| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Those small transfers | General | |||
| Those small transfers | General | |||
| Those small transfers | General | |||
| Private company welfare? | General | |||
| stock market huckster are running out of carefully cultivated myths(that transfers your wealth to them)that are falling to reality, buy and hold, invest for the long term, stocks are cheap right now, and now the biggie:Diversification | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
