|
Thank you, Richard!!!
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! |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Friday, November 14, 2014 12:19:50 PM UTC-5, 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? Murder has been *banned*, has it not? |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 11:29 AM, 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? Well, if that's the case then "no questions asked" in the context of this discussion is only a hypothetical too? sigh If you are referring to the CNN documentary, they showed and reported that the sellers didn't even ask the buyer's name let alone any ID. You can believe that or not believe it, but that's what they reported. Probably easier for you to just declare the report as being a made-up hoax like Greg and it will satisfy you. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 1:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, KC wrote: On 11/14/2014 11:29 AM, 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? Well, if that's the case then "no questions asked" in the context of this discussion is only a hypothetical too? sigh If you are referring to the CNN documentary, they showed and reported that the sellers didn't even ask the buyer's name let alone any ID. You can believe that or not believe it, but that's what they reported. Probably easier for you to just declare the report as being a made-up hoax like Greg and it will satisfy you. Non responsive.. let me try again.. has anybody here experienced personally the type of activity the CNN report "found". Is this prevalent or can we assume CNN had to dig a little to get someone to do it? Just trying to get by the this or that extremes you leftys are throwing out here... suggesting that if someone doesn't see it your way, they must be as far from your opinion as possible.. I know that makes it easier to justify dismissing their point of view or coming to the middle, but it doesn't change anything... |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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.... |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 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. Maybe they decided to pick three nearby states within reasonable driving distance and see how each compared in terms of easy of buying. I just watched it again to get their story as accurate as I can. They actually went to shows in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina. (They did not visit North Carolina) They purchased twice in Tennessee and once in South Carolina for a total of four (4) guns. One Tennessee purchase was for two (2) Glocks. They also reported that they were asked for ID's three times, once in each of the states visited. If you actually watch and listen to the recorded conversations, it's hard to conceive that this whole thing was scripted. That is, of course, unless you think everyone they talked to are actors, hired to play a part. If you believe that, more power to you. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Friday, November 14, 2014 1:45:22 PM UTC-5, 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. And the fact that they really don't care who owned it three people ago. The perp that did the crime with it right now is the criminal, and that's what rightly holds their interest. |
Thank you, Richard!!!
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 ... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com