On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 13:02:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


So if I rob 3 banks in 2 states, crossing 4 state lines (just to show
how easy it is) and turn the money over to the cops I get to walk
away?

Do you work for CNN?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 10/4/2015 12:51 PM, 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.

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?



You can make that case if the gun was purchased after the permit law
was passed.
You are talking about making an ex post facto law applying to
something that was purchased before the law was passed.


To the best of my knowledge and based on conversations with other MA gun
owners, if you are old enough to have obtained a firearm before the
permit to own law took effect (1998, I think), you are still required
to obtain a permit to own. You are given some period of time to do so.
I've read also that if you inherit a firearm and do not
have a permit to own, you have a 60 grace period to get the permit.

On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

On 10/4/2015 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


So if I rob 3 banks in 2 states, crossing 4 state lines (just to show
how easy it is) and turn the money over to the cops I get to walk
away?



How do you know that CNN didn't notify law enforcement of what they were
doing and for what purpose?

I don't know that they did or didn't. All I know is the purpose of the
documentary was to demonstrate how easy it was and that the purchased
firearms were turned over to law enforcement afterwards.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



If a federal law exists, then it should be enforced. But, overall I don't think we're
saying the same thing.

You seem to feel that every state should have the same laws as your state. I
disagree.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 10/4/2015 3:06 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.



If a federal law exists, then it should be enforced. But, overall I don't think we're
saying the same thing.



You seem to feel that every state should have the same laws as your state. I
disagree.

Not at all. MA has some of the screwiest and contradictory gun laws in
the country. I'd like to see them simplified, cleaned up and
de-politicalized. MA is the only state in the nation that does not
recognize any other state permits and does not have reciprocal
agreements with any other state. But, it's not the only state with
screwed up laws that are out of sync with both federal laws or other
state's laws.

The answer, to me, is to have a common, federal law that applies to all
states. That's going to take some compromise here and there.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===

Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:49:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


So if I rob 3 banks in 2 states, crossing 4 state lines (just to show
how easy it is) and turn the money over to the cops I get to walk
away?



How do you know that CNN didn't notify law enforcement of what they were
doing and for what purpose?

I don't know that they did or didn't. All I know is the purpose of the
documentary was to demonstrate how easy it was and that the purchased
firearms were turned over to law enforcement afterwards.


===

The Feds should have arrested the sellers at the very least, and
perhaps a stern warning to the news team might have been in order.

On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.

On 10/4/15 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law
should apply, not 50 different state laws.

===



Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is
also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out
west would disagree.


Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous.
I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized
by all states should be the ruling factor.

I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have
grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary.
Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with
a gun would ever become a problem.






"States rights" is little more than a loaded term that gives cover to
those who oppose gay marriage, racial desegregation, and the ability of
minorities and students to vote.