|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
....or not?
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ional+Arms+Inc. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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
|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
John, my brother said that's about the going rate anymore. He bought his a couple years ago for 140. But that was then and this is now. A friend of mine said she bought hers from a place in north Carolina called vintage firearms online for 99 and shipping to the dealer. I'm afraid those days are gone though. Might do some Google comparing. But that's the report for now.
|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: John, my brother said that's about the going rate anymore. He bought his a couple years ago for 140. But that was then and this is now. A friend of mine said she bought hers from a place in north Carolina called vintage firearms online for 99 and shipping to the dealer. I'm afraid those days are gone though. Might do some Google comparing. But that's the report for now. Thanks, Tim. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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 |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Friday, October 31, 2014 11:29:28 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
John, my brother said that's about the going rate anymore. He bought his a couple years ago for 140. But that was then and this is now. A friend of mine said she bought hers from a place in north Carolina called vintage firearms online for 99 and shipping to the dealer. I'm afraid those days are gone though. Might do some Google comparing. But that's the report for now. It's on the way, over! |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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? |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:48:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "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. He could not just "give it to him" then could he? In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally registered it when he bought it) All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit. Yes. Ridiculous. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On 10/31/2014 2:59 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:48:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "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. He could not just "give it to him" then could he? In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally registered it when he bought it) All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit. Yes. Ridiculous. Ridiculous to you now John, but most likely a law coming to your neighborhood in the not too distant future. That's exactly part of the law in Massachusetts and has been since 1998. I believe it's now part of gun laws (or a very similar version of) in Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and in several other states that previously had much more "relaxed" gun laws. The concept is to prevent guns from being sold to people who are prohibited from owning one. Yes, I know, criminals will still have access to guns and people who pass background checks can still go off their rocker. But at least it creates a traceable paper trail of ownership. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:04:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. Oh, OK. Now I feel so, so much better! :) When one of my grandsons, now 12, makes Eagle Scout in six months, I will be giving him a lever action Henry .22LR. He should not be required to have a license or a background check, and I think a law requiring same would be dumb - in my opinion. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
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. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On 10/31/2014 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:48:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "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. He could not just "give it to him" then could he? In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally registered it when he bought it) All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit. Yes. Again you admit this is needless bureaucracy with no benefit. No. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
|
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 15:20:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:59 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:48:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:28 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:27:39 -0400, "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. He could not just "give it to him" then could he? In a universal background state he would essentially have to go to a FFL and "sell" it to him after paying a commission to the FFL for handling the paperwork. Then he would have to jump through whatever hoops the state has to register it. (after John had originally registered it when he bought it) All of this with no actual demonstrated benefit. Yes. Ridiculous. Ridiculous to you now John, but most likely a law coming to your neighborhood in the not too distant future. Maybe. And that's why folks keep pushing against more gun control. 'Cause the liberals will keep adding more and more 'controls' until the Bloombergs and jps's have accomplished their aim. Or do you envision a stopping point? That's exactly part of the law in Massachusetts and has been since 1998. I believe it's now part of gun laws (or a very similar version of) in Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and in several other states that previously had much more "relaxed" gun laws. The concept is to prevent guns from being sold to people who are prohibited from owning one. Yes, I know, criminals will still have access to guns and people who pass background checks can still go off their rocker. But at least it creates a traceable paper trail of ownership. |
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.... |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:17:51 -0400, KC wrote:
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.... Maybe I should have added 'police reports' to 'convicted'. Again, many of those, if not the great majority, will not show up under either scenario. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On 10/31/2014 8:29 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:17:51 -0400, KC wrote: 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.... Maybe I should have added 'police reports' to 'convicted'. Again, many of those, if not the great majority, will not show up under either scenario. I don't know if all states allow that... I can run a report on a perspective tenant if they sign a paper... |
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. But what if he *is* a convicted felon, sociopath, junkie or whatever but neglected to tell you. According to that Federal Transfer Form, you are free to hand him a gun because you didn't know. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On 10/31/2014 9:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:06:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 3:56 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:20:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Yes, I know, criminals will still have access to guns and people who pass background checks can still go off their rocker. But at least it creates a traceable paper trail of ownership. And those people won't still be dead? add "and potential liability" to my last sentence. What liability? These "nutty" guys usually shoot themselves when it is all over and the criminals end up in jail for the rest of their life. Not much to sue for there.. I guess it depends on where you live. Here, if you made that firearm easily available by neglect, you can be found partially liable. The laws I mentioned before covering locks and safes apply. Yes, I know locks can be removed. Safes can be broken into. That's not the point. The point is that if you took reasonable action in accordance with the scope of the law, to secure your firearms, you won't be liable. If you leave it out, unlocked and someone steals it, you may find yourself in court. |
Quote:
|
Looking again at the ad if you get everything that is pictured there you are doing OK in my opinion. I did not get the sling or ammo pouch with mine. I will need to order a sling soon.
|
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:44:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:38:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. Most "wife beater, junkie, drunk, sociopath" types will still pass a background check. Felons should be stopped, if they present their real ID but if the number of illegal aliens with "good ID" is any indication, fake IDs are very easy to get. The last I heard from the people at my wife's golf course, a green card, an SS card and a driver's license was around $500. (good enough to pass E-verify) If someone is convicted of domestic violence, they are prohibited from having a firearm by Federal law. There are many loopholes in the Federal law however and many States have enacted much tougher laws. In some, including mine, a court restraining order means you turn over your guns until it is lifted. Greg's point is the same one I made earlier...*most* "wife beater, junkie, drunk, sociopath" types will still pass a background check" because they've not made a paperwork trail. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:27:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. But what if he *is* a convicted felon, sociopath, junkie or whatever but neglected to tell you. According to that Federal Transfer Form, you are free to hand him a gun because you didn't know. As I said earlier, if the dude approaches me on the street, I'll suggest we go to the nearest FFL guy and do the transfer. But that's only because I'm a law abiding type guy. If I were a Chicago hood, I'd just sell the firearm for cash and be on my way - law or no law. |
Yo Tim! Good deal...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 05:27:23 +0000, RGrew176
wrote: Poco Loco;1016080 Wrote: ....or not? http://tinyurl.com/njwvfdl. -- "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal." ....Peter Brimelow (Author) (Thanks, Luddite!) I paid $179 for mine so this is a pretty decent deal. Where I bought mine Gandermountain they are now selling them for $199. I love mine. I don't really have a use for it, and the price dropped to $171 while discussing it. So I ordered it yesterday. I think one of my SILs will love it. He's the one who made the three trips to the mideast. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com