Mock

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

(02-02-2013, 08:08 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Granted I'm not following this near as closely as many of you but my take away has been I tend to agree with universal background checks and closing the private and gun show loopholes. I still agree with limiting the magazine capacities. Granted some gun owners can reload in seconds but I doubt that's true for all. I think it was Laughner that was stopped while attempting to reload. That just doesn't seem like to onerous a request for law abiding gun owners.

This is only partially true. He actually had completed the mag change and as he attempted to resume his killing spree the gun jammed.

Myself, more background checks wont effect me. Other than putting more $ in my pocket because private citizens will have to come to gun shops like ours and pay us to do the BG check for them. That fee right now ranges from 25 - 50 dollars, depending on what part of the country you are in. However I can see that price going up because of the extra work we as dealers will be taking on. It only takes a matter of minutes to do the actual call in, but then there is the forum 4473 that we must review, complete and file for the life of our business. That's a lot of files we will need to store and keep safe.

Now I can see where the average Joe will complain about having to spend the time and money doing a BG check when transferring ownership between friends, family members etc.

(02-03-2013, 06:21 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Now I can see where the average Joe will complain about having to spend the time and money doing a BG check when transferring ownership between friends, family members etc.

That's the kind of complaint that I hope isn't hammered by pro-gunners in Congress. A private seller can add the cost of the background check to the price of the gun or just eat it. There's no good reason that I can see as to why a private transaction shouldn't be subject to the same safeguards against transferring ownership to unqualified individuals as are licensed-dealer transactions.

I've never thought that the bans on certain types of guns would pass; still don't. It could be political suicide for too many sitting Congresspersons. Plus, gun control advocates haven't presented any valid arguments as to why this proposed ban would be successful where other very similar ones have not.

In my opinion, when the final legislation is submitted to Congress for vote, the gun ban proposal and the universal background check proposal will not be in the same bill. At least, I'd separate them if I was on the congressional gun committee. I think that the more rational gun control advocates know that the gun ban will be quashed and don't want to see the universal background requirement get quashed by association in the process.

As someone who is anti-crime (but neither for or against guns themselves), I think that the gun control advocates could legitimately consider the provisions within the 23 executive orders + passage of the universal background check requirement a win. At the same time, the pro gun advocates could legitimately count quashing the gun ban as a win. In my view, the combination would be a win for the public in that fewer unqualified individuals will be able to get ahold of guns and jeopardize the safety of others, however the rights and preferences of qualified gun owners won't be restricted in the process. This is how I hope it turns out...

The individual states will continue to decide what types of locations should be designated as no-gun zones, the provisions of concealed and open carry, whether or not teachers and/or adult students can carry on campus, etc...

Do you really think a family member, or anyone doing a private party sale for that matter, will bother with the BG check HOTD? I don't. I say that because unless they rework the entire NICS system there will be no way of knowing after 24 hours weather that BG check is done or not. Under the current system the NICS checks, unless delayed or denied, are purged from the system at the end of each day. So how would the ATF be able to prove if the BG check was done or not?

If the improved BG check's make it through it will accomplish nothing and be nothing more than a feel good moment for the Brady Bunch.

(02-06-2013, 02:14 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think a family member, or anyone doing a private party sale for that matter, will bother with the BG check HOTD?

The strict law abiding, sane ones might. Exactly the ones that wouldn't commit a gun crime anyway. Smiley_emoticons_slash

(02-06-2013, 02:14 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think a family member, or anyone doing a private party sale for that matter, will bother with the BG check HOTD? I don't. I say that because unless they rework the entire NICS system there will be no way of knowing after 24 hours weather that BG check is done or not. Under the current system the NICS checks, unless delayed or denied, are purged from the system at the end of each day. So how would the ATF be able to prove if the BG check was done or not?

If the improved BG check's make it through it will accomplish nothing and be nothing more than a feel good moment for the Brady Bunch.

Yes, I do. I think it's a positive step and many, not all, private sellers/gifters will adhere to the new laws, if not out of commitment to responsible gun ownership and public safety, to cover their own asses. Many others private sellers/gifters will not adhere to the new requirements. No laws are adhered to by all to whom they apply and no laws are absolute solutions.

The problem of the Fed not knowing whether a private transaction background check was run or not would be the same as for licensed dealers who are already required to run them, right? Still, millions of background checks are run each year. I realize that the incentive to follow gun laws is likely higher for a licensed dealer who wants to stay in business, but incentives can be placed on private individuals as well.

Aren't licensed gun dealers required to keep the from 4473s with NICS numbers until they go out of business (and turn them over to the ATF)? While the logistical details for the proposed private transaction background checks haven't been released yet, I expect that it would work the same way. The seller/gifter would be required to keep the record. If they used a license dealer for the purpose of running the NICS check only, the licensed dealer would perhaps maintain the record and the private seller would have the receipt or something to that effect. Regarding enforcement, if a gun was used in the commission of a crime and it traces back to you, you would be required to show proof of legal transfer via background check documentation; if you could not, you would be legally penalized depending on the circumstances (similar to a straw purchase). That's just one example of incentive and enforcement.

I agree with you completely that the NICS database administration and completeness, along with the enforcement of existing gun laws, are areas requiring improvement. Steps in the right direction are included in some of the 23 executive orders. NICS is a work in progress and does succeed in weeding out many thousands of unqualified potential buyers each year.

In my opinion, you don't stop making improvements just because perfection is unattainable. A better system for controlling who is unable to access guns is preferable and more likely to succeed in minimizing gun violence than is restricting the entire population from certain types of guns, in my opinion. You can be against gun bans and for better gun control; that's where I stand and I assume that I'm not alone in that position. As I've said before, I'm concerned about the person holding the gun, not the gun itself.

I don't mind anyone having a feel good moment, for any reason. In the case of passing the universal background check requirement, I think the feel good moment would be shared by all who are legitimately committed to reduced gun violence.

(02-06-2013, 02:44 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 02:14 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think a family member, or anyone doing a private party sale for that matter, will bother with the BG check HOTD?

The strict law abiding, sane ones might. Exactly the ones that wouldn't commit a gun crime anyway.

Still a very good thing though.

For example, my cousin Frank has domestic violence charges pending against him (unbeknownst to me) and he wants to buy my hand gun. The universal background requirement will protect me as a law-abiding gun owner. Frank will either make an excuse not to fill out the background check form and drop the whole matter. Or, he'll fill it out and I'll discover via the NICS check that Frank is not legally able to own a gun before I put one in his hands.

HOTD, Actually licensed dealers are required to keep 4473 in house for either 20 years or the life of the business, which ever comes first. At the 20 year mark we are allowed to pull any 4473 that is over 20 years and destroy them. This could be a daily, weekly, monthly thing. Or we don't have to do it at all.

I can understand your concern about transferring firearms, I really can. I just don't feel that it is going to work unless the entire NICS system is overhauled. I feel there should be a way for private citizens to do a call in when conducting private sales. Possibly a web site where the citizens can do the NICS check and print a copy of the results for their records. Then require them to keep records for 20 years , just like we as federally licensed dealers are required to do. That way the private sales would not be subjected to the ever increasing costs of filing paperwork and doing background checks through licensed dealers. I know that is taking money out of my pocket but I just don't feel someone should be charged a extra 60 bucks when selling a $100 firearm.

(02-07-2013, 10:09 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]HOTD, Actually licensed dealers are required to keep 4473 in house for either 20 years or the life of the business, which ever comes first. At the 20 year mark we are allowed to pull any 4473 that is over 20 years and destroy them.

Thank you for confirming, that was my understanding. The same requirements could easily be applied to private sellers/gifters who would typically have many fewer records to maintain.

(02-07-2013, 10:09 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I can understand your concern about transferring firearms, I really can.

Your concern too, right?

During the course of our discussions over the last couple of months, I've understood that you also feel that guns getting into the wrong hands is the real safety concern which needs to be addressed.

(02-07-2013, 10:09 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't feel that it is going to work unless the entire NICS system is overhauled. I feel there should be a way for private citizens to do a call in when conducting private sales. Possibly a web site where the citizens can do the NICS check and print a copy of the results for their records. Then require them to keep records for 20 years , just like we as federally licensed dealers are required to do. That way the private sales would not be subjected to the ever increasing costs of filing paperwork and doing background checks through licensed dealers. I know that is taking money out of my pocket but I just don't feel someone should be charged a extra 60 bucks when selling a $100 firearm.

I agree that the administrative/cost burden should be minimized as much as possible for both licensed dealers and private sellers/gifters. Your suggestion for making NICS web-based with an electronic record maintenance feature is a good one which would benefit licensed dealers and private sellers alike.

At present, we don’t know the logistical details for private transaction background checks since those haven’t been released. If, in fact, we’re both correct in assuming that initially similar cost and record retention requirements to what licensed dealers bear will be placed upon private sellers, I don’t find that unreasonable. I definitely don’t consider those requirements (nor the fact that NICS is not yet web-accessible) valid reasons to continue exempting around 40% of all gun transactions from pre-transfer checks which help keep guns out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and those with dishonorable discharges.

Bottom line:
I find it illogical for some in the NRA and on the pro-gun side to continually claim support of existing background check laws because they help to increase public safety, yet object to a law which would extend the same requirement to private transactions in order to achieve the same goal (on a larger scale) using the same system. That makes as much sense to me as gun control advocates proposing laws to ban the sale of specific guns based upon how they look (and/or how they were used by unqualified gun owners) even though those specific guns function in the exact same fashion as other guns which would not be banned.

I really appreciate your insight, F.U,. and get a lot of food for thought from our exchanges. We seem to share the same or similar views on many of the issues surrounding gun control. The universal background check requirement may be one point where our opinions simply differ.

At tonight's State of the Union Address, Obama's primary focus is expected to be the economy. Secondarily, he will be lobbying the country for support of new gun control laws. Present at the address will be Gabby Giffords and the mother of a child murdered at Sandy Hook. According to the linked article below, millions in advertising dollars is being spent on gun control advertisements aimed at increasing public support for new laws.

Most of the focus will be on getting the universal background check proposal passed as that measure has wider bi-partisan Congressional and public support. Any laws related to bans of specific guns and ammo are expected to be a very hard sell in the Senate and an "uphill battle".

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...cause?lite

(02-12-2013, 02:47 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Present at the address will be Gabby Giffords

This is getting to be a little much & I'm starting to see that as exploiting her. I don't want to be cynical. Wah.

I'm sure they tossed around the idea of having some of the child survivors of Sandy Hook present as well.

Last time it was Fort Hood..........seems not to be so important now for those victims.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-...d=18465024

(02-12-2013, 03:10 PM)HarleyGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure they tossed around the idea of having some of the child survivors of Sandy Hook present as well.

Who are we kidding... I'm sure they tossed around putting headstones in 20 seats to represent the children.

Biden made a speech near Newtown yesterday to garner support for increased gun control legislation.

Snipped:

“When I look at the courage you’ve shown, it’s incumbent on politicians to show some political courage, too,” Biden said, addressing shooting victims’ families at a conference at Western Connecticut State University. “If you’re concerned about your political survival, you should be concerned about the survival of our children.”

The “organized opposition” tries to set up “roadblocks” to new gun laws, but the White House and its allies will not yield, Biden said. Instead, the administration is trying to strike a balance, encouraging Americans to take advantage of their constitutional rights while backing efforts to make doing so less dangerous.

People are wrong to say the administration is trying to infringe on the Second Amendment, he repeated twice during his speech, but that doesn’t mean that “unnecessary and dangerous weapons that put our law enforcement at risk” should stay on the streets. “No abiding citizen in the United States in America [should have] any fear their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way,” he said.

When opponents say the debate over gun violence should instead be about violence in popular culture, “they’re wrong — it is about guns.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/jo...z2LeYoiCuK

I disagree with Biden that voting for increased gun control legislation is the key to political survival for all politicians; I think it could be politically damaging for some politicians depending on the views of their constituencies.

I agree with Biden that it seems some ideas to reduce gun violence are met with resistance without due consideration and that some groups refuse to consider any changes (even administrative ones, as opposed to bans) by automatically assuming/claiming second amendment violations.

I disagree with Biden that reducing gun violence is all about guns and not about violence in culture.

It's been two months since the Newtown shootings; I don't think the administration has gained the necessary congressional support to get bans passed. Wonder when the actual bill(s) are going to be submitted for vote...

He's been running around telling people to buy shotguns. I can just imagine the conversation with Dr. Biden, (he insists he told her that) it made me laugh. I know where he lives when they aren't in Washington and I'd be surprised to learn anyone in that 'hood owns a shotgun let alone knows how to handle one.

Quote:DUCHESS wrote: He's been running around telling people to buy shotguns. I can just imagine the conversation with Dr. Biden, (he insists he told her that) it made me laugh. I know where he lives when they aren't in Washington and I'd be surprised to learn anyone in that 'hood owns a shotgun let alone knows how to handle one.

Biden is sometimes very (unintentionally) funny, that's for sure. The "buy a shotgun!" response/anecdote to the question of how citizens can protect themselves if the proposed gun bans are passed made me laugh too. It's almost like he's gonna get a huge bonus if he can get those bans passed through Congress; he'll say anything.

“I said, ‘Jill (Mrs. Biden), if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Mr. Biden said during the chat.

“You don’t need an AR-15 — it’s harder to aim,” he added. “It’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!”

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9r8AaFXuCwRdHFUiVeXV...DquXOGPVcc]

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9r8AaFXuCwRdHFUiVeXV...DquXOGPVcc]

Joe Biden, Gun Control Czar

Here's an interesting twist. The right to bear arms is secured by the Constitution. The right not to bear arms, however, seems to be a point of contention in some locales.

A north Georgia city is considering passing an ordinance to make gun ownership mandatory.

Leaders of Nelson -- a city of just over 1,300 about 50 miles north of downtown Atlanta -- say with one police officer on patrol eight hours a day, city residents are left virtually unprotected for 16 hours per day.

Nelson City Councilman Duane Cronic told WSB-TV relying on sheriffs from Cherokee and Pickens counties could mean a longer wait time in an emergency.

The proposed ordinance is similar to a law that passed in Kennesaw in 1982. Some residents support the proposal while others say it's a demonstration of big government overstepping its boundaries.

City leaders could make a decision on the ordinance at their next council meeting on April 1.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/06/geo...p=trending

The population of Nelson City is just under 1,500.

Jesus. Mandatory.

Is the right to own ammunition guaranteed and protected by the Second Amendment?

I'd look to the First Amendment to make an example... you can't guarantee the freedom of religion, yet then pass a law restricting the building of churches for people to worship in.

I suspect a strong legal argument could be made that the Second Amendment does indeed extend to ammunition... for without ammunition, a citizen is being denied the right to fully bear arms.

(03-06-2013, 04:22 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect a strong legal argument could be made that the Second Amendment does indeed extend to ammunition...

Well Shit-Boy-Howdy!

Looks like weez gonna needs sum reggalation for dis shit too!

Maybe we should model our gun laws using Brazil's framework?

I'm sure their strick gun control legislation can teach us a thing or two about needless homicides.

F.U.

HairOfTheDog

F.U.

username

HairOfTheDog

HairOfTheDog

F.U.

HairOfTheDog

HairOfTheDog

Duchess

HarleyGuy

Jimbone

HairOfTheDog

Duchess

HairOfTheDog

HairOfTheDog

Duchess

BlueTiki

Jimbone

BlueTiki