BoatBanter.com - Yo Tim! Good deal...

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Yo Tim! Good deal... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/162359-yo-tim-good-deal.html)

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

===

Believe it or not there are still a lot of wide open spaces in between
the east coast and the west coast. Any time you let the government
require a permit to do something, you are also implicitly giving them
the ability to deny that permit, or put unreasonable conditions on it.
I'm personally of the opinion that the government has too much power
already. It would turn into yet another federal boondoggle, poorly
administered, and largely ineffective at fighting crime.

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:05:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

To sit on the
sidelines, reciting the 2nd Amendment and relying on the NRA to defend
your rights isn't going to last forever.

===

Many of us are NRA members and gladly contribute to their highly
organized and effective efforts. They bring a lot of muscle to the
election booth and that's what really counts.

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:38:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:11:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:56 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.

Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf

To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

BTW, this is what I find:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if
he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A
person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for
temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or
have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from
receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell
or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm
other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a
licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided
the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and
the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Maybe you've found something different?

Nope, I read the same thing at the link you provided.

I just think the law is dumb.

Maybe it's due to a reading comprehension on my part but what does:

"A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if
he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law"

mean to you?

Sounds to me that it's ok to transfer or sell the firearm if you *don't*
know if he's prohibited from having one.

It means, to me, if I know the guy is a wife beater, junkie, felon,
drunk, sociopath, Harry Krause, etc, then I should not sell or give
him a firearm.

Right. But it's ok to transfer or sell it to him if you *don't* know
he's a wife beater, junkie, felon, drunk, sociopath, or ...

It gets *you* off the hook but it doesn't prevent someone who is or
should be prohibited from having a gun from getting it.

That's what's dumb, IMO.

And unless the guy has been convicted, most of those things won't show
up on a background check anyway.

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:32:30 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:05:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

To sit on the
sidelines, reciting the 2nd Amendment and relying on the NRA to defend
your rights isn't going to last forever.

===

Many of us are NRA members and gladly contribute to their highly
organized and effective efforts. They bring a lot of muscle to the
election booth and that's what really counts.

....and with good reason.

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:24:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

===

Believe it or not there are still a lot of wide open spaces in between
the east coast and the west coast. Any time you let the government
require a permit to do something, you are also implicitly giving them
the ability to deny that permit, or put unreasonable conditions on it.
I'm personally of the opinion that the government has too much power
already. It would turn into yet another federal boondoggle, poorly
administered, and largely ineffective at fighting crime.

Besides, I grew up in Minnesota and didn't get my first .22 (single
shot) 'til I was 12.

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On 10/31/2014 5:51 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/31/2014 2:43 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.

Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf

To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.

What's dumb? That I would give the gun to my son-in-law without
requiring he go through a federal background check? Does federal law
not permit that? What law? Maybe I'm reading your sentence wrong.

I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

That's fine. We simply disagree.

John, I am expressing my opinion that the federal law that permits
transfer of firearms to unlicensed people is dumb. Not you.

Why should I be licensed in order to exercise one of my unalienable and
civil rights?

Just another way to control those who don't have theirs yet... Like I
said, most liberals draw the line right under what they already have or
at their level. Most liberals would be all for giving guns away without
checks and such, if it was something they did themselves... or had
reason to. If they don't, they think nobody else should either.. Think,
harry krause...

Yo Tim! Good deal...

On 10/31/2014 7:45 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:38:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 3:24 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:11:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 2:56 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:10:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/31/2014 12:54 PM, John H wrote:
On Friday, October 31, 2014 12:27:40 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:05:10 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Not bad for the whole deal John. I'll ask my brother about where he got his and see if it came with the whole kit. Pricing too

I have a son-in-law who loves guns. Might make him a nice Christmas
present.

Dick would make it illegal for you to give it to him.

Not at all. If John's son-in-law has had a background check, is legally
permitted to own a firearm and the serial number is registered in his
name upon transfer... all is good.

None of which is required, although I'll probably have a transfer record for myself. This: http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf

To me, (and understanding it's a federal law), this is just plain dumb.
I believe everyone who owns a gun should be licensed or permitted.
Ya, I know the criminals don't bother but you aren't a gun criminal
until you use one in a crime.

Licenses or permits should be issued following a background check and a
formal safety course. Guns should be registered by serial number to the
owner with records in a national or state data base. Transfers should be
updated to the data base.

Please don't tell me about growing up in North Dakota or Texas or some
wild west place and having a .22 rifle since you were knee-high to a
grasshopper. This isn't the 1800's.

BTW, this is what I find:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if
he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A
person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for
temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or
have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from
receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell
or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm
other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a
licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided
the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and
the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Maybe you've found something different?

Nope, I read the same thing at the link you provided.

I just think the law is dumb.

Maybe it's due to a reading comprehension on my part but what does:

"A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if
he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law"

mean to you?

Sounds to me that it's ok to transfer or sell the firearm if you *don't*
know if he's prohibited from having one.

It means, to me, if I know the guy is a wife beater, junkie, felon,
drunk, sociopath, Harry Krause, etc, then I should not sell or give
him a firearm.

Right. But it's ok to transfer or sell it to him if you *don't* know
he's a wife beater, junkie, felon, drunk, sociopath, or ...

It gets *you* off the hook but it doesn't prevent someone who is or
should be prohibited from having a gun from getting it.

That's what's dumb, IMO.

And unless the guy has been convicted, most of those things won't show
up on a background check anyway.

As much as I hate to admit it because my credit is not that great, I
think it's a good way of checking on someones character. In CT you can
go to the State Police and get a "character check" done on someone who
signs a paper. It shows not only convictions, etc, but any involvement
with police that was noted in a police report....