US gun law reforms

The 2nd ammendment is suppose to guarantee you can keep your guns....not me.

Again we are talking about background checks. I'm not wanting anything but background checks. Thats for all transfers.

Your already doing the same background checks at FFL dealers......you dont think thats a record?? LOL lets ge real.

So you dont buy guns from FFl's because there is a record being kept??
 
Records are not kept. They are disposed off after a time period.

Sir you are very at ease with the possibilities which is your right. I am not however. Every firearm i own i have went through a background check to own. Im a law abiding citizen. Your point is im assuming because it seems reasonable we have nothing to concerned about. With the current methodology laws are being passed which means our lawmakers are passing bills without reading them i dont feel its reasonable at all.

Respectfully
JR
 
Plumbnut, But here is where you are in the "unknowingly supporting a registry of firearms" camp...

You must be wise enough to realize that if you want to make it illegal to do FTF transfers than you must keep a record of the last time that firearm was legally transferred so you would know who illegally sold it to an eligible or ineligible person via a face to face transfer without a background check...

Hence, you must keep a log of all transfers or the law is toothless...

Sorry but I told you it wasn't a subject you would do well debating...

A gun registry is expressly forbidden by law!!!

Brent
 
There's no debate. Background checks on transfers is a matter if time.

Watch and see. Like it or not. That's your right

I happen to support it and as an American that is also my right.
 
The 2nd ammendment is suppose to guarantee you can keep your guns....not me.

Again we are talking about background checks. I'm not wanting anything but background checks. Thats for all transfers.

Your already doing the same background checks at FFL dealers......you dont think thats a record?? LOL lets ge real.

So you dont buy guns from FFl's because there is a record being kept??
Click to expand...

"TRANSFERS" is one of the words in the Toomey-Manchin Amendment that scared the bejeezus out of us. They didn't use "transfer of ownership", simply "transfer". It then went on to say if you are away from your gun for 7 days the gun will transfer to whoever is there.

What in the Hell does that mean???????

One poster thought it meant if he went on a 7 day business trip, the gun automatically transferred (ownership??) to his wife. Making both of them felons !!!!

It's when we hear: "reasonable", "transfer", "sporting", "I don't want to take your guns" that we get our guard up.

These are all anti-gun code words, and you seem to use them a lot.

Here's a hint. If you expect plain language from a Democrat, listen to his verbal promises. But don't expect plain language in any bill he writes.

The authors of Obamacare are still trying to figure out what it means, and they wrote it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Records are not kept. They are disposed off after a time period.
Click to expand...

That's what the law says. But in the last 12 months ATF agents have been going around to FFLs and photographing those ledgers. That's the government making a record - to keep.

At this point nothing they say is "reasonable", and we are stubbornly anti to all they say.
 
Gloating about the demise of our 2A rights is just well surprising. After all this where it begins. Cant you see that?

Many on capitol hill would love to confiscate all guns. Not a delusion. Its a fact voiced loudly. In the upcoming elections if the balance changes much you will indeed get your wish and much much more.

Respectfully
JR
 
Last edited:
Some overlooked downsides...

Ok, we have "instant" background checks from all FFL dealers, right? The sale cannot proceed until you clear the check. Delays/denials, you don't get the gun.

Appeals take time. For those of us who have guns already, its an inconvienience. For someone who feels threatened, it may be life or death. Court orders "restaining" someone who seriously wishes you harm are notoriously ineffective.

We AGREED to accept "instant" background checks, to avoid a mandatory waiting period. Not to guarantee felons, etc couldn't get guns, but so that those of us who have done nothing wrong would not have to wait days (usually 3-5) before beingable to take possession of what we bought.

Nobody seem to remember that these days.

And for those of you who ponder such things, how do we know that, on alternate tuesdays, in 16 random states, every purchaser who's name ends in "xyz" isn't being denied?

It would only be the indiviuals affected, right? And they could appeal, and eventually get their guns, right? System glitch, so sorry....
 
Plumbnut said:
Well at least you agree more effective background checks would help stop some gun crimes. Its a stretch to say people will use other more deadly weapons because of more effective background checks.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's any stretch at all. If a person wants to kill other people, he/she will use whatever tool(s) available. If he/she can't buy a gun, he/she will build a bomb, use a knife or an axe or a machete, or drive a car into a crowd of people on a sidewalk.

There was a recent case of a guy of middle eastern ethnicity (living in Arizona, I believe) who thought his daughter was becoming too westernized. She actually had a (gasp!) boyfriend. So he followed her and the boyfriend's mother one day when they went shopping, and ran them down with his car. He was captured after he fled to Mexico and was trying to fly back to his native country.

The fact he didn't have a gun -- regardless of the reason -- didn't help his daughter or the boyfriend's mother. You are buying into the anti-gunners' mantra of demonizing the tool so they can avoid addressing the actual problem, which is dealing with people who want to kill other people.
 
However, unless they can be proven to be a deterrent to crime, I don't see any reason to support them. They represent unnecessary meddling.
Click to expand...
If someone wants a firearm enough they can get one illegally. But that would be illegal and there would be a penalty if they were caught. I think there is a difference if someone illegally obtained a firearm and governments not putting systems in place to stop individuals that shouldn't have a firearm getting one legally. They have checks here and the thought of some individuals here legally being able to get firearms with no checks sends shivers down my back.
 
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/

Look at those stats, from a poll of convicts, who know where they got their guns better than anyone else.

If you don't believe convicts themselves, try this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

It's from PBS, but think about what it's saying... criminals get their guns primarily from a few sources:

Straw sales (with the gun dealer unaware that it's a straw purchase). There's no way to prevent that, if the criminal has a friend who has a clean record.

Shady dealings by FFLs. Again, background checks have no effect, because FFLs are already required to conduct background checks (or equivalent) prior to transfers.

Other methods of acquiring firearms include obtaining them from friends, or stealing them.

In that liberal (PBS) reporting of an ATF-sponsored report, there is not a single mention of private transfers, as in unsuspecting upstanding citizens selling to criminals.

Personally, I've never sold any firearms privately, but if I did I'd ask the buyer to bring one or two other guns, to demonstrate that they were able to acquire guns before, and that I'm not selling to someone who is desperate for a single gun with which to commit a crime. It seems like a good proxy for a background check to me. It avoids the hassle of a background check, and if the buyer ended up committing a crime with gun I sold him or her, at least I have the peace of mind that the buyer had other guns they could have committed the crime with, making my karmic (not legal) responsibility essentially nil.
 
Originally posted by manta49

If someone wants a firearm enough they can get one illegally. But that would be illegal and there would be a penalty if they were caught. I think there is a difference if someone illegally obtained a firearm and governments not putting systems in place to stop individuals that shouldn't have a firearm getting one legally. They have checks here and the thought of some individuals here legally being able to get firearms with no checks sends shivers down my back.
Click to expand...

What you say is true. But I could also apply the statement to: having children, being a teacher, owning animals, being a politician, drive a car, etc.

As far as I know, none of those require a background check either.
I always thought you needed one to be president, but I was proven wrong.

What if we insisted on background checks for every and any device or activity that could bring anyone harm? Why stop at guns? Hammers are very dangerous. So are cars and swimming pools.

Many dangerous items and activities in our society are routinely accepted. Yet gun owners are singled out for background checks, registration, confiscation, bans, etc.
 
Jnichols2,

You have to have a permit to build a swimming pool. Homeowners insurance costs more when you have a pool. You must have a fence around the pool.

See where I'm going?

Cars.....you have to have a drivers test to operate a car in public. Your required to have insurance to operate your car on public roads,
Your required to have a license in your pocket and a license plate on the car.
Your required to have your car checked for function in some states.

Get the point?

We are not talking about either but since you brought it up.

I dont see you jumping up and down about all those restrictions.....
 
Many dangerous items and activities in our society are routinely accepted. Yet gun owners are singled out for background checks, registration, confiscation, bans, etc.
Click to expand...

I am not saying it should happen in America. Personally I don't think it would make any difference in stopping mass shootings etc.
As far as checks go here it would be very difficult for a prohibited person as they are called here to legally get a firearm. Having a criminal record does not automatically prevent someone obtaining a firearm here it depends on the crime.

Some of the examples of how criminals obtain firearms in America could not happen here. Handguns for example a ballistic test is done so if the firearm was used for something it shouldn't be it would be traced back to the original owner. The firearms you own are on your certificate and are traceable to owner.

Example of a prohibited person. Anyone can take up shooting, and with it the opportunity to own their own firearms, unless they are a prohibited person, this, in short, is a person who has been imprisoned for a sentence of 3 or more years. Persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than 3 years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release.
 
yet no one is talking about banning cars,pools or hammers. what is the point?driving a car is not a constitutional right nor is owning a pool or possessing a hammer.

we are discussing a infringement on a constitutional right.

respectfully
JR
 
From manta:
"Handguns for example a ballistic test is done so if the firearm was used for something it shouldn't be it would be traced back to the original owner. The firearms you own are on your certificate and are traceable to owner."

New handguns purchased here have the same requirement. But if it's a reliable procedure, they can only trace it to the original owner. After that, then what?

What restrictions do you have in the UK for private sales?
 
It isn't difficult to alter the ballistic marks. Just because a new gun marks the bullet in a certain way does not mean it will always and only make those same marks. They aren't really like fingerprints.
 
New handguns purchased here have the same requirement. But if it's a reliable procedure, they can only trace it to the original owner. After that, then what?
Click to expand...

The ballistic test has to be done every time the handgun changes hands. You get a notification from the police to take it to the police they take it for testing.

What restrictions do you have in the UK for private sales?
Click to expand...

You would have to do the paper work . It would then have to go to the police firearms branch for approval. The owner would keep procession of the firearm until it was approved. The firearms make model and serial number would be put on your certificate. Only then could you take procession of the firearm sounds a lot but can usually be done in a couple of weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top