that about ¹⁄₂ the states allow it without a permit. The rest either require a permit or don't allow open carry. The one that shocked me is Texas not allowing open carry. You can haul one around in the back window of your truck but not on your side in plain view? Hmmmm, I gotta be reading this wrong.

I wonder how accurate that is. it uses the recoil to "bump" ones finger. Never seen that.

I just love watching that bump fire video. Something about a hottie in skin tight clothes busting off 30 rounds in seconds floats my boat. Pew pew pew jiggle jiggle jiggle. Hahahaha