|
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/3/15 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:55:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 11:52 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:02:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell, why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be standards for anything. The "licensing" of drivers is a joke. What does proving that you could parallel park a car when you were 16 have to do with your ability at 80? Titling of cars gets pretty silly when the car gets old. Boats are even sillier. I can understand that if you have $200,000 boat, it might make sense to track ownership somehow. When it is a 12' jon boat, maybe worth $200 it is just stupid. The same thing is true of a 10 year old car. I have said this before and I will repeat it. The whole process should be handled by the insurance companies who have all of the skin in the game and the computer systems to handle the processes nation wide. If insurance companies issued tags and owned them, uninsured motorists would quickly become a thing of the past. Bad drivers would be identified and revoked quicker too. You wouldn't have people walking around with licenses from 2 or 3 states. The police would still have the same computer access they have now and the databases would have a better chance of being right. Please, enough silly libertarianism for one day, eh? Why don't you debate the points? Why shouldn't "DMV" functions be managed by insurance companies? They are the ones with the skin in the game. They pay out the claims for bad drivers and the claims for stolen cars. What else is there? They have already demonstrated that they can track these things better than 51 state governments (including DC) I'm sure the insurance companies would handle that about as well as they have handled health care insurance, as in screw over everyone with exorbitant fees and denial of services. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:54:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 11:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:27:30 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 11:20 AM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 10:04 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:34:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 1:04 AM, wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive. Everything the government does is expensive. It would be interesting to see exactly what the Mass budget is for your permit program and how much is hidden in other budgets. Bear in mind most states lose money at the DMV in spite of all of the taxes and fees. Well, hell, let's do away with the DMV and everything else, and, while you are at it, pave your own damned roads. Libertarianism...the idea that we should get rid of government and replace it with billionaires. It's such a good concept that we can easily produce a list of countries that have minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no social safety net and no public education system. Oh, wait... That is as simplistic an answer as me saying you would be happier with a soviet style government. You certainly do not want to be modeling anything on the DMV solution to anything. It is simply taxation and bureaucracy with virtually no benefit. That is BAOs solution to the "gun problem" Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell, why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be standards for anything. In California, you do not even have to be a legal resident to get a drivers license. Why do we need such a huge empire for such a should be simple process. Gee, Bilious, I haven't found it anything other than simple to get or renew a license or register a car or boat trailer. Why is the process not simple for you? Learn to read. He said 'simple process'. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Oh, I thought it was obvious that the DMV typically keeps lots of records in lots of categories, and at DMV service centers, there typically are lots of workers to handle the usually large influx of people who come by for various services. But, I forgot...you boys are right-wingers and therefore such is difficult for you fellas to comprehend. Perhaps thinking isn't your forte'. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:31:08 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote: On 10/3/2015 11:21 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:01:39 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: Are there any federal laws prohibiting murder? Only if you kill a federal employee or a national politician. (US congress or VP/President) By and large, murder is a state crime. Good to know. If you commit murder you should quickly get to a non extradition state. :-) There is a federal fugitive felon law. As soon as you cross a state line, it is a federal offense and they can send the federal marshals after you. Don't screw with Tommy Lee Jones. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/3/2015 2:07 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... If gun ownership was made very expensive by imposing taxes, liability insurance requirements, etc. as BOA suggests, he'd be back here within 6 months bitching that only the rich can afford to own guns. That's very mature ****-slinging. Congrats. As it turns out, your fellow travelers have REJECTED every single one of your modest proposals. But I suppose it was done with dumb maturity. Get used to it. On the bright side, you can always talk with them about Kindles and Amazon Prime and reach a consensus of sorts. If only you had a boat. You've become a waste of time. Have a nice day. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:01:14 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 12:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:55:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 11:52 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:02:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell, why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be standards for anything. The "licensing" of drivers is a joke. What does proving that you could parallel park a car when you were 16 have to do with your ability at 80? Titling of cars gets pretty silly when the car gets old. Boats are even sillier. I can understand that if you have $200,000 boat, it might make sense to track ownership somehow. When it is a 12' jon boat, maybe worth $200 it is just stupid. The same thing is true of a 10 year old car. I have said this before and I will repeat it. The whole process should be handled by the insurance companies who have all of the skin in the game and the computer systems to handle the processes nation wide. If insurance companies issued tags and owned them, uninsured motorists would quickly become a thing of the past. Bad drivers would be identified and revoked quicker too. You wouldn't have people walking around with licenses from 2 or 3 states. The police would still have the same computer access they have now and the databases would have a better chance of being right. Please, enough silly libertarianism for one day, eh? Why don't you debate the points? Why shouldn't "DMV" functions be managed by insurance companies? They are the ones with the skin in the game. They pay out the claims for bad drivers and the claims for stolen cars. What else is there? They have already demonstrated that they can track these things better than 51 state governments (including DC) I'm sure the insurance companies would handle that about as well as they have handled health care insurance, as in screw over everyone with exorbitant fees and denial of services. That is a different issue totally. Have you had huge problems with the process at your auto insurer? Bear in mind they maintain most of this data anyway. Insurance companies probably have better tracking of driver records than 51 DMVs, certainly better than the worst. I know for a fact, DC and Maryland had a ****ing match over turf for decades (maybe still) and when I was "revoked" in DC, Maryland never even heard about it. Because Maryland DMV didn't have it Geico never knew either. If the DC cops had reported directly to the insurance company I would have been busted. BTW it was 88 in a 45 on Kennilworth ave for the curious. I was young ;-) |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:01:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 12:34 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Hell, just go to a gunshow loophole state like Virginia and buy whatever you want, no paperwork needed. Don't let federal laws enter into it Or even state laws. Exactly. If you are going to buy a gun illegally, what would another law do to stop you? Double secret illegal there Niedermyer? |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 13:33:34 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
It's been documented many times, It has been documented that people are breaking the law. CNN even broke the law on camera but we did not see any prosecutions. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:17:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I didn't refer to concealed carry, open carry or any carry. I said that in the states that do not require a permit to *own* a firearm (the majority), it is not illegal to own one. Period. Conversely, states that require a permit to own a firearm (like mine) can charge you will illegal possession if you are caught with one. === How many bad guys (felons, druggies, mentally disturbed) have been caught and prosecuted with that law? New York has a similar law for hand guns and it has frequently been used to ensnare the innocent but unwary into a legal morass that they didn't really deserve. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. === There's no way to enforce private sales other than entrapment tactics. Those take a lot of man power and are on legally shaky ground - a very high price for marginal results. That's not how I want my tax money spent. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 01:13:38 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:38:22 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article QMCdnZwV5dFqu5LLnZ2dnUU7- , says... On 10/2/2015 7:36 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article vf4u0bt5443i5mtab23sjn589hflufbta9@ 4ax.com, says... On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive. === If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state. Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population centers where most of this springs from. Now Luddite, do your ****-slinging at Wayne. Tell him he's uncaring. You can't, because he's a fellow traveler. Why would I? Unlike you, Wayne can express his disagreements as a mature adult minus the insults and snarky responses you are so prone to. That's the so-called passion you have for the innocent victims of gun crime. Wayne doesn't want to go to all the trouble of getting a permit, because of "over regulation." He doesn't give one damn **** about them, because the poor guy doesn't want to be inconvenienced. You think he's a "mature adult." Well, I say he doesn't give a **** about what's going on. He doesn't want to deal with "government regulation." Fellow traveler? WTF are you talking about now? Well, you just explained it yourself. Neither of you really care about the victims. Apparently because you're "mature adults." Well I do care. I don't travel with you. I am for federal registration of firearms. And I want that to be very inconvenient. You should get used to mass killings, because you sure won't change anything soft-pedaling gun control. So just get used to it. Won't be too long before there's another. Nobody has explained how permits, licenses or background checks would have stopped any of the recent shooters from getting their guns. Until they snapped, they were pretty much squeaky clean. === That's because you can't solve social problems with the legal system, not without creating a total police state anyway. |
Trump Seals His Fate
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 11:20 AM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 10:04 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:34:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 1:04 AM, wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive. Everything the government does is expensive. It would be interesting to see exactly what the Mass budget is for your permit program and how much is hidden in other budgets. Bear in mind most states lose money at the DMV in spite of all of the taxes and fees. Well, hell, let's do away with the DMV and everything else, and, while you are at it, pave your own damned roads. Libertarianism...the idea that we should get rid of government and replace it with billionaires. It's such a good concept that we can easily produce a list of countries that have minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no social safety net and no public education system. Oh, wait... That is as simplistic an answer as me saying you would be happier with a soviet style government. You certainly do not want to be modeling anything on the DMV solution to anything. It is simply taxation and bureaucracy with virtually no benefit. That is BAOs solution to the "gun problem" Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell, why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be standards for anything. In California, you do not even have to be a legal resident to get a drivers license. Why do we need such a huge empire for such a should be simple process. Gee, Bilious, I haven't found it anything other than simple to get or renew a license or register a car or boat trailer. Why is the process not simple for you? Never said was complicated. Said why do we need such a huge empire for a simple process. |
Trump Seals His Fate
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/3/15 12:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:55:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/3/15 11:52 AM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:02:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Right, because everyone knows there is no reason for the licensing of auto drivers or the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Hell, why insist that anyone in a profession be licensed, or that there be standards for anything. The "licensing" of drivers is a joke. What does proving that you could parallel park a car when you were 16 have to do with your ability at 80? Titling of cars gets pretty silly when the car gets old. Boats are even sillier. I can understand that if you have $200,000 boat, it might make sense to track ownership somehow. When it is a 12' jon boat, maybe worth $200 it is just stupid. The same thing is true of a 10 year old car. I have said this before and I will repeat it. The whole process should be handled by the insurance companies who have all of the skin in the game and the computer systems to handle the processes nation wide. If insurance companies issued tags and owned them, uninsured motorists would quickly become a thing of the past. Bad drivers would be identified and revoked quicker too. You wouldn't have people walking around with licenses from 2 or 3 states. The police would still have the same computer access they have now and the databases would have a better chance of being right. Please, enough silly libertarianism for one day, eh? Why don't you debate the points? Why shouldn't "DMV" functions be managed by insurance companies? They are the ones with the skin in the game. They pay out the claims for bad drivers and the claims for stolen cars. What else is there? They have already demonstrated that they can track these things better than 51 state governments (including DC) I'm sure the insurance companies would handle that about as well as they have handled health care insurance, as in screw over everyone with exorbitant fees and denial of services. What is insurance? Sharing of risk. Why should an insurance company issue insurance to someone when they are sick? Can you get fire insurance for your house after it burns? |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:12:57 -0400,
wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. === There's no way to enforce private sales other than entrapment tactics. Those take a lot of man power and are on legally shaky ground - a very high price for marginal results. That's not how I want my tax money spent. If they are really interested, it is not that hard to pick the low fruit. You could go after the dealers who do most of their business with straw purchasers and the people who transport these weapons. ATF knows what the last legal sale was and when that dealer pops up too often, they could start there. When you start piling up 5 and 10 year sentences on the table, those dealers will cooperate. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 19:59:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Some states (about 13 of them) have *state* laws that require a *state* issued license or permit in order to own or have a firearm in your possession. (California is not one of them, BTW) Having a firearm in your possession *without* the required license or permit in those states is considered illegal possession of a firearm. I posted a link previously that listed those states and the penalties for violations in each of the respective states. The penalties range from one to two years in jail and a fine for first offense. And I pointed out, all of that bureaucracy did not really make anyone any safer. Some of the most dangerous cities in the country are in those states. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 20:43:38 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? Could it be that *enforcement* is the problem? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. You could have purchased it legally, but then met requirements to get rid of your weapons. Convicted of a felony, domestic violence, not a felony, etc. not a Constitutional violation. Just enforcement of laws governing who can possess a firearm. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 20:53:26 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 20:43:38 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? Could it be that *enforcement* is the problem? Didn't you know, news people are above the law. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:17:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/3/2015 8:36 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. Man, has this discussion gone off topic. Maybe my fault for not being more precise in what I've been yapping about. Yes. Your original statement left a big loophole. To answer your question (above) ... in some states ... including mine ... you cannot legally purchase, own or have in your possession a gun *unless* you have a state issued permit to own a firearm. Nothing to do with federal law. If you own or have in your possession a firearm but do *not* have a state issued permit, you are subject to arrest, jail and/or fine. Is that clear enough? Very. That doesn't mean agreement with your state. I suppose the next question is, "well how does law enforcement know you have a gun but no permit". Doesn't matter. It's still illegal in some states. But, suppose you decide to go to a firing range to practice and you get pulled over for some traffic violation. The cop notices the gun case you have your gun stored in and asks if you have any guns or weapons in the car. You answer honestly and he runs a check to see if you have a permit for it. If you don't ... you are subject to arrest. A good reason to put guns in the trunk. A couple of years ago I was driving a old car that I had just purchased that needed brakes. I was on my way to the guitar shop and as I approached an intersection the light turned yellow. One of those cases where you have to make a quick decision to stop or go through it. Rather than brake hard with grinding brakes and because the intersection was otherwise clear, I proceeded through it.... right in front of a MA state trooper who must have just graduated from the academy. Still had pimples. He pulled me over. First time in almost 40 years that I had been stopped for a moving traffic violation. I was carrying that day because I had quite a bit of cash on me for the shop. Put both of my hands on the top section of the steering wheel as recommended by gun safety instructors and the NRA. He must have noticed that because his first question was, "Do you have any guns or weapons". Told him yes, I had a Walther pistol in a holster on my right hip and that I was licensed for concealed carry. He ran a check on me from his cruiser and all was fine ... except the damn $100 ticket for failure to stop. Now, if I had the gun on me but no state license, I would have been arrested. That's my point. Again, your original statement was, "...but the majority of the states don't have any laws to enforce." The story above doesn't support that point. If I am caught carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia, and I don't have a permit, then I am in violation of the law. I'm guessing that's the law in most states. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. If lawbreakers can break the law with impunity, they'll do so. More laws don't help. Enforcement of existing laws might do so. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
Luddite says.
".OMG. Tell you what Bill. *Don't worry about it. *In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:03:58 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. *Don't worry about it. *In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. The appropriate regulations exist. They are not enforced. You make a good point. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/15 9:03 AM, True North wrote:
Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Don't worry about it. In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. We have an insane patchwork of state-by-state firearms laws. In Maryland, where I live, I can directly transfer or buy a non-regulated long rifle or shotgun to or from another individual without even an instant background check, and the transfer is instantaneous. But if I buy a rifle from a dealer, he runs the instant background check and then hands over the firearm. Handguns are regulated. That means in this state you have to go through a background check and wait seven days for the state police to give its approval. There's no rational reason for the difference in transferring long guns and handguns. In Virginia, it is even more bizarre. When I sold a SIG semi-auto pistol I owned to a Virginia buyer, I called the state police to find out what the procedure was. For two Virginia residents, there was no procedure...just sell it and hand it over, no checks involved. But I was out of state, and even at that, the state police told me they really didn't care, since the state was awash in handgun transfers. Well, I wanted an official paper trail, so I arranged for a Virginia FFL to handle the transfer for a few bucks. At Virginia gunshows, there are individuals walking around carrying firearms they will sell to you, on an individual to individual basis. No instant background check, no waiting period. That's part of the gunshow loophole that Johnnymop Herring says doesn't exist but, of course, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 8:52 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:17:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:36 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. Man, has this discussion gone off topic. Maybe my fault for not being more precise in what I've been yapping about. Yes. Your original statement left a big loophole. To answer your question (above) ... in some states ... including mine ... you cannot legally purchase, own or have in your possession a gun *unless* you have a state issued permit to own a firearm. Nothing to do with federal law. If you own or have in your possession a firearm but do *not* have a state issued permit, you are subject to arrest, jail and/or fine. Is that clear enough? Very. That doesn't mean agreement with your state. I suppose the next question is, "well how does law enforcement know you have a gun but no permit". Doesn't matter. It's still illegal in some states. But, suppose you decide to go to a firing range to practice and you get pulled over for some traffic violation. The cop notices the gun case you have your gun stored in and asks if you have any guns or weapons in the car. You answer honestly and he runs a check to see if you have a permit for it. If you don't ... you are subject to arrest. A good reason to put guns in the trunk. A couple of years ago I was driving a old car that I had just purchased that needed brakes. I was on my way to the guitar shop and as I approached an intersection the light turned yellow. One of those cases where you have to make a quick decision to stop or go through it. Rather than brake hard with grinding brakes and because the intersection was otherwise clear, I proceeded through it.... right in front of a MA state trooper who must have just graduated from the academy. Still had pimples. He pulled me over. First time in almost 40 years that I had been stopped for a moving traffic violation. I was carrying that day because I had quite a bit of cash on me for the shop. Put both of my hands on the top section of the steering wheel as recommended by gun safety instructors and the NRA. He must have noticed that because his first question was, "Do you have any guns or weapons". Told him yes, I had a Walther pistol in a holster on my right hip and that I was licensed for concealed carry. He ran a check on me from his cruiser and all was fine ... except the damn $100 ticket for failure to stop. Now, if I had the gun on me but no state license, I would have been arrested. That's my point. Again, your original statement was, "...but the majority of the states don't have any laws to enforce." The story above doesn't support that point. If I am caught carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia, and I don't have a permit, then I am in violation of the law. I'm guessing that's the law in most states. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Concealed carry is a different ballgame. Wiki has a comprehensive list of the laws for all 50 states. Most states require a permit for concealed carry. It appears that only the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York are currently the only states that require a permit or license to own a gun at all. Nothing to do with concealed carry. New York requires it for handguns only. DC, MA and IL require a permit, license or FOID for both handguns and long guns. Note that a permit to purchase is different than a license to own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 9:03 AM, True North wrote:
Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Don't worry about it. In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. The foundation of our form of government emphasizes state rights, not the federal government and for the most part it works well. Times change though and sometimes a unified approach to laws is necessary or at least desirable. I think health care is one and gun laws is another. Back in the 1800's nobody was concerned about traveling from state to state packing a gun. Now-a-days, due to the myriad state laws that govern guns and spotty reciprocal agreements what is legal to do in your state may toss you in jail in the next state. It's impossible for me to legally travel from MA to South Carolina or Florida with a gun in my car. Federal law says I can but several state laws between here and there say I can't. This is one of the situations where I think a federal law should apply to unify the state laws. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not enforced? If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a bunch of folks? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:56:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 9:03 AM, True North wrote: Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Don't worry about it. In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. The foundation of our form of government emphasizes state rights, not the federal government and for the most part it works well. Times change though and sometimes a unified approach to laws is necessary or at least desirable. I think health care is one and gun laws is another. Back in the 1800's nobody was concerned about traveling from state to state packing a gun. Now-a-days, due to the myriad state laws that govern guns and spotty reciprocal agreements what is legal to do in your state may toss you in jail in the next state. It's impossible for me to legally travel from MA to South Carolina or Florida with a gun in my car. Federal law says I can but several state laws between here and there say I can't. This is one of the situations where I think a federal law should apply to unify the state laws. Maybe a solution would be to mandate the enforcement of federal law at the state level. Oh wait, then the 'sanctuary cities' would be out of business. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not enforced? If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a bunch of folks? That's what is so wacky about some of the state gun laws. For example, my "Class A" permit in Massachusetts allows just about anything other than machine guns. Concealed carry and large capacity magazines for both handguns and rifles are included with this permit. However, a different MA law does not allow large capacity magazines for anything. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds, max. So, what's the point in having a permit that makes it legal to have a large capacity magazine if the state won't allow you to have one? It's stupid. What is needed is unified gun laws at the federal level. There's no rational reason in the world why anyone needs a 100-round drum magazine in this day and age. Ban them and their manufacture for gun hobbyist everywhere. Sorry to give you morning heartburn. :-) |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 10:24 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:56:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 9:03 AM, True North wrote: Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Don't worry about it. In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. The foundation of our form of government emphasizes state rights, not the federal government and for the most part it works well. Times change though and sometimes a unified approach to laws is necessary or at least desirable. I think health care is one and gun laws is another. Back in the 1800's nobody was concerned about traveling from state to state packing a gun. Now-a-days, due to the myriad state laws that govern guns and spotty reciprocal agreements what is legal to do in your state may toss you in jail in the next state. It's impossible for me to legally travel from MA to South Carolina or Florida with a gun in my car. Federal law says I can but several state laws between here and there say I can't. This is one of the situations where I think a federal law should apply to unify the state laws. Maybe a solution would be to mandate the enforcement of federal law at the state level. Ah, so maybe you are open to a unified federal law that governs all states. We'll make a liberal out of you yet! :-) |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:51:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not enforced? If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a bunch of folks? That's what is so wacky about some of the state gun laws. For example, my "Class A" permit in Massachusetts allows just about anything other than machine guns. Concealed carry and large capacity magazines for both handguns and rifles are included with this permit. However, a different MA law does not allow large capacity magazines for anything. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds, max. So, what's the point in having a permit that makes it legal to have a large capacity magazine if the state won't allow you to have one? It's stupid. What is needed is unified gun laws at the federal level. There's no rational reason in the world why anyone needs a 100-round drum magazine in this day and age. Ban them and their manufacture for gun hobbyist everywhere. Sorry to give you morning heartburn. :-) Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:54:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:24 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:56:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 9:03 AM, True North wrote: Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Don't worry about it. In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. The foundation of our form of government emphasizes state rights, not the federal government and for the most part it works well. Times change though and sometimes a unified approach to laws is necessary or at least desirable. I think health care is one and gun laws is another. Back in the 1800's nobody was concerned about traveling from state to state packing a gun. Now-a-days, due to the myriad state laws that govern guns and spotty reciprocal agreements what is legal to do in your state may toss you in jail in the next state. It's impossible for me to legally travel from MA to South Carolina or Florida with a gun in my car. Federal law says I can but several state laws between here and there say I can't. This is one of the situations where I think a federal law should apply to unify the state laws. Maybe a solution would be to mandate the enforcement of federal law at the state level. Ah, so maybe you are open to a unified federal law that governs all states. We'll make a liberal out of you yet! :-) If the law is there, it should be enforced or discarded. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com