Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/2015 10:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
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.


I agree. It's really not a big deal and it certainly doesn't inhibit me
from buying a gun. In fact, because a background check is required
for the permit in the first place, there is no waiting period afterward
when you want to purchase on. I can go to the gun shop, pick out a
handgun, pay for it and take it home the same day.

Of course if you are of the mindset that the purpose of registering a
firearm to an owner is to create a database so the government knows
who to confiscate them from someday, there's really no sense in having
this discussion.

The only complaint I have about the gun laws in MA is the previously
mentioned "approved" list and the stupid way the AG's office and the
state testing labs conflict. But, that's a different issue.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

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.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.


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.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.



But a different person responsible for it.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 12:44 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:52:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

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.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.


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.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.



But a different person responsible for it.


A distinction without a difference if it was in the same house the
whole time. The only person "responsible" is the person holding it at
any given time. My guess is there were a number of firearms in that
house.



The responsibility for owning a firearm isn't limited to when you are
holding it. You are also responsible for who has access to it.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?


--

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."

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 4:12 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:44 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:52:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

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.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.


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.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.



But a different person responsible for it.


A distinction without a difference if it was in the same house the
whole time. The only person "responsible" is the person holding it at
any given time. My guess is there were a number of firearms in that
house.



The responsibility for owning a firearm isn't limited to when you are
holding it. You are also responsible for who has access to it.

Harry gave access to a weapon he owned, to a complete stranger. He
allegedly sold it to that person in a parking lot, for cash. I hope he
has solid verifiable proof that he made a legal transfer of the deadly
weapon. Otherwise his good name will forever be tied to that weapon, no
matter how many times it's custody subsequently changes.

--

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."

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/15 12:35 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:12:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:37:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/21/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

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.

It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000
guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of
them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys
with dubious accuracy.


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.

In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was
the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same
address.




Right, because we can't do anything about anything. Your answer to
virtually every significant issue. Insane libertarianism.

Your assertion that every issue has a government solution is just as
silly. Laws don't change culture and, as BAO points out, we have a
very strong gun culture ... but you are part of it so I don't need to
explain that to you.

Most of the guns used in these high profile shootings were legally
purchased and the buyer did fill out a BATF form.

It is the murders that the press is not interested in covering that
involve the illegal guns and since those people are involved in plenty
of other illegal activity, no there is not much another law would
solve.



I don't recall stating that every issue has a government solution.

Yet you do all the time.
I have a hard time thinking about anything you do not want the
government in charge of.


No, I don't "do all the time." You're just opposed to anyone doing
anything to try to resolve the issues that face our society.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:36:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/21/2015 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.



They are stupid if they don't file the forms. If the firearm ever ends
up in the wrong hands and a crime is committed with it the chain of
custody would point back to the person who didn't file the paperwork
when he transferred or sold it.

It's not a big problem or issue. Takes about 5 minutes on line and
the firearm is officially registered to the new owner.


... and those people wouldn't be dead anymore because that form was
filled out?



How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
How many saved lives would make it worth it for you?

One hundred? A thousand? How about one?


For the sake of argument, why don't we require maintaining chain of
custody of all implements that could cause death. Baseball bats, kitchen
knives, axes; remember Lizzy?



Because baseball bats and kitchen knives are not sought after items by
nutcases to go kill a bunch of people. Guns are.

How about one, not a bunch?

--

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."