BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Justan Olphart

On 6/22/2015 4:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:44 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:52:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the
.45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the
Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would
have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40
other
states) does not require a background check for personal
transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before
giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.
Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not
racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.

It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about
that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise
transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That
should be
the first step.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.

But a different person responsible for it.

A distinction without a difference if it was in the same house the
whole time. The only person "responsible" is the person holding it at
any given time. My guess is there were a number of firearms in that
house.

The responsibility for owning a firearm isn't limited to when you are
holding it. You are also responsible for who has access to it.

Harry gave access to a weapon he owned, to a complete stranger. He
allegedly sold it to that person in a parking lot, for cash. I hope he
has solid verifiable proof that he made a legal transfer of the deadly
weapon. Otherwise his good name will forever be tied to that weapon, no
matter how many times it's custody subsequently changes.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."