On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 06:55:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
On 11/7/2014 6:43 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/7/14 2:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2014 7:57 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 13:13:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
Just to clarify ... in the CNN thing they said that the sellers
videoed
were not dealers and the purchases were private sales. Background
checks are not required and they said so. They *did* refer to a
state
law that required the seller to check ID to establish that the
buyer was
a resident of the state. In the examples they showed, the seller did
*not* even ask for an ID, name or anything.
That is CNN saying stuff that is less than totally true. It is also a
federal law but you already admit they were willing to break the state
law. Is state prison nicer than federal prison?
A licensed dealer at a gun show or retail store *is* required to do
the
background check. That's a federal law.
18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922:
extends most state law into the unlawful acts of that section.
I still say, let's try enforcing the laws we have before we pass any
more.
It is clear that CNN and the sellers they recorded were breaking at
least one federal law and perhaps a few state laws.
What would we do with all of those Congress critters if they can't
write
laws. They'd be useless.
This particular law is actually GCA68 with dozens of amendments that
consisted of "strike xxx and replace it with YYY" in the legislation
so it is the most convoluted language you ever saw.
It is accepted that somewhere in there they do prohibit an out of
state BUYER from purchasing a firearm and that the SELLER is required
to make some attempt to ensure the buyer is a resident but it is hard
to find in the language
They use words like "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" without
specifying what someone has to do to "believe" it.
I may just be missing it because my eyes start to glaze over and
normally I like reading statutes.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
Somebody with more time on their hands can take a peek. I am still
trying to pick a health plan, I am building the last module of the
entertainment center in the living room and we are still trying to get
out on the boat almost every night. The weather is unbelievable here.
70s and clear blue sky all day.
You are researching the wrong statutes. The requirement to check ID's
for residency is a state law for private sales according to the CNN
report. You're searching federal laws.
A sale by a FFL by default requires an ID because a background check is
required. The sellers who sold the guns in the CNN report were *not*
FFL's. They were private sellers.
Do you bother to actually read or listen to the information presented?
You seem to give a cursory review of accounts and then go off drawing
your own conclusions of what happened, changing the details as required.
Examples:
You previously stated that the CNN guys said they had to drive around in
3 states in order to find anyone at a gun show who would sell them a
gun. That's not what CNN reported. It would defeat the whole purpose
of the report. They were demonstrating how *easy* it is to purchase
guns with no questions asked.
Then in the "Harry Incident" you automatically concluded (among other
things):
1. Harry initiated the encounter by "sucker punching" the guy.
2. The woman and guy are married.
3. The police department was contacted.
Harry's account of the event said none of the above.
That's Greg's debate "style," that and arguing beyond the point of
absurdity. It's funny to a point to watch him twist and turn "it," but
then it just gets repetitive and boring.
I've noticed him pulling that crap for quite a while.
This place is quickly becoming like the looney-bin ward in
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Fortunately, like in
the story, participation is voluntary for some. I am getting
out of here while I still have whatever remains of my
sanity.
Y'all have a nice time.
Seems like it would have been just as easy to live with the
disagreement as join Harry in the ridicule and name-calling.