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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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!