Private gun transfers
 

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:48:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


===

A nut case set on wreaking havoc can always find a way.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/15 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.




Not to worry: after the next gun massacre, we can all pray to jesus for
solace instead of doing something about our easy access to firearms and
our racism. Works for some.

Private gun transfers
 

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:06:07 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/22/15 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.




Not to worry: after the next gun massacre, we can all pray to jesus for
solace instead of doing something about our easy access to firearms and
our racism. Works for some.

Works for millions. BTW you have had easy access to firearms. If became 'illegal' would you surrender them?

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/15 8:25 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:06:07 AM UTC-7, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/22/15 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.




Not to worry: after the next gun massacre, we can all pray to jesus for
solace instead of doing something about our easy access to firearms and
our racism. Works for some.

Works for millions. BTW you have had easy access to firearms. If became 'illegal' would you surrender them?



Of course. I don't *need* firearms...they're just a hobby, like playing
golf, flying model airplanes, RV'ing, or pretending there's a god.

Private gun transfers
 

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:59:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:48:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 5:33 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:


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.


You have lowered the bar to "a single life".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School...010%E2%80%9312)

Knives and cleavers were the weapons of choice.
Cain killed Able with a rock.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/2015 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 04:12:12 -0400, "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.

It is clear that the father had no problem with the son having access
to a firearm.



Did the father know his son had a felony charge? If so he is subject to
10 years for knowingly transferring a firearm to a felon.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/15 4:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/22/2015 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 04:12:12 -0400, "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.

It is clear that the father had no problem with the son having access
to a firearm.



Did the father know his son had a felony charge? If so he is subject to
10 years for knowingly transferring a firearm to a felon.




It is clear Fretwell wants no restrictions on gun possession.

Private gun transfers
 

On 6/22/15 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:18:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 04:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

It is clear that the father had no problem with the son having access
to a firearm.



Did the father know his son had a felony charge? If so he is subject to
10 years for knowingly transferring a firearm to a felon.


The kid is not a felon. He is still innocent until proven guilty.
It is even unclear that he was actually indicted yet and it was a
simple possession charge for a small number of schedule 2 pills.
These typically get dealt out as a misdemeanor or even shuttled off to
"drug court".

If I was going to charge the father, it would be depraved indifference
(2d degree) murder.



So, you think it was *ok* for daddy to supply sonny boy with a GLOCK, eh?

Private gun transfers
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:22:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article , says...

On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote:

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.

Sure, that's all true. But the real solution to gun deaths is
dissolving the "romance of the gun."
It's a simple killing instrument, and repellent to lovers of life.
You've fallen in love with it, as have other here.
And you're obviously part of the "gun culture."


Who? Krause? If what you say is true, he'd be a hypocrite.
--

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

Private gun transfers
 

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:11:20 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:05:30 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/22/15 4:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:18:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/22/2015 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 04:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

It is clear that the father had no problem with the son having access
to a firearm.



Did the father know his son had a felony charge? If so he is subject to
10 years for knowingly transferring a firearm to a felon.


The kid is not a felon. He is still innocent until proven guilty.
It is even unclear that he was actually indicted yet and it was a
simple possession charge for a small number of schedule 2 pills.
These typically get dealt out as a misdemeanor or even shuttled off to
"drug court".

If I was going to charge the father, it would be depraved indifference
(2d degree) murder.



So, you think it was *ok* for daddy to supply sonny boy with a GLOCK, eh?


BTW it would be OK for Root to buy this gun in Maryland. Article 5-118
only prevents sales on "Conviction" of the listed felonies.
Misdemeanor trespassing is not on the list..

~crickets~
--

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