More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
.. .

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most
states
you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the
big
deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and
buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes.
It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check
each
time.

The fuss is that exercising most of your civil rights doesn't
require
prior government
approval. Why should selling a firearm require government approval?

--------------------------------------------------------

The government doesn't give approval. The government would only
flag
and disapprove, based on a valid reason.
Nobody's rights are violated, including those of felons.

When my applicaiton to purchase a regulated firearm in Maryland is
processed it will come
back as disapproved or not disapproved.

---------------------

Semantics. The bottom line is that the purpose of a background check
is to make sure you are legally entitled to buy the firearm.
The real "approval" is by whatever agency in Maryland regulates
firearm permits and purchases.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Are you going to require that prosecutors stop using the felon in
possion of a firearm as a
bargining chip when getting the "alleged" criminal to admit to the
primary crime? What good
is the law if it isn't goint to be enforced?

--------------------------------------

Huh?

Weren't you in the Marines or the Marine reserves or something? You
had a background check run on you then and fingerprints were taken.
What's the big deal?

I've had background checks run on me several times in my life for
various reasons, both as military and as a civilian. I just don't
understand why people are so up in arms (pun intended) about this.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/13 1:41 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message .. .

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most
states
you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big
deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and
buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes.
It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each
time.

The fuss is that exercising most of your civil rights doesn't require
prior government
approval. Why should selling a firearm require government approval?

--------------------------------------------------------

The government doesn't give approval. The government would only flag
and disapprove, based on a valid reason.
Nobody's rights are violated, including those of felons.

When my applicaiton to purchase a regulated firearm in Maryland is
processed it will come
back as disapproved or not disapproved.

---------------------

Semantics. The bottom line is that the purpose of a background check is
to make sure you are legally entitled to buy the firearm.
The real "approval" is by whatever agency in Maryland regulates firearm
permits and purchases.



Maryland state police.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/2013 11:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"Hank©" wrote in message
b.com...

On 6/22/2013 7:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

On 6/22/13 1:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register... Then of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two party
system...


"These people" don't hate America. They simply don't buy into your
concept of what America should be. And, specifically, if anyone is
"destroying" the two party system we have here, it is the Republicans,
who seem to be doing whatever they can to alienate as many voter groups
as they can...women, students, Latinos, the elderly, the middle class,
everyone, basically, who doesn't fall into the demographic and thought
patterns of Southern white males.

The demographics in this nation are changing rapidly. Even a bastion of
Southern white conservatism, Texas, has a chance of becoming a "blue"
state within the next decade.

Adapt to the new realities...or die.

---------------------------------

Harry, don't let this go to your head, but I agree with you 100
percent. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone and it
certainly isn't the result of the election of one President. The
changing demographics of this nation that we are witnessing was
forecast 20 - 30 years ago.

I think the problem is that the "rules" we play by ... which include
things like older cultural influences, tax codes and the general
subscription to a smaller government role in our lives hasn't kept pace
with the demographic changes. It's still a very fluid process. Some who
were more influenced by how things were back in the 50's, 60's and 70's
find it hard to accept and understand a larger government role that
includes expanded entitlement programs and other benefits, mostly paid
for by those who didn't rely on those programs. Meanwhile much of the
population growth that has led to the demographic changes have not
benefited yet from the expanded government programs in terms of becoming
self sufficient. So it seems to many that a shrinking class is being
expected to contribute more in terms of taxes and adjustments to their
lives and expectations. That's understandable to a degree.

In my limited exposure to people's attitudes today I've seen a big
change in the expectations of the younger generation. They are far
more comfortable with having the government play a larger role in their
lives than many of us old farts did when we were their age. Many expect
things that I would have never even considered or thought of. Those who
still adhere to the "old ways" are usually in their late 50's or older.

You're right though. Change is inevitable and corresponding changes to
how our entire system run and financed is needed. Priorities have to
change. It will become easier as us "old farts" die off and ride off
into the sunset.



We will have our memories of better times. ;-)

------------------------------------------

We won't have any memories. We'll all be six feet under, or spread out
as ashes somewhere.


Speaking of memories. Do you still have that beer that you dispense by
the thimblefull?;-)

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/2013 11:59 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"Hank©" wrote in message
b.com...

On 6/21/2013 11:31 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

If a clean bill were
introduced without a list of amendments by some members of Congress
with personal agendas, it is likely that the NRA's opposition and
lobbying strength could be overcome.


The problem with universail background checkds for everyone is that it
turns into a gun
registration program. With the government's appitite for any and all
informaiton it can get
its hands on you should be wary of giving them more data.

-------------------------------------------------

That's the standard, Wayne LaPierre led NRA answer to the question of
background checks. The proposed bill that was defeated in Congress
specifically outlawed the creation of any gun registration program
with a 15 year prison sentence for anyone who tried to create one.
But nobody talked much about that.



With president, I decide what is constitutional and what is not
constitutional, he will just
chose to ignore that law just like all of the other laws that he has
chosen not to enforce.

We are getting to the point where the law doesn't matter. The
government will just say that
they are the legal authority and they decide what the law is.

Sooner or later the emperor's reign will be over and we will return to
to SNAFU status when all the changes are unchanged.

---------------------------

Nope. Ain't gonna happen. We've been on this course for a lot longer
than the current emperor's reign.

Then what's going to happen when the money and credit runs out? Barry
has greased the skids. Might happen before his term is up.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:57:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I think you are convincing me that the universal background check
idea
presented by the Democrats is
more and more an invasion of privacy, and a means to grow the
government (and liberal voting base).

John H.

--------------------------------------

I don't need to convince you. You were already convinced.


Not true. I initially was in favor of background checks, until I read
some of the paragraphs in the
Democrats proposal.

Also, the rationale 'Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear' causes
me to rethink the issue. That
phrase is simply used too often. I was surprised to see you fall back
on it.

John H.

--------------------------------------

My original post on this subject included a statement to the effect
of, "If a *clean* bill had been submitted, the vote would have been
different".
As usual, politicians (on both sides) screwed it all up.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:57:29 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I think you are convincing me that the universal background check
idea
presented by the Democrats is
more and more an invasion of privacy, and a means to grow the
government (and liberal voting base).

John H.

--------------------------------------

I don't need to convince you. You were already convinced.


Not true. I initially was in favor of background checks, until I
read some of the paragraphs in the
Democrats proposal.

Also, the rationale 'Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear'
causes me to rethink the issue. That
phrase is simply used too often. I was surprised to see you fall
back on it.

John H.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

----------------------------------------

And? What does a background check have to do with this?

You *do* realize (don't you?) that Constitutional/Bill of Rights
experts, lawyers and judges are still scratching their heads and asses
trying to figure out what exactly is meant by both the Second
Amendment and your quoted text from the Forth.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 6/22/2013 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:46:54 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:21:35 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Look, there's a serious problem related to having guns in the
hands of
those who shouldn't have them. We have laws that prohibit some
from
gun ownership that are not a violation of anyone's constitutional
rights. Nobody disagrees with that. Having fingerprints on
file
along with a cursory background check as a requirement for legal
gun
ownership does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. All
they do
is confirm the identity of the person and checks that there is no
lawful reason for the person not to have a gun.




Why should any law abiding citizen care if his telephone calls are
monitored and his mail read?


Why would a law abiding citizen complain about the cops searching
their house anytime they wanted and why would they need a right
against self incrimination or need guaranteed due process?
Those people who wrote the bill of rights must have been anarchists
who had an unreasonable fear of the government.

The government is always looking out for our best interests, I guess
we should throw out all of that dated stuff.

The self named "boat" guys can go first.


Isn't this the same government that just admitted targeting
individuals
because of their beliefs? Thought so... The fact is "law abiding
citizens" were targeted for having opposing thoughts period. So no,
even
as a "law abiding" citizen, I don't want the government to monitor my
email or phone calls... Especially when for all we know a phone order
to
"Chic Filet" could end up putting you on a "list"...

----------------------------------

You obviously have not been keeping up with the current news on this
subject.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

On 6/22/13 1:41 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message
.. .


When my applicaiton to purchase a regulated firearm in Maryland is
processed it will come
back as disapproved or not disapproved.

---------------------

Semantics. The bottom line is that the purpose of a background
check is
to make sure you are legally entitled to buy the firearm.
The real "approval" is by whatever agency in Maryland regulates
firearm
permits and purchases.



Maryland state police.

--------------------------------

In Massachusetts a permit issuance is by the MA State Police subject
to a background check and then at the discretion of your town's local
police chief.
The process actually works the other way around. You apply for a
permit at the local police department. For a long gun, they must
submit the application to the State Police. For handguns, the local
police department determines what type of permit will be issued (if
any). The application is then sent to the State Police where a
background check is done. If clean, the requested permit is mailed to
your police department and they notify you when to come pick it up.

That's the only time a "background check" is done to my knowledge.
After that, a FFL makes a call to the records department along with
transmitting the digital fingerprint that I have mentioned when making
a purchase. The purpose of all this is to simply ensure that your
permit is valid (has not been revoked) and you are who you say you
are. Hard to counterfeit fingerprints. Someday it will be DNA
samples. Wow. Watch the gun nuts go crazy then.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...



Speaking of memories. Do you still have that beer that you dispense by
the thimblefull?;-)

--------------------------------

The first bottle was finished off. Someone gave me a second one a
couple of years later. I never opened it and gave it away along with
every drop of booze we had when we were running a sober house here for
a while last year. Didn't want you know who to become tempted.

Good stuff though.

http://www.internetwines.com/rws28347.html