On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:15:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/20/15 7:47 PM, 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.



I don't know what the precise rules are in South Carolina for private
firearm transfers, but I have read that the gun laws there, for the most
part, are "loose."

Gun laws in Chicago must be even 'looser'. A hell of a lot of shootings up there.
Lot's more than nine just about every week, I'll bet.
--

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 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?

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



Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is
85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers
at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running
24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff
you don't know how to use.

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?

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.

On 6/21/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 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?

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



Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is
85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers
at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running
24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff
you don't know how to use.

"And old man like you shouldn't waste his dwindling days on foolishness
like that"
Donnie said that



--

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."

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 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 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?

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



Solomons...ahh, just the place to be in a travel trailer when it is
85-99F outside, with high humidity. All those folks and their trailers
at the Navy Rec Center, lined up, with the A/C compressors running
24/7...blech. Don't forget to take all your guns and other hobby stuff
you don't know how to use.


Ha. Brings back memories of our very brief "camping" experience.

We've had a few RV's ... Class A and Class C motorhomes but they were
primary purchased with the thought in mind that they would be used for
traveling back and forth to Florida when we had the houses down there.
We thought they would make for leisurely trips, stopping to see the
sights so to speak. Never worked out that way. Once on the road we
got to Jupiter in two and a half days ... the same amount of time it
took to drive in a car.

Then my daughter convinced us to get a fifth wheel. Her two boys were
young at the time and she, her husband and kids loved to go "camping" in
a travel trailer they had. She talked us (and my oldest son) to
join them in their camping adventures.

So, we bought a 36 or 37 foot fifth wheel and a Ford F-350 diesel to
pull it. My son also bought a fifth wheel and a new truck to pull his.

Off we all went to some place in New Hampshire. Fifty million screaming
little kids all over the place. Hottest week in years in New Hampshire
with temps in the 90's and near 100 percent humidity. Rained every
afternoon. Mosquitoes the size of Boeing 747's. One of the most
horrible weeks I've ever spent.

Dragged the fifth wheel home and immediately put it up for sale.

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."

On 6/21/2015 8:26 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

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.


Is this as stupid as you selling a gun in the parking lot, for cash, to
a complete stranger, without doing a background check, because your
state doesn't require it.
Your assignment for today, Mr. Krause, is to write "I am stupid and
hypocritical" on the blackboard 500 times.


--

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."