On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:51:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states)
won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is
usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required.



The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady)


It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to
private sales.



It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines.
When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought
guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across
state lines they broke another federal law.
The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun
crossed one.
There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't
they doing 30 years?



The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was
the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to
purchase guns with no records kept.

For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were
doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities.




Well, there you go.

What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they
would have called the local cops immediately.

John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is
to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop
and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement.


And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and
the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not
enforced?

If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all
in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws
have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a
bunch of folks?


That's what is so wacky about some of the state gun laws.
For example, my "Class A" permit in Massachusetts allows just about
anything other than machine guns. Concealed carry and large capacity
magazines for both handguns and rifles are included with this permit.
However, a different MA law does not allow large capacity magazines for
anything. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds, max. So, what's the point
in having a permit that makes it legal to have a large capacity magazine
if the state won't allow you to have one? It's stupid.

What is needed is unified gun laws at the federal level. There's no
rational reason in the world why anyone needs a 100-round drum magazine
in this day and age. Ban them and their manufacture for gun hobbyist
everywhere.

Sorry to give you morning heartburn. :-)


Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce
federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



If a federal law exists, then it should be enforced. But, overall I don't think we're
saying the same thing.

You seem to feel that every state should have the same laws as your state. I
disagree.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!