| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#91
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 1:55 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:30:22 -0500, KC wrote: On 11/14/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:59:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 11:45 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: It is as valid as your idea that the problems of the world would be solved with a little bit bigger government and a few more laws. I could attend a Virginia gun show, find an individual (not a licensed dealer) selling firearms, and buy one from him at the show without him doing any background check, because such is legal in Virginia. Now, being an out of stater, we'd both be in violation of the law, but...there's no enforcement. You are grasping at straws. If there is no enforcement, what difference would a new law make? You are the one grasping. If the guy is not even going to make sure you are a resident, what would make him do a background check? The idea is to *ban* individual sales unless there is a paper trail and perhaps make all gun transfers go through an FFL or some mechanism that makes a background check mandatory. Of course, I also favor licensing gun owners. I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing law, what would make them follow another law? Just wondering if any of you have experience or have seen all of this "illegal transfer" we are hypothesizing about here? Here are the requirements for the private transfer of a firearm in Virginia: "What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs. Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual. " If you are from out of state, and I sell you a handgun, then we've broken the law. Apparently all these 'Virginia Gun Show Loopholes' to which Harry continuously refers are simply folks breaking the law. What we need are more laws to keep lawbreakers from breaking the law! But have you seen this at gun shows, or are we spending time and energy talking about a baited anomaly the left dug deep enough to find? DICK! PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION HERE!!! *I am not saying CNN dug deep*, I am just trying to find out what the reality of the "gun show loophole" is to see if *I* feel it's relevant at all.... What the hell are you yelling at me for? Nothing I've said is quoted (above). |
|
#92
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:55:22 -0500, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:30:22 -0500, KC wrote: On 11/14/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:59:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 11:45 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: It is as valid as your idea that the problems of the world would be solved with a little bit bigger government and a few more laws. I could attend a Virginia gun show, find an individual (not a licensed dealer) selling firearms, and buy one from him at the show without him doing any background check, because such is legal in Virginia. Now, being an out of stater, we'd both be in violation of the law, but...there's no enforcement. You are grasping at straws. If there is no enforcement, what difference would a new law make? You are the one grasping. If the guy is not even going to make sure you are a resident, what would make him do a background check? The idea is to *ban* individual sales unless there is a paper trail and perhaps make all gun transfers go through an FFL or some mechanism that makes a background check mandatory. Of course, I also favor licensing gun owners. I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing law, what would make them follow another law? Just wondering if any of you have experience or have seen all of this "illegal transfer" we are hypothesizing about here? Here are the requirements for the private transfer of a firearm in Virginia: "What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs. Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual. " If you are from out of state, and I sell you a handgun, then we've broken the law. Apparently all these 'Virginia Gun Show Loopholes' to which Harry continuously refers are simply folks breaking the law. What we need are more laws to keep lawbreakers from breaking the law! But have you seen this at gun shows, or are we spending time and energy talking about a baited anomaly the left dug deep enough to find? DICK! PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION HERE!!! *I am not saying CNN dug deep*, I am just trying to find out what the reality of the "gun show loophole" is to see if *I* feel it's relevant at all.... Been to lots of Virginia gun shows. No one tried to sell me a gun, other than dealers who wanted the fed form completed. |
|
#94
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 2:31 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I don't think private sellers... snip.... They are gun nuts, not professional dealers. All of them? So all private sellers are "gun nuts"? This is why folks are giving you **** on this subject... Sorry. In your case, delete "gun". |
|
#95
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/14/2014 12:17 PM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote: That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600 miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers. If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room floor to get the "70 seconds" they used. Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without an instant check. I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the instant check booth first? That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you to see. I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork recording the giver, seller and buyer. If the seller is willing to break the law, what difference does it make? In this case the buyers and the sellers were breaking a federal law. It would have been far more convincing if they just stayed in Georgia and the fact that they didn't makes it sound like maybe they were being asked more questions than they wanted for their show. After all it is just a TV show and not a whole lot different than the Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo. They shoot hours of tape to get a 12 minute segment. Private sellers can break the law with virtual immunity *because there is no requirement for a background check or registration of the purchased firearm*. Geeze ... Private sellers could break the law if there *was* a requirement for a background check or registration..." Geeezeeee Peet! |
|
#96
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:45:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/14/2014 12:10 PM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:29:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/14/14 11:05 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:40:07 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular, a "gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with any background checks. In another of his posts, he had a statistic that said less than 1% of the guns used in crimes came from gun shows. I don't know for a fact but I suspect that 1% number refers to *reported* gun show sales by a FFL. It's the only way the data could have been documented. I don't think it includes "no questions asked" private sales at gun shows. How could it if there are no records? Dunno, it was your statistic. Perhaps they asked? I have said all along, the cops don't usually spend a lot of time tracing crime guns. they know it will not do anything to help their case, so why bother? Maybe it's because there is no reliable data base that shows the chain of custody. BTW, I thought you'd left 'cause we were so screwed up. |
|
#97
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:02:38 -0600, Califbill
wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote: I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common sense gun control Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense. These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything. Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh? Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored. Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not help much for the people who refuse to wear it. Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3. Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly? How about when you have two government agencies with regulations diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance. Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example? Actual. Lots of cases. Like the EPA saying the farmer can not disk his fends line because it is a wetland, and if he does, they will fine him a $100k, while the fire dept says they will fine him if he does not disk. Lots of contrary regulations. Some even from the same entity. And while you reduce gun deaths by 1/3, where does that 1/3 come from? Armed criminals, who ignore the law anyway. Or suicide, who just use a different method? But no specific examples, making it hypthetical. Maybe cross referencing mental health or domestic violence incidents with gun ownership would help drop the homicide/suicide rates? It could mean that gun freaks with a bad temper might lose their right to bear arms. |
|
#98
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/14 2:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:55:22 -0500, KC wrote: On 11/14/2014 1:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:30:22 -0500, KC wrote: On 11/14/2014 12:19 PM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:59:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 11:45 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: It is as valid as your idea that the problems of the world would be solved with a little bit bigger government and a few more laws. I could attend a Virginia gun show, find an individual (not a licensed dealer) selling firearms, and buy one from him at the show without him doing any background check, because such is legal in Virginia. Now, being an out of stater, we'd both be in violation of the law, but...there's no enforcement. You are grasping at straws. If there is no enforcement, what difference would a new law make? You are the one grasping. If the guy is not even going to make sure you are a resident, what would make him do a background check? The idea is to *ban* individual sales unless there is a paper trail and perhaps make all gun transfers go through an FFL or some mechanism that makes a background check mandatory. Of course, I also favor licensing gun owners. I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing law, what would make them follow another law? Just wondering if any of you have experience or have seen all of this "illegal transfer" we are hypothesizing about here? Here are the requirements for the private transfer of a firearm in Virginia: "What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs. Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual. " If you are from out of state, and I sell you a handgun, then we've broken the law. Apparently all these 'Virginia Gun Show Loopholes' to which Harry continuously refers are simply folks breaking the law. What we need are more laws to keep lawbreakers from breaking the law! But have you seen this at gun shows, or are we spending time and energy talking about a baited anomaly the left dug deep enough to find? DICK! PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION HERE!!! *I am not saying CNN dug deep*, I am just trying to find out what the reality of the "gun show loophole" is to see if *I* feel it's relevant at all.... Been to lots of Virginia gun shows. No one tried to sell me a gun, other than dealers who wanted the fed form completed. That's pretty close to the most naive statement you've ever made here. You think the unlicensed individuals selling firearms walk around with signs? -- Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s pro-birth. |
|
#99
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/14 2:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/14/2014 12:17 PM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote: On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote: That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600 miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers. If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room floor to get the "70 seconds" they used. Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without an instant check. I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the instant check booth first? That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you to see. I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork recording the giver, seller and buyer. If the seller is willing to break the law, what difference does it make? In this case the buyers and the sellers were breaking a federal law. It would have been far more convincing if they just stayed in Georgia and the fact that they didn't makes it sound like maybe they were being asked more questions than they wanted for their show. After all it is just a TV show and not a whole lot different than the Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo. They shoot hours of tape to get a 12 minute segment. Private sellers can break the law with virtual immunity *because there is no requirement for a background check or registration of the purchased firearm*. Geeze ... Private sellers could break the law if there *was* a requirement for a background check or registration..." Geeezeeee Peet! But since there isn't such a law in Virginia... -- Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s pro-birth. |
|
#100
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hey Richard... | General | |||
| Hey Richard | General | |||
| for Richard | General | |||
| hey Richard. have you seen this? | General | |||
| Think Richard made it? | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
