On 6/21/15 8:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:40 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was
via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would
involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


You reckon that would have stopped Roof? I suppose so, since he was
such a
law-abiding citizen.



I have no problem with any laws that may make it more difficult for
sickos' to acquire firearms, especially if they don't cause responsible,
law abiding folks from purchasing, inheriting or owning them. I really
don't see what the big deal about objections to a universal background
check law is. If it's a 2nd Amendment or "slippery slope" argument it
doesn't make sense unless you are against felons from being prohibited
from gun ownership also.





Herring has purchased firearms as "gifts" for members of his family
without bothering with background checks because the law doesn't require
them in his state or in most states. Stupid.

Interestingly, if you own a suppressor/silencer and you want to legally
pass it on to a friend or relative, that person will have to go through
the federal procedure all over again *unless* you've established a
firearms trust and the "inheritor" is a trustee of that trust.

On 6/21/2015 8:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:40 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was
via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would
involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


You reckon that would have stopped Roof? I suppose so, since he was
such a
law-abiding citizen.



I have no problem with any laws that may make it more difficult for
sickos' to acquire firearms, especially if they don't cause responsible,
law abiding folks from purchasing, inheriting or owning them. I really
don't see what the big deal about objections to a universal background
check law is. If it's a 2nd Amendment or "slippery slope" argument it
doesn't make sense unless you are against felons from being prohibited
from gun ownership also.




Sickos don't pay attention to laws.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:40 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


You reckon that would have stopped Roof? I suppose so, since he was such a
law-abiding citizen.



I have no problem with any laws that may make it more difficult for
sickos' to acquire firearms, especially if they don't cause responsible,
law abiding folks from purchasing, inheriting or owning them. I really
don't see what the big deal about objections to a universal background
check law is. If it's a 2nd Amendment or "slippery slope" argument it
doesn't make sense unless you are against felons from being prohibited
from gun ownership also.

Seems as if gun laws do not really reduce gun violence. There are nutcases
out there. Chicago has extremely tight gun laws. Seems as if the
shootings are higher there than loose gun law areas. Then you have people
upset at family who drive in to a crowd. Not even America. Same thing
happens here. Maybe we need to change how we handle nutcases.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:05:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:40 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


You reckon that would have stopped Roof? I suppose so, since he was such a
law-abiding citizen.



I have no problem with any laws that may make it more difficult for
sickos' to acquire firearms, especially if they don't cause responsible,
law abiding folks from purchasing, inheriting or owning them. I really
don't see what the big deal about objections to a universal background
check law is. If it's a 2nd Amendment or "slippery slope" argument it
doesn't make sense unless you are against felons from being prohibited
from gun ownership also.


Seems like we've had this discussion before. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:47:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/20/2015 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/20/15 7:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.


I oppose private transfers.

When I sold my Ruger GP100 revolver, it was to a sworn federal security
officer, and we did the transfer at a state police barracks. It cost
$10, I think. The only legal way to transfer a handgun like that was via
an FFL or the state police. No biggie for either me or the buyer.
The usual background check and one week waiting period applied.

When I sold my Winchester 92 rifle, I called the state police and was
told that private sales of "unregulated" firearms (ordinary rifles and
shotguns, for example) between individuals required no third party or
paperwork, beyond a bill of sale. I thought that strange, but it is the
law here in Maryland. There really was no procedure that would involve a
background check. So, we met in a parking lot over by the Pax River and
did the "rifle for cash money" swap.

That shouldn't be how it is done, but that is how it is done, here in
Maryland.

When I bought my silencer, I had to fill out a bunch of forms, buy a
$200 federal tax stamp, and wait 92 days for federal approval.

I saw a news story yesterday that claimed that Dylann's father gave him
the money to buy the .45 semi-auto. That's the third different story
I've seen on how the gun came into the little twerp's possession.




I've heard the same different stories. The Wash Post article sorta
makes sense through because he shouldn't have been able to purchase it
through a FFL and successfully clear a background check. Maybe he
bought it privately.

Here in MA, inner state transfers/sales are permitted however a form
is required to be submitted with both the seller's permit number and
the buyer's permit number, along with the firearm serial number, make,
model, etc. It can be done on-line. The rational is
that both the seller and the buyer had to have background checks done
in order to get the permits. The law states that it is the
responsibility of the seller (or transferer) to verify that the
buyer's (or transferee's) permit is current. MA permits have both
picture ID's and fingerprints.


This was transferred by the father. The law might be able to address
this by charging pop but I doubt any law is going to stop it.

Even with no transfer is probably available from dad.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.






We'll just let that sit, I'll be at Solomons for a week.

On 6/21/15 7:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving
the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.

But that might restrict the ability of those who shouldn't have
firearms...this is 'Merica, buddy, and 2nd Amendment and the NRA,
dontcha know?

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 7:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving
the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so.

But that might restrict the ability of those who shouldn't have
firearms...this is 'Merica, buddy, and 2nd Amendment and the NRA, dontcha know?

How do you pass a background check? Two bankruptcies, tax liens.

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45
Glock by his father back in April.

By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he
had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post
a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come
up disallowing Roof from purchasing it.

But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other
states) does not require a background check for personal transfers.

Seems we've had this debate before.

You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the
druggie son?

Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer
firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on
media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists.

Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts
fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they
"transfer" a firearm within the household?
This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family
member outside the home.



It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every
serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that."

Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer.

Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate
government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred,
the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be
the first step.