|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/20/13 2:26 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Hank©" wrote in message eb.com... On 5/24/2013 10:06 AM, wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:27:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/23...n-martins-cell A person can't have a picture of a gun now without being guilty of something? A 17 year old can't be talking about buying a handgun without being in a conspiracy to do something illegal. Why not? Kids are fascinated with guns. ------------------- Sure. But something about Federal law and under 18 can not buy handguns. So to buy one you have to be breaking the law. Federal law says you have to be 21 to buy a handgun or ammo for a handgun. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b) |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:52:32 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Who and what determines "unsound mind" ? 790.23; 4. Has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution by a court and as a result is prohibited by federal law from purchasing a firearm. a. As used in this subparagraph, “adjudicated mentally defective” means a determination by a court that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, is a danger to himself or herself or to others or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs. The phrase includes a judicial finding of incapacity under s. 744.331(6)(a), an acquittal by reason of insanity of a person charged with a criminal offense, and a judicial finding that a criminal defendant is not competent to stand trial. ----------------------------------------- So how is this accomplished without benefit of a background check, the data of which may include pertinent information regarding the "mentally defective" nature of the buyer or transferee? |
More info.. not looking good...
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:19:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 6/20/13 4:11 PM, wrote: On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:43:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 6/20/13 2:26 PM, Califbill wrote ------------------- Sure. But something about Federal law and under 18 can not buy handguns. So to buy one you have to be breaking the law. Federal law says you have to be 21 to buy a handgun or ammo for a handgun. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b) We do have a Florida law about it tho. It is unlawful to sell, give, barter, lend or transfer a firearm or other weapon other than an ordinary pocketknife to a minor less than the age of 18 without his parent’s permission, or to any person of unsound mind. It is unlawful for any dealer to sell or transfer any firearm, pistol, Springfield rifle or other repeating rifle to a minor. A minor less than 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities. Reads a bit ambiguous to me. You can't sell or give a firearm to a minor under 18 without a note from the parents. A dealer can't sell a firearm to a minor. So, are those over 18 considered minors? And what lawful activities allow a minor under 18 to possess a loaded firearm. Funny stuff on first reading. Hunting or target shooting to name a couple lawful activities. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/20/13 9:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:45:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: So how is this accomplished without benefit of a background check, the data of which may include pertinent information regarding the "mentally defective" nature of the buyer or transferee? Dealers do background checks on firearm transfers whether it is a "stocked" item or a gun from their private stash .. That is federal law. Private sellers do not have access to the NCIC database so we don't know how many of them would use it. Dance, dance, dance Mr NRA. Private sellers can use a FFL's access to NCIC. In some states that would be easier than filling out state forms. And no, I don't expect states to repeal their more restrictive gun sales laws. I gather Mr Krause uses a FFL for his private gun sales. He can speak to the unbearable pain and cost that entails. You're just a cheapskate, and anti-regulation. And we know exactly who would use NCIC if it was required by law for private sales. Law-abiders. Simple as that. And you can't dance out of it. Actually, the few times I have sold a firearm, I have used an FFL. Once it cost me $10 or so because the buyer and I split the cost. I shipped my recently sold CZ pistol via UPS to my buyer's FFL. The buyer paid for the shipping and the FFL's services. I've heard of idiots who have used the US Postal Service to ship pistols to try to save a few bucks. That is a no-no. I've never found the firearms background check system to be anything but a good idea. It certainly isn't inconvenient in Maryland to wait a week or 10 days for the state police to run their check on a pistol purchase. I've never needed a pistol "in a hurry." There's no delay here for buying a rifle or shotgun. We have changes coming in Maryland in a few months in gun purchases. None of them will inconvenience me. |
More info.. not looking good...
In article z-mdnUcZ_q5_
, says... Your hands may be clean but your mind is a little confused. You seem to associate "law abiding gun owners" as being lock step in line with the NRA's leadership positions, specifically those of Wayne LaPierre. That's just not so. The vast majority of law abiding gun owners, (even including those who are NRA members) are in favor of and support universal background checks for everyone. 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. Don't be silly. Everybody discussing this knows the majority of NRA members support universal background checks. Joe Scarborough trumpeted that daily. But that's just a polling question. Most of the dumb asses answering the poll thought it was already the law. Greg is the "law abiding" gun owner I was talking to. He opposes a federal law requiring background checks for all gun sales. He's a gun nut. Simple as that. And you're naive to think ANY "clean bill" would get through Congress. Reid had a clean bill. No way in hell it could come close to flying. Hell, even the watered down Toomey and Manchin amendment didn't pass the "new" 60 vote thresh-hold. Only covered gun shows and internet sales. But excluded background checks for gun transfers between family and friends. "Friends?" That's real good. "Sure, he was my friend, but he never told me about that insane asylum commitment or felony convictions. Nope, never mentioned the restraining order either. Gee." Get over it. The Senate is corrupt. No sense even talking about the House. And Greg is happy with that. Me, I'll survive just fine until I'm dead, and am happy enough. Forget about any gun legislation unless gun violence takes an extended turn for the worse. I predicted that Congress would do nothing when gun legislation was bandied about after the school killings up your way. And I was right. You see, it doesn't matter that you and I and most others think universal background checks are reasonable. The NRA leadership and Greg disagree. They are in lockstep. |
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/21/13 9:37 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
Everything you on the left are doing is based on making a database you can use later for nefarious reasons such as confiscation... I thought you were going to try to control that paranoia? |
More info.. not looking good...
On Friday, 21 June 2013 10:39:31 UTC-3, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 6/21/13 9:37 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Everything you on the left are doing is based on making a database you can use later for nefarious reasons such as confiscation... I thought you were going to try to control that paranoia? Lyrics from that great Buffalo Springfield band describe his ilk... "Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid Step out of line, the men come and take you away We better stop Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down?" |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m... On 6/21/13 11:07 AM, wrote: Ask Harry how much money the FFL charged to broker that transaction. When I sold my SIG X-5 to a guy in Virginia, the Virginia FFL charged $20 for the transaction, which the buyer and I split. I paid the local FFL $20 I think for his services in getting my new six shooter. I'll pick it up sometime next week. ------------------- It has been a lot more than $20 for years here in Calif. Up to $125 if the gun has to be shipped to the FFL. |
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/21/13 11:35 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 6/21/13 11:07 AM, wrote: Ask Harry how much money the FFL charged to broker that transaction. When I sold my SIG X-5 to a guy in Virginia, the Virginia FFL charged $20 for the transaction, which the buyer and I split. I paid the local FFL $20 I think for his services in getting my new six shooter. I'll pick it up sometime next week. ------------------- It has been a lot more than $20 for years here in Calif. Up to $125 if the gun has to be shipped to the FFL. I saved the shipping charge because I had other errands in Virginia that day and just met the buyer at the gun shop. The buyer of the CZ I just sold paid the UPS shipping to the FFL in his state, and it ran about $60. He's a good customer of his gun store, so I doubt he was forced to pay much for the transfer services. |
More info.. not looking good...
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m... On 6/21/13 11:35 AM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 6/21/13 11:07 AM, wrote: Ask Harry how much money the FFL charged to broker that transaction. When I sold my SIG X-5 to a guy in Virginia, the Virginia FFL charged $20 for the transaction, which the buyer and I split. I paid the local FFL $20 I think for his services in getting my new six shooter. I'll pick it up sometime next week. ------------------- It has been a lot more than $20 for years here in Calif. Up to $125 if the gun has to be shipped to the FFL. I saved the shipping charge because I had other errands in Virginia that day and just met the buyer at the gun shop. The buyer of the CZ I just sold paid the UPS shipping to the FFL in his state, and it ran about $60. He's a good customer of his gun store, so I doubt he was forced to pay much for the transfer services. ----------- that $125 does not include shipping. The local FFL is just the receiver. I think there is also a check to see if the gun is stolen, etc. on a transferred in weapon. |
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... On 6/21/13 8:15 AM, Eisboch wrote: ---------------------------------- Your hands may be clean but your mind is a little confused. You seem to associate "law abiding gun owners" as being lock step in line with the NRA's leadership positions, specifically those of Wayne LaPierre. That's just not so. The vast majority of law abiding gun owners, (even including those who are NRA members) are in favor of and support universal background checks for everyone. 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. 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. I agree with background checks for *anyone* purchasing a firearm. It's really not all that involved. Here in MA, a full background check is done when you first apply for a gun permit. Often takes 8 weeks to be processed and for the actual background check to be done and a permit to be issued. But once it's done, purchasing a handgun, rifle or shotgun is a simple matter of calling in the transaction at the time of purchase, verifying you are who you claim to be via taking a digital fingerprint and, 5 minutes later, walking out of the gun shop with your new purchase. No waiting period. I don't see what the big deal is. |
More info.. not looking good...
"Boating All Out" wrote in message ... In article z-mdnUcZ_q5_ , says... Your hands may be clean but your mind is a little confused. You seem to associate "law abiding gun owners" as being lock step in line with the NRA's leadership positions, specifically those of Wayne LaPierre. That's just not so. The vast majority of law abiding gun owners, (even including those who are NRA members) are in favor of and support universal background checks for everyone. 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. Don't be silly. Everybody discussing this knows the majority of NRA members support universal background checks. Joe Scarborough trumpeted that daily. But that's just a polling question. Most of the dumb asses answering the poll thought it was already the law. Greg is the "law abiding" gun owner I was talking to. He opposes a federal law requiring background checks for all gun sales. He's a gun nut. Simple as that. And you're naive to think ANY "clean bill" would get through Congress. Reid had a clean bill. No way in hell it could come close to flying. Hell, even the watered down Toomey and Manchin amendment didn't pass the "new" 60 vote thresh-hold. Only covered gun shows and internet sales. But excluded background checks for gun transfers between family and friends. "Friends?" That's real good. "Sure, he was my friend, but he never told me about that insane asylum commitment or felony convictions. Nope, never mentioned the restraining order either. Gee." Get over it. The Senate is corrupt. No sense even talking about the House. And Greg is happy with that. Me, I'll survive just fine until I'm dead, and am happy enough. Forget about any gun legislation unless gun violence takes an extended turn for the worse. I predicted that Congress would do nothing when gun legislation was bandied about after the school killings up your way. And I was right. You see, it doesn't matter that you and I and most others think universal background checks are reasonable. The NRA leadership and Greg disagree. They are in lockstep. ----------------------------------- I agree with you and am in favor of universal background checks. I disagreed with your assertion that law abiding "gun nuts" (to use your description) generally are opposed to them. |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:32:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Don't be silly. Everybody discussing this knows the majority of NRA members support universal background checks. It all depends on how you phrase the question. If you just say "do you think there should be universal background checks" ? you get a positive response. If you say "do you want to ban all private transfers of firearms"? you don't do as well. ------------------------------------------- Agreed. That's why background checks should be universal and apply to *everyone*. Make it clean. As I explained in a reply to John H., it's not that big of a deal in MA. There are other regulations in this state that I think are unreasonable, but a background check to initially get one of the various permits is the biggest obstacle and may take 8 weeks or more. But once you have the permit, buying a gun is no big deal. A 5 min. telephone call and taking a digital finger print to ensure you are who you claim to be is all that is required. Once approved, (again ... only takes about 5 minutes) you pay for your purchase and walk out the door with your new gun. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to everyone. Private transactions and transfers could easily be accomplished at a licensed firearm dealer for a small fee. The goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of nut cases. If you say "Do you want to make it illegal to give a gun to your adult son in law without paying a dealer"? the number goes way down. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:15:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On 6/21/13 8:15 AM, Eisboch wrote: ---------------------------------- Your hands may be clean but your mind is a little confused. You seem to associate "law abiding gun owners" as being lock step in line with the NRA's leadership positions, specifically those of Wayne LaPierre. That's just not so. The vast majority of law abiding gun owners, (even including those who are NRA members) are in favor of and support universal background checks for everyone. 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. 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. I agree with background checks for *anyone* purchasing a firearm. It's really not all that involved. Here in MA, a full background check is done when you first apply for a gun permit. Often takes 8 weeks to be processed and for the actual background check to be done and a permit to be issued. But once it's done, purchasing a handgun, rifle or shotgun is a simple matter of calling in the transaction at the time of purchase, verifying you are who you claim to be via taking a digital fingerprint and, 5 minutes later, walking out of the gun shop with your new purchase. No waiting period. I don't see what the big deal is. The seller, when I acquired the gun, didn't know me from Adam. I would have a bill of sale to solve the 'paper trail' problem. But, it's OK to disagree. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:15:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. You are talking about universal registration, not background checks. Otherwise there is no "paper trail". ---------------------------------- Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal" meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way. Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase. The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:15:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 'Reasonable' background checking is great. But, I should be allowed to sell or give a handgun to my brother without Eric Holder's permission. John H. I disagree. If you have no problem with a background check when *you* acquired the handgun, why should your brother, friend or private buyer be any different? Plus, legally it removes you from the paper trail of potential liability should some nutcase who shouldn't own a gun ends up with it. You are talking about universal registration, not background checks. Otherwise there is no "paper trail". ---------------------------------- Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal" meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way. Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase. The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: As I explained in a reply to John H., it's not that big of a deal in MA. There are other regulations in this state that I think are unreasonable, but a background check to initially get one of the various permits is the biggest obstacle and may take 8 weeks or more. But once you have the permit, buying a gun is no big deal. A 5 min. telephone call and taking a digital finger print to ensure you are who you claim to be is all that is required. Once approved, (again ... only takes about 5 minutes) you pay for your purchase and walk out the door with your new gun. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to everyone. Private transactions and transfers could easily be accomplished at a licensed firearm dealer for a small fee. The goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of nut cases. That is the way it works in Florida for CCW license holders but then, if a person who wanted to do a private sale and the buyer had a valid CCW, could they just do the deal? ---------------------------------------------------------- In MA, yes but the transaction must be reported to the "Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau ". I'd be in favor of changing that because the actual transfer of the firearm can take place by simply filling out a form on-line. But, if I didn't know the person I was selling the gun to, it's up to me to verify that he has a permit and he is who he says he is. That's the hole in the system. Permits and ID's can be counterfeited. 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. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: As I explained in a reply to John H., it's not that big of a deal in MA. There are other regulations in this state that I think are unreasonable, but a background check to initially get one of the various permits is the biggest obstacle and may take 8 weeks or more. But once you have the permit, buying a gun is no big deal. A 5 min. telephone call and taking a digital finger print to ensure you are who you claim to be is all that is required. Once approved, (again ... only takes about 5 minutes) you pay for your purchase and walk out the door with your new gun. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to everyone. Private transactions and transfers could easily be accomplished at a licensed firearm dealer for a small fee. The goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of nut cases. That is the way it works in Florida for CCW license holders but then, if a person who wanted to do a private sale and the buyer had a valid CCW, could they just do the deal? ---------------------------------------------------------- In MA, yes but the transaction must be reported to the "Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau ". I'd be in favor of changing that because the actual transfer of the firearm can take place by simply filling out a form on-line. But, if I didn't know the person I was selling the gun to, it's up to me to verify that he has a permit and he is who he says he is. That's the hole in the system. Permits and ID's can be counterfeited. 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. --------- that’s if you have or can get a permit to carry. Near impossible in most of California. Some counties are easier, but every urban county is about 99.9% no! |
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. |
More info.. not looking good...
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 6/21/13 11:07 AM, wrote: Ask Harry how much money the FFL charged to broker that transaction. When I sold my SIG X-5 to a guy in Virginia, the Virginia FFL charged $20 for the transaction, which the buyer and I split. I paid the local FFL $20 I think for his services in getting my new six shooter. I'll pick it up sometime next week. "$20 I think"? Your memory is suffering. You shouldn't own a firearm. |
More info.. not looking good...
"Califbill" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... 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. --------- that’s if you have or can get a permit to carry. Near impossible in most of California. Some counties are easier, but every urban county is about 99.9% no! ---------------------------------- That's what Massachusetts was like about 15 years ago. Permits for hunting rifles and handguns for target practice or competition shooting were approved but very few concealed carry permits (Class A) were allowed. Class B permits were the best you could expect which are typically for home defense only or for range shooting and does not allow concealed carry in public. How the allowed firearms were transported to and from the hunting area or shooting range was highly regulated (disassembled and in a locked case, transported preferably in the trunk of your car). Massachusetts remains a "may issue" state for handguns and a "shall issue" state for long guns (rifles). The local police department in your town makes the determination of what type of permit you can get. But people started challenging the authority of the towns and their police chiefs to be so restrictive in the types of permits issued. Lawsuits were filed and won. Slowly, most of the towns and cities began approving concealed carry permits but often with specific restrictions. I was fortunate. The officer who interviewed me knew me .... or *of* me for reasons I won't get into, but I was granted an unrestricted Class A permit which allows me to own and conceal carry any handgun (on the approved MA list or grandfathered) and to own any rifle, including the high capacity assault types that are so controversial. The only type of firearm I can't legally own with the permit I have is a machine gun or sawed off shotgun. I have no interest in the assault rifles (although they are a blast to shoot). I understand that unrestricted Class A permits are again starting to get more difficult to get lately, probably due to all the media attention on gun control. A couple of towns are trying to ban firearms period. Areas in Boston are becoming particularly tough. One thing my town had changed was the reason for applying for a permit which was traditionally, "For all lawful purposes". They no longer accept that as a reason. You must have specific reasons to justify a concealed carry permit. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... I wonder, which of the massacres would have been prevented by universal background checks? John H. --------------------------------------- Probably none. But it's just common sense that anyone who wants to assume the responsibility of gun ownership should be given a basic background check to make sure they are not a felon or person with mental disabilities or problems, don't you think? Plus, John, you were discussing earlier the private transfer of a gun to another person. Don't you think that as a responsible gun owner you should have a means to ensure you are not selling your handgun to a criminal or mental deficient? You mentioned that the seller of a handgun to you didn't know you from Adam. I think having the ability to ensure you are not selling to a nut it's part of the responsibility of owning a firearm. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/21/2013 10:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists, criminals, and psychopaths. I would think in the spirit of the group lately, this type of rant should pretty much disqualify you from further consideration... |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
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. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com