Face to face handgun purchase...legal?

[deadin]

You have it backwards. The will of the people means nothing if it goes against the constitution.

Say what? The "will of the people" can change the Constitution, or at least the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are merely the first 10 Amendments and are not any more sacrosanct then the rest and are subject to change by the "will of the people". Check out Prohibition. The
"will of the people" voted it in and the "will of the people" voted it out.

 

[brickeyee]

"all mail transactions dont have to involve an FFL. you can mail interstate. in some states at least"


Wrong, wrong.
You can not transfer a firearm intERstate without an FFL on at least the buyers end.

You may be able to transfer a gun intRAstate depending onthe states laws.

What a differnece a few letters make!

 

[joab]

Prohibition was repealed because it was a miserable failure not because of the will of the people

It takes votes in congress to change the constitution and that has never depended on the will of the people.

If congress gave a damn about the will of the people they would not be trying to force gun laws down our throats that the people have made their opposition to loudly clear

Congress acts on what they think is for the good of the people not what they know to be the will of the people.

Your analogy also fails in the fact that prohibition was a constitutional amendment which was against the will of the people, as the lawlessness of the thirteen years that followed fully demonstrated.

 

[Red Grant]

I suggest that a right that you retain only so long as the majority wants you to have it isn't worth calling a right.

Is it possible for you to have a right worthy of being called a right by you, even though the majority doesn't want you to have it in a democracy(even in the form of constitutional republic)?



Questions:



1. Who gets to decide what rights an individual is going to have in a democracy in the ultimate logical sense (not in a more or less procedural sense)?


2. Do the consitutionally defined majority have the right to abolish RKBA for an individual in a democracy in the ultimate logical sense?


3. Does an individual have an obligation to comply (even if he strongly disagrees with it)with the legal demands made by the consititutionally defined majority (whether directly or through their representatives or the judges)?

 

[blume357]

I found it really silly that the guy above reported that most

illegal gun purchase in NYC were the result of a straw purchase from out of state. Where did he get this information? I bet I know....

Don't believe what they tell you.

face to face transactions are legal in most states. If you want to play the government's game with a background check...then just get an FFL. then you will have to.
I like to do a receipt and know the person I'm buying from. Have no plans to sell a gun, ever. So, that makes things easier.

Oh and buy the way... you can be a resident of more than one state according to the ATF. As I understand it, I am a resident of both S.C and N.C.

 

[Red Grant]

Prohibition was repealed because it was a miserable failure not because of the will of the people.

Why was the Prohibition a miserable failure?


Was it because people were not willing to comply with it?


or


Was it because people were willing to comply with it?

It takes votes in congress to change the constitution and that has never depend on the will of the people.

If so, then what do the votes in congress to change the constitution depend on?

If congress gave a damn about the will of the people they would not be trying to force gun laws down our throats that the people have made their opposition to loudly clear.

If the congress doesn't give a damn about the will of the people, then how do the members of the congress get elected?

Congress acts on what they think is the good of the people not what they know to be the will of the people

Congress acts on what they think will get them elected, not necessarily for the actual good of the people of their districts, whatever it may happen to be.

...but they will always act on, or at least pretend to act on the perceived good of the people in their districts, and the people will demand the perceived good.

 

[deadin]

It takes votes in congress to change the constitution and that has never depended on the will of the people.

And just who elects those in Congress that casts the votes?

If a Congressman defies the will of his constituents, on a subject that they really care about, he will find himself out of a job. Herein lies the problem. Pro-gun is not at the top of the list for the majority of voters. There are too many other issues that distract them from what we consider a #1 item. Example: Your choice is a candidate that stands for strong “closed-border” laws, but is also anti-gun. His opponent is just the opposite, pro-gun and open borders. Pick one. You can’t have both. I know, I know, you will find one that stands for closed borders and is pro-gun. Now add in all of the other planks that are in a candidates platform and finding one that agrees 100% with your individual beliefs is nearly impossible. (And even if you did, finding enough other voters that feel exactly the same as you to get the guy elected would be quite a task.) So it boils down to compromise and what you can live with. (Or in many cases what you find intolerable, but still have to live with.)

If congress gave a damn about the will of the people they would not be trying to force gun laws down our throats that the people have made their opposition to loudly clear.

Congress “gives a damn” about what they perceive as the will of the majority of the people. If they are wrong, they will find out about at election time.

Congress acts on what they think is for the good of the people not what they know to be the will of the people.

If they know the will of the people and act against it, the "people" will let them know at the next election. Otherwise this is exactly what I elected my Congressmen to do.

BTW: To add, change or delete an Amendment also requires ratification by the individual States, so there is a second chance for the “will of the people” to be heard. (Or is it all just a conspiracy )

 

[joab]

The problem with this analogy is that you forget what all politicians will always remember.
The voting public is easily manipulated into believing whatever is best for the politician and incumbents have the edge most of the time Kerry and Kennedy have proven that.

Your views are nicely taught high school lessons that have little bearing in the real world.

Politicians do not even know what the will of the people is only what the pollsters tell them is the will of the people.

But as I said the will of the people is second to the constitution.
If you believe that the antis can get a 2/3 vote to repeal the second I don't know what to tell you, except it ain't gonna happen

 

[Bud Helms]

Red Grant, check your Private Messages.

 

[deadin]

If you believe that the antis can get a 2/3 vote to repeal the second I don't know what to tell you, except it ain't gonna happen

I agree with you on this, I don't think it is going to happen either. However I also don't think we will reach the dreamed of utopia that many on these boards seem think should happen, which is totally unregulated firearms ownership. If a referendum were run tomorrow that had only two choices: 1. Firearms allowed with regulation, or
2. No firearms regulations at whatsoever. I'm afraid that if you believe that the "will of the people" (i.e. majority)would support #2, I think you'd better increase your scope of the "people". Taking a poll of members of this board, or even of your friends is not going to give a true picture of the "will of the people". Many people are "single issue" voters (not just RKBA folks). If a candidate that supports their "single issue" also happens to support 2nd Amendment rights, so much the better. But 2nd Amendment is not necessarily more important to them then whatever their particular issue is. This is one of the reasons many are turned off by the Libertarian platform. Yes, they're pro-gun but there are other planks that many don't like. You have to look at the whole package and make a decision of what you can live with.

Politicians do not even know what the will of the people is only what the pollsters tell them is the will of the people

Congress acts on what they think is for the good of the people not what they know to be the will of the people.

Not to be picky, but you're starting to contradict yourself.
They either know, or they think they know. Big difference.

 

[joab]

Actually no I was contradicting your assertion that congress acts on what they know the will of the people.
They don't act on what they know or don't know to be the will of the people because they don't even know what the will of the people is, but they certainly know what the will of the special interest groups are

However I also don't think we will reach the dreamed of utopia that many on these boards seem think should happen, which is totally unregulated firearms ownership.

I don't think anyone here believes that.
However they do believe, because recent history has taught us, that compromise leads only to more restrictions while aggressively fighting for our rights gives us more concessions.

In the past gun owners accepted these compromises believing that it would appease the grabbers. We know now that this isn't true, now it's their turn to compromise.
As gun groups get more aggressive in flexing their political muscle we get more CCW reciprocations, favorable self defense laws and expired AWBs.
Under the compromise agendas of yesterday we got the AWB and Morton Grove not to mention FFL losing their livleyhood and the Great Capitulation between Clinton and S&W and Bill Ruger's treason

 

[Musketeer]

I found it really silly that the guy above reported that most

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

illegal gun purchase in NYC were the result of a straw purchase from out of state. Where did he get this information? I bet I know....

Don't believe what they tell you.

I would be that silly guy from above and I stand by my statement. It is easy enough to prove though. The NYCPD runs the history on every gun they confiscate and it is easy to deduce if it is in this state legally or not. Every handgun in NY must be registerred, it cannot be sold face to face without being recorded with the state. It cannot be brought into the state except through an FFL.

The handguns used in crimes in NYC come from one of three categories...

1.) Legally owned handguns used in an illegal manner (the SMALLEST category by far).

2.) Handguns brought into the state and owned legally but then stolen (also a fairly small number).

3.) Handguns brought into the state illegally. (The biggest group.)

This is easy enough to prove, simply track the guns recoverred from crimes and if they are not registerred already (groups 1 and 2) then they by default are in group three. It has been very easy to track large quantities of handguns recoverred from criminals in NYC to gun stores in states such as VA. When one store sells 20+ weapons that show up in crimes hundreds of miles away where they are illegal to posses it does not take Albert Einstein to figure out that someone is buying them down there, driving them up to NYC, and selling them in NYC. If someone buys a gun from a dealer with the intent of selling it to another not allowed to own it it is a STRAW PURCHASE.

I though, unlike Bloomberg, do not blame the dealers for this. It is not up to the dealer to read the mind of the purchaser. Those people who purchased the weapons though should be taken to task as to what happenned to them. With a Face to Face transaction being legal woth no requireemnt of background check or documentation though how on earth do you proove the person who bought the gun legally did not immediatly "sell" it to "Soem guy, I don't know his name" who then took it elsewhere illegally?


I do not like how NY handles guns. I despise how Bloomberg and NYC treat lawfull gun owners. At the same time I would be less than honest if I did not admit that NYC can easily proove they have a problem with guns coming into the city illegally.

 

[orionengnr]

The plain truth of the matter is the vast majority of people in this nations see no reason why someone buying a gun should not go through a background check.

The plain truth?
Vast majority?

Sources, please?

 

[rem33]

Ya'll worry to durn much

I do my best to keep legal and could care less what others think.
In this state it is legal selling guns person to person and we can put ads in the newspaper to buy or sell I have done both buy and sell. If I am buying cash I want a receipt. If I am selling I could care less if you want a receipt or not. Personally I see no reason for ANYONE else to be involved.
Its a product that can be dangerous but for Pete's sake you can kill or maim with a baseball bat or a common screwdriver do you need regulations for those or maybe a sharp stick. Why don't we all stop being brainwashed by the media, get on with enforcing laws we already have and get over it. In fact many on the books now should be abolished IMHO.

I feel for you guys that live in such restrictive areas I read about on here.

I agree with the vast majority idea. It is not my job to keep you legal that is your responsibility. When you break the law your held responsible for your actions or should be but it seems it's always someone else's fault. How does it keep illegal items out of lawbreakers hands to restrict those of us that try to stay within the law?