About Us

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:21:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

It is an unenforceable law if you are talking about 2 individuals in a
private transaction of an unregistered item. That makes it voluntary.
It is like trying to make people pay sales taxes if they sell a lawn
mower to a neighbor. Is it the law? Usually. Is compliance voluntary?
Yes since there is no real way to regulate it..

You've completely forgotten I've said before that firearms should be
registered. That's what will eventually happen, whether you like it or
not. You might be dead by then, but you won't rest in peace.

.
Right now I have no way of submitting a background check even if I
wanted to. That is the loophole in the current law.

This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.

So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.
Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?

And if they require background checks on the federal level, they'll
probably use a version of California's example, where a trip to a FFL
and a NICS check are already required for ALL gun sales. It's a simple
matter of seller and buyer showing up at any FFL, filling out the form,
and the FFL runs the NICS check. The FFL charges 10 bucks.
There's only one problem with that.

So this is a new tax. OK it makes a bit more sense now.
Democrats love taxes.

So gun nuts want EVERYBODY ELSE to pay the estimated gun violence cost
of $100 billion a year - because they don't want to pay a $10 NICS fee.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Again, are you saying NOBODY in California ever transfers a firearm
without doing this? (even people who have nothing in particular to
hide)

I never said that.

That removes criminals and crazy folks from you buyer pool.
Not good for sales.

What does this have to do with me (other than your need to insult
people who disagree with you)
I own a transferrable machine gun. Any further background checking is
redundant.

I don't care what guns a gun nut owns. And there's nothing wrong with
insulting gun nuts who deny that people should be responsible gun
owners, and do their share to reduce gun crime.
There's lots of what you call "insulting" going on right now, and you
should get used to it, because there's more coming down the pike.

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:21:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

It is an unenforceable law if you are talking about 2 individuals in a
private transaction of an unregistered item. That makes it voluntary.
It is like trying to make people pay sales taxes if they sell a lawn
mower to a neighbor. Is it the law? Usually. Is compliance voluntary?
Yes since there is no real way to regulate it..

You've completely forgotten I've said before that firearms should be
registered. That's what will eventually happen, whether you like it or
not. You might be dead by then, but you won't rest in peace.

.
Right now I have no way of submitting a background check even if I
wanted to. That is the loophole in the current law.

This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.

So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.
Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?

And if they require background checks on the federal level, they'll
probably use a version of California's example, where a trip to a FFL
and a NICS check are already required for ALL gun sales. It's a simple
matter of seller and buyer showing up at any FFL, filling out the form,
and the FFL runs the NICS check. The FFL charges 10 bucks.
There's only one problem with that.

So this is a new tax. OK it makes a bit more sense now.
Democrats love taxes.

So gun nuts want EVERYBODY ELSE to pay the estimated gun violence cost
of $100 billion a year - because they don't want to pay a $10 NICS fee.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Again, are you saying NOBODY in California ever transfers a firearm
without doing this? (even people who have nothing in particular to
hide)

I never said that.

That removes criminals and crazy folks from you buyer pool.
Not good for sales.

What does this have to do with me (other than your need to insult
people who disagree with you)
I own a transferrable machine gun. Any further background checking is
redundant.

I don't care what guns a gun nut owns. And there's nothing wrong with
insulting gun nuts who deny that people should be responsible gun
owners, and do their share to reduce gun crime.
There's lots of what you call "insulting" going on right now, and you
should get used to it, because there's more coming down the pike.

More people have died riding with Ted Kennedy in his car than have died
from any firearms I own.

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.

So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.

How do they know there was ever a gun?

So you're going to get the neighbor down to the FFL to fill out a 4473
for the NICS check, and never show him the gun you're "selling" him?
To dig up "dirt" on him?
So now you think kidnapping is ok.
Better watch him close so he doesn't signal somebody in the gun shop
that he's been kidnapped.

Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Nobody has said anything about 4473s in this legislation. Now you are
just dreaming.

Who's dreaming here? I never mentioned any legislation.
You're the one who was talking about digging up "dirt" on a neighbor
using a firearms background check. The purchaser has to be in front of
a FFL for that to happen.
And the 4473 is already part of the NICS check. It has the info used in
the check.
So you're the dreamer - and you don't know much about this.

ESAD

wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:57:45 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

So you're going to get the neighbor down to the FFL to fill out a 4473
for the NICS check, and never show him the gun you're "selling" him?
To dig up "dirt" on him?

Now you are trying to impose California rules on the US. The proposal
was supposed to be private transfer background checks. As soon as you
involve a FFL, it is not a private sale anymore.
I can certainly see why the FFL would like to tack his profit on all
sales tho.

Against free enterprise, eh?

BTW, your computer clock is off.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Feinstein's list of banned guns...	Salmonbait[_2_]	General	117	February 2nd 13 05:44 PM
now banned..	[email protected]	General	153	May 21st 08 08:02 PM
now banned..	Chuck Gould	General	3	May 20th 08 02:09 AM
Banned?	Richard Casady	General	9	May 19th 08 10:49 PM
now banned..	[email protected]	General	2	May 17th 08 10:27 PM

Menu

About Us