(10-16-2015, 11:02 PM)sally Wrote: For example they require a criminal record copy opposed to just letting anyone walk in and buy any gun they want with just an ID. What would be the harm in requiring that?

That is what the NICS call-in is for. That is also done when a person files for a permit to purchase, or a permit to carry [for those states that have such a system] .

Contrary to belief , dealers are required to do a call in to the NICS system for any transfer of a firearm conducted by a FFL holder. Yes even a deal conducted at a gunshow is held to this standard. All persons selling guns at a gunshow are required to display a copy of their FFL on their table as well. So this entire gun show loophole shit is just that, shit. If the promoter of the show would just do their job and check the people renting tables everything would be fine.
Occasionally a ATF agent will stop at a show to check around. When that happens the word travels like wildfire and you see the non licensed dealers pack and disappear rather quickly. By the time the agent hits the second or third table word of his presence has traveled through the show.

There is no way of stopping deals that go on in parking lots or behind closed doors. All the laws in the world will not stop that. If that is what people are referring to when they are talking about gun show loophole lets just call it what it is. A private party sale.


OK, I might have gotten a little sidetracked there. Forgive me its still early in the day.

(10-17-2015, 07:54 AM)F.U. Wrote:

(10-16-2015, 11:02 PM)sally Wrote: For example they require a criminal record copy opposed to just letting anyone walk in and buy any gun they want with just an ID. What would be the harm in requiring that?

That is what the NICS call-in is for. That is also done when a person files for a permit to purchase, or a permit to carry [for those states that have such a system] .

Contrary to belief , dealers are required to do a call in to the NICS system for any transfer of a firearm conducted by a FFL holder. Yes even a deal conducted at a gunshow is held to this standard. All persons selling guns at a gunshow are required to display a copy of their FFL on their table as well. So this entire gun show loophole shit is just that, shit. If the promoter of the show would just do their job and check the people renting tables everything would be fine.
Occasionally a ATF agent will stop at a show to check around. When that happens the word travels like wildfire and you see the non licensed dealers pack and disappear rather quickly. By the time the agent hits the second or third table word of his presence has traveled through the show.

There is no way of stopping deals that go on in parking lots or behind closed doors. All the laws in the world will not stop that. If that is what people are referring to when they are talking about gun show loophole lets just call it what it is. A private party sale.


OK, I might have gotten a little sidetracked there. Forgive me its still early in the day.

Your exactly right F.U.
I see it going on at every show I go to, there is always a guy or two walking around in the parking lot that has a deal for you. I think it should stop personally. If you have a gun to sell put in an ad on one of the gun vendors sites and be done with it.
I have never bought or been offered a sale inside without the call in, but I am sure it happens here too.

All that said your also right, there is no way to stop that kind of activity and unfortunately thats where a lot of the problems come from.

I think about the only reasonable cure and its only a partial, it to trample on the rights of a couple classes of people: The tards and the felons, go search their house now and then and take their weapons. Of course that means tracking the tards and felons. One would think that the felons are already tracked, but I don't think so

(10-17-2015, 02:17 AM)username Wrote: It was recently brought to my attention that the Constitution initially contained provisions that ensured the rights to own slaves; later abolished by the 13^th amendment. Just saying that the constitution ought to be a living document subject tp revision when certain provisions are deemed antiquated or don't necessarily jive with modern realities.

Damn, I took a sleeping pill and that took me about 10 minutes to type without having it rife with typos and misspellings. Time to get some good zzzz's.

I totally agree with this, but if you notice other people's shocked reactions, when you say something similar to this, you just zip it. I realize that the Constitution is sacred, etc., but through they years, it needs to be amended as our culture changes with time....In our society, we update everything in our lives, except the original document which made our country a democratic society with some specific guaranteed rights.
I believe we have a lot of outdated laws on the books which have never been repealed or whatever.....e.g., it is unlawful to tie your horse in front of a saloon or spit on the floor in that same saloon. We need to streamline our entire Government, including useless laws still in effect, amend outdated "law" as put forth by our founding fathers. Even they would be shocked that we are still operating over something written over 200 years ago.

The Patriot Act amended our Constitution without the benefit of Due Process.

(10-16-2015, 12:12 PM)F.U. Wrote: I didn't really want to get into a Australian gun law discussion, but my curiosity has gotten the best of me.

Just wondering what part of their laws you all agree with and what parts you don't.
I got this from WIKI so I am sure there is more to their laws than this but this is what I have.


Firearms categories[edit]

Firearms in Australia are grouped into categories set out in the National Firearm Agreement, with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action pump action and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. A category B licence also covers category A but not vice versa
Category C: Self-loading rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or self-loading shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Primary producers, occupational shooters[clarification needed], firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. Neither South Australia nor Western Australia require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after deactivation. This situation[when?] prompted the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black market in Queensland[vague] – the loophole[which?] shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club.[3]

These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia.[4] Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers and other artillery weapons can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain antique firearms (generally muzzle loading black powder flintlock firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901) can in some states be legally held without licences.[5] In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.[6]

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a licence in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on some items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as New Zealand. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to licence. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are restricted to a few government bodies.[7]

As an Australian, the interesting thing is that most of us just don't care about all the specifics outlined above. There was a gun ban and we were happy. We didn't want people to go to work, school, holiday and not go home. We fixed it.

Your Constitution has been modified many times, yet the 2^nd Amendment is seemingly inviolate.

Imagine Australia if we had 'right to bear arms' with some of those angry One Nation type patriot people? Whoa. It wouldn't be safe to go anywhere. Some of those agro bogans, it would be awful.

Imagine a pissed-up barbie in bogan-ville. You could sell tickets

(10-18-2015, 03:39 AM)afraidforallofus Wrote: Imagine a pissed-up barbie in bogan-ville. You could sell tickets

(10-17-2015, 07:59 PM)afraidforallofus Wrote: There was a gun ban and we were happy. We didn't want people to go to work, school, holiday and not go home. We fixed it.

Most American gun owners don't give a shit about any of that. They put their right to own guns above others right to live safely. Most don't think anything needs to be fixed. Their standard line is "enforce the laws that are already out there". You'll be reading about gun massacres in America for years to come.

I would not like to see the Second Amendment repealed, personally.

I think that the founding fathers had a good reason for specifying that a civilian militia with the right to bear arms is something that should be protected. I also believe that they had very good reason to stipulate that such protection was to go hand in hand with efficient regulation.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment not only applied to designated militias, but also to individuals' rights to bear arms for self-defense. That interpretation was confirmed in a 2010 case ruling as well.

What I would rather see is a clarification of the "well regulated" specification of the amendment, either through a separate Supreme Court case ruling or by amendment to the Second Amendment.

In my view, and it has not been contradicted by any Supreme Court ruling nor by the text within the Second Amendment itself, is binding legal clarification that the constitutional right of civilian militias or individuals to bear arms does not translate to the right of all individuals to bear any types of arms and ammo for any imaginable purposes.

We could achieve a much better balance between the right to bear arms and the right to protect public safety (from those who should not bear arms or certain types of arms) through much better regulation and stricter enforcement of gun laws.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all U.S. citizens. But, it does so with some qualifications as determined by modern day Supreme Court justices. Endangering public safety with words and proclamations that cause chaos or danger is prohibited. Child pornography also is not protected speech. Direct threats to harm or kill others, along with defamation, are also disqualified from free speech protections as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. I'd like to see such appropriate qualifications applied to the Second Amendment's protection of arms-bearing rights.

And, It strikes me as either tremendously ignorant or ironically misinformed when gun enthusiasts suggest that some U.S. Citizens should be denied their clearly specified due process rights and/or their constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure when attempting to argue that stricter gun regulations would be an infringement on their coveted Second Amendment constitutional rights.

What nobody likes to talk about is the overprescribing of "antidepressant" and "ADHD" meds that in many cases either create or aggravate aggressive and violent tendencies in these kids doing the spree shooting. The combination of readily available guns, a culture that glorifies violence in all forms, and these toxic frigging meds is creating a whole generation of narcissistic, apathetic sociopaths. But the pharma industry is even more powerful than the gun lobby.

I agree with Hairofthedog. Everyone can carry arms. One muzzle-loading flintlock musket each. That'll put an end to the massacres. The authors of the constitution couldn't have imagined rapid-fire weapons.

That's a somewhat naive interpretation of the intent of the founders, almost as big a disservice as the interpretation that says the second amendment is a free pass to make everyone walk around like the main character in Call of Duty. The second amendment made no limits to guns or the technology at which they had to hold themselves. It was the assertion of an occupied country that it had the right and responsibility to maintain its own military force and standing militia. In short, we were demanding the right to self-govern with potential for military defense. And it was in direct response to one of the charges leveled against the colonies, that the act of forming a standing army was treason against the crown. The right of individual to stockpile to the teeth really had fuckall to do with it. The absolute truth is, much of the Constitution was framed to be a defense of our actions IN CASE WE FAILED or the fledgling country collapsed. Most of the founding fathers faced death if England came back or got the upper hand; they were preparing their argument for the rest of the world, because much of it was drafted while war was still going on.

If you didn't have guns, you wouldn't even be having this conversation. It's a pretty nice life if you can be pretty sure that there are no guns around, maybe that is why we are so laid back and relaxed here in Oz.

(10-18-2015, 04:56 AM)aussiefriend Wrote:

(10-18-2015, 03:39 AM)afraidforallofus Wrote: Imagine a pissed-up barbie in bogan-ville. You could sell tickets

Oi?

Just some numbers that I found interesting. The one that jumped out at me the most was 62% of the private sellers sold guns to people that could not pass a background check. According to a undercover investigation conducted.

http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/amer...e-numbers/

(10-18-2015, 07:45 PM)afraidforallofus Wrote: I agree with Hairofthedog. Everyone can carry arms. One muzzle-loading flintlock musket each. That'll put an end to the massacres. The authors of the constitution couldn't have imagined rapid-fire weapons.

You don't agree with me if you think everyone can carry arms of some kind. That's not my stance.

As I said, I think that stricter and more efficient regulations to determine who is qualified to bear arms is key to respecting the constitutional right while also reducing gun violence, including mass shootings.

Guns are not banned from citizens in Australia, the UK, Canada, nor Switzerland. However, they are better regulated in those countries and there is less gun violence as compared to the U.S. (though you all still struggle with illegal trafficking and such).

In my opinion, both the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the U.S. System allow for modern application of constitutional rights in most cases. Such is exemplified by how free speech rights remain guaranteed to all US citizens in modern society, even though the founding fathers could also never have envisioned the Internet, electronic pornography, and other modern means of communication.

The problem in getting smart gun regulations passed into law in the U.S. lies with the immense power that the gun lobby holds within the political system, in my view. The gun lobby has a vested interest in maximizing the number of guns in circulation.

I see the gun lobby being challenged and countered more strongly than it has been in the recent past. And, I think that stricter and more efficient regulations and enforcement, and thus less gun violence - including fewer mass murders, is on the horizon in the U.S.

It's not an all or nothing proposition for me.

I have said it many times in this thread. Either they need to start enforcing the laws on the books [there, ya happy Duch, someone finally said it, lol] , or flush the entire rule book down the drain and start over.

Keep the NICS call in system , but link mental health to it. Yes it would be a PITA to do this and could cause a real doctor patient confidentiality issue.

Standardize the permit to buy/carry system. Right now every state can do their own thing and it is very confusing.

Behead straw purchaser's . Ok that is a little bit of a joke there, but I do think they should be prosecute and convicted if this crime is proven.

Conduct a aggressive effort to develop a realistic and working smart gun system. This would probably reduce the number of accidental shootings among the youngins.

Develop and use a firearm safety program for the youth. I feel education is a big key. If we can talk to the kids about safe sex, texting and driving , etc. We should be talking to them about firearms as well.

Develop a tax credit system for safe gun storage. If we can afford sending gazillions of $ to other countries, we can spend a few million helping people afford and use gun safes. That will reduce the number of crimes committed with stolen guns.

After the tax credit system has came to be start prosecuting people for negligence when their guns are used in a accidental shooting. People, yes that includes myself, might start thinking twice when they leave their guns lying around and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots themselves or someone else.

Require firearm insurance for all gun owners. I don't think it should be a per gun cost, just a blanket policy, but whatever happens make it affordable. I also don't feel the insurance Co's need to know what every gun is and the ser # of every gun. That is un necessary in my eyes.


Those are just a few things that my gun toten/lovin/extremist ass would agree with.

What I would NOT agree with is,

A type of gun registration system. No one needs to know exactly what or how many firearms I own. NO ONE!!!!!

Banning of semiauto firearms, High capacity mags, silencers, SBS, SBR, or AOW's .

Gun free zones. I feel those should go. If a person has acquired a permit to carry they should be allowed to carry ANYWHERE they go. This might make those who are considering doing harm to others reconsider their idea. If there is a chance they will get shot the second they attempt to begin their reign of terror, they might just decide that its just not worth it.

Any type of gun number limits. I should be able to awn as many guns as I want, I should not be held to a X number of gun limit.

Any type of ammo numbering/registration systems. Having to sign for and record the SER#'s of every single round would be a waste of time/effort.

I know there is more but that is a start.

I'd like to see current comprehensive research regarding gun violence in America and some solid solution proposals.

I think a national gun license for gun owners, more in-depth background checks for gun purchases, and some restrictions on certain types of firearms/ammo will probably be needed, along with more aggressive gun law enforcement and penalties.

Personally, I don't believe introducing all kids to gun handling in schools would solve any problems, just the opposite. If parents want to introduce their kids to guns, they should be required to provide safety training, lock their guns, and store their guns at their own expense. If they fail to do so, they should be prosecuted.

I could see some storage devices being provided free with initial implementation of any new safety storage laws for a certain period of time, however. Gun locks are already provided free of charge by a number of sources in order to help protect children from irresponsible gun-owning adults.

In today's related news:
A federal appeals court on Monday upheld the core provisions of two gun control laws passed in New York and Connecticut after the 2012 mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School that banned possession of semiautomatic assault weapons.

The 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines, but struck down a New York provision regulating load limits and a Connecticut prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615.

New York and Connecticut's gun control measures, among the strictest in the nation, were signed into law after a gunman killed 26 children and staff at the school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012.

The Newtown shooting revived a national debate on gun control. At the time, President Barack Obama launched an aggressive gun control push but his efforts largely failed in Congress.

The appeals court, in upholding the provisions, ruled against coalitions that included firearms dealers, sports shooters and gun owners who claimed the mandates infringed on their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms in self-defense.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/1...NA20151019

More related news...


^ This Chicago dad, Michael Santiago - 25, is charged with felony child endangerment/death after his 6-year-old son accidentally shot his 3-year-old brother with Santiago's gun.

He reportedly had previous gang affiliations and had an illegally-purchased unsecured loaded gun in the home to protect his family. Ironically and predictably, he put his family in harm's way instead. His six-year-old son got a hold of the gun from atop the refrigerator and was playing cops and robbers with his 3-year-old brother. The older brother shot the younger one in the face and killed him.

In the United States, at least 2,694 children and teens died from guns in 2010, according to the juvenile advocacy group Children's Defense Fund. Having a gun in the home makes an accidental death four times more likely, according to the group's 2013 report.

I suspect that many of the kids had been told not to touch the guns unsupervised and been provided some safety training. But, they're kids and safety training in no way mitigates the need for gun locks or safe storage.

Anyway, I'm glad to see dad being charged in this case and hope to see more irresponsible gun owners facing charges when their children access and fire guns, even if the parents purchased the guns legally and have no previous criminal history.


RIP Eian Santiago

Story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...story.html