I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[tyusclan]

I'll connect the dots for you...

A criminal can go to a private gun owner, and purchase a gun from him "legally"

NO, he canNOT! The very fact that he is attempting to purchase the gun is ILLEGAL.

That is to say that in most situations where criminals are using guns in crimes have used a legally way to purchase that gun. Not through a licensed dealer where a background check is required. But through a perfectly legal channel. You are right it's technically not legal... Thus the problem. Thank you for understanding and helping explain that point.

It is NOT 'technically' illegal and he is not going through a 'perfectly legal channel'. It simply IS illegal, and once again, just the fact that he is attempting to purchase a firearm is violation of the law.

I tell my kids all the time that what they do speaks so loudly that I can't hear what they're saying. You can claim to be a 'gun owner' all you want, but what you're advocating proves otherwise.

Nice touch throwing out shooting the 'Model 66', though. You're working hard to sound believable. Too bad for you it's not working.

 

[sambuh]

Modified by me... Due to a time waster here...

 

[cmort666]

So before you get your Damned panties all wadded up, figure out what I'm actually standing for.

It's pretty obvious what you're actually standing for.

Have you managed yet to think of a SINGLE example where anti-gun restrictions have been removed in exchange for concessions on the part of gun owners? Even ONE...?

 

[redlevel]

This is cute.

Go back, re read what I posted. Tell me what it is I stand for according to my recent posts. I'll wait to hear from you on that.

I'm not claiming to be a gun owner. The fact that I own quite a few pistols, a revolver, shotguns and rifles; not all SWs, three now, - would all buy indicate that I am in fact an owner of guns. Or in your words "a gun owner"

And I hate to break it to you. But because it is illegal, doesn't change the fact that it happens. And it happens more often than it doesn't. That's right. Let me spell it out for you so you don't have to think for yourself. What I stand for, and what I have been asking about since this post started was simply this -

We as gun owners, responsible or not, have the god given right to life. We are also then afforded tht right to defend the which we have been given by our creator, and also by the document on which our document was founded.

So then I ask, as a responsible gun owner, what are we to do with those who are skirting the system, by using a very legal means to purchase that which should be illegal. I merely suggested that "maybe", no not definitively, that a more stringent background check procedure is a way to cut down on gun crimes where, again, guns are purchased through a legal means. Again... More than 55% of crimes where guns are used by criminals were purchased in a way where nothing could be done.

I as a responsible gun owner, with kids, a home and family I stand to defend, cannot look at that and say, "BFD there is no answer, and I'm ok with doing nothing"

I then followed up that sentiment up by saying, "I'm not saying bg checks are the way. It is a way that makes sense to me"

So before you get your Damned panties all wadded up, figure out what I'm actually standing for. You, among a vast amount of others attached to this thread, look like a complete and total bigot arguing a point that was never brought up in the first place.

Pull it together and keep your eye on the ball. It's a crucial part of any level of intelligent discussion.

McBear, is that you??

 

[keith44spl]

Great question... Well in Virginia, we have a background check law. however i was at a gun show a. Few weeks back. nobody there is making anyone do a background check.

Clearly, you cannot make a case for legislating every single situation. However, you can look at the broader picture and create consensus, and smart law. For example, to your point; when speaking to gun crime, more that 65% of crimes committed, (according to the FBI/ATF) are with guns purchased privately. Do people steal guns? Yes. But more often than not, they actually don't. They buy them. They pay private, non licensed dealers, cash for weapons. In fact less than 13% of guns are stolen.

A background check, efficient and accessible and thorough, would not eradicate gun crime. But rather make it far more difficult. Take California and Hawaii as an example. A couple of the lowest crime rate with a gun, both require background checks for all sales. Both are also near the bottom in abstract crime rates as well.

I do however see the point being made, give an inch and watch them take a mile. While I would like to see a universal background check in place, I'm not sure I trust our legislators to make the right decision.

Sir,

As an Law Enforcement Officer, I must ask;

Did you witness a felony firearm transaction?

Did you personally assist directly or indirectly in the above self discribed transaction(s)?

Did you know personally, any person or persons directly or indirectly involved in the discribed
transaction(s) or have any knowledge of violation(s) of state or federal law?

Did you report the above discribed illegal activity that you observed to the proper authorities?



.

 

[redlevel]

Sir,

As an Law Enforcement Officer, I must ask;

Did you witness a felony firearm transaction?

Did you personally assist directly or indirectly in the above self discribed transaction(s)?

Did you know personally, any person or persons directly or indirectly involved in the discribed
transaction(s) or have any knowledge of violation(s) of state or federal law?

Did you report the above discribed illegal activity that you observed to the proper authorities?



.

Those are very good questions. You have implied to me twice that you saw FFL dealers selling without conducting a background check. Is this what you meant to imply? No meandering or circumlocution . . . . did you or did you not witness FFL dealers selling without a background check?

Also, your foolishness about criminals procuring guns "through otherwise legal channels" is just that--so much foolishness. The analogy is an eighth grader stealing his Grandpap's Lortabs, obtained by Granddad through legal channels, and pedaling them to classmates on the playground. Certainly not legal, and the eighth grader certainly didn't gain possession of the hydrocodone through "otherwise legal channels."

More and more you are reminding me of former member McBear who left here under less than honorable conditions a while back. He was condescending, slick with words, self-important, and most of all, he was wrong.

 

[keith44spl]

Those are very good questions. You have implied to me twice that you saw FFL dealers selling without conducting a background check. Is this what you meant to imply? No meandering or circumlocution . . . . did you or did you not witness FFL dealers selling without a background check?

redlevel,

I agree...If someone witnesses a felony and does not report it to the proper authorities....

They are a greater part of the problem than the perp, we'll eventually catch the perp....It's those witnessess that are diffcult to encourage to come forward.


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[bushmaster1313]

Hey Boys...I had to go back and see who started this thread....

To all y'all that's been hangin around here a while...And you know who y'all are.

Where'd all these pecker-woods come from? The Brady Bunch?

Well excuse me.
I am not calling people names because they disagree with my opinion.

If you think that violent felons and the insane should be allowed to buy guns - then no background check is the way to go.

If you think that there should be some restrictions, background checks make sense.

They do, however, need to be quick and cheap, and New Jersey's background check system is currently busted.

 

[DeathGrip]

Well excuse me.
I am not calling people names because they disagree with my opinion.

I agree, Let's keep the name calling and jabs out of this otherwise enjoyable debate. It's not productive.

I don't agree with you on the subject and I won't call you names.

 

[rburg]

Way back in the 1700s some pretty darn intelligent men came up with a document. Then they added on 10 amendments. The idea was that Democracy is fine, but only within limits. They also felt a quick and simple majority could not impose their will on the rest of the country if it was in violation of the original principles the country was founded on. One of those was pretty clear. The government was not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. If you can't buy the arms, then you can't keep and bear them. Here you've got some extremely liberal coastal states trying to push legislation that would significantly restrict the ability of many people to keep and bear arms. I have no use for anyone who would agree with their ideas or goals. If you think the Federal government should pass legislation that ill advised, you have a very flawed thought process. You have become the enemy.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Here you've got some extremely liberal coastal states trying to push legislation that would significantly restrict the ability of many people to keep and bear arms.

How so?

It is already illegal for the "wrong" people (felons, etc.) to keep and bear arms.
How would universal background checks "significantly restrict the ability of many people to keep and bear arms?" A universal background check provides the means to enforce that law.

If you think the law restricting felons and the insane from having guns, you are entitled to your opinon, but that is a different debate.

The question on the table is whether existing restrictions should be enforced by means of a background check.

P.S. I am in favor of shall issue carry permits and against restrictions on "military style" weapons. I am also very glad that Heller and McDonald made it to the Supreme Court while there was still time.

 

[keith44spl]

Well excuse me.
I am not calling people names because they disagree with my opinion.

If you think that violent felons and the insane should be allowed to buy guns - then no background check is the way to go.

If you think that there should be some restrictions, background checks make sense.

They do, however, need to be quick and cheap, and New Jersey's background check system is currently busted.

Background checks do nothing to lessen criminal activity....

There's a reason it's called 'Criminal Activity' !

Criminals continue to ply their trade inside the 'Joint' as well as outside the penitentiary.

Making or obtaining weapons or firearms are all part of their illegal actities and criminal enterprize(s).

Of those indivuals that are now denied and or charged with felonies, for attempting to obtain firearms by falsifying a 4473 or other mis-representation of facts through a NCIC check,
I would hazard to say a very small percentage reach a grand jury, little on a trial date, in an already over burdened system.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree......Oh, by the way the south-western Colloquialism 'pecker-wood' - it's a motto....It just sez it's self and was not / wasn't directed at you.



.
May God Bless America

Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[bushmaster1313]

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree......Oh, by the way the south-western Colloquialism 'pecker-wood' - it's a motto....It just sez it's self and was not / wasn't directed at you.

If no offense meant then no offense taken.

May God Bless America

Sounds good to me...and boy do we need help now.

 

[keith44spl]

Bushmaster1313,

Instead of all us jawin' back and too,
we ought to be havin' a prayer meetin for our elected leaders.


Su Amigo,
Save

 

[cmort666]

If you think that violent felons and the insane should be allowed to buy guns - then no background check is the way to go.

Do you believe that they should be allowed to buy the following?

• knives
• automobiles
• poison
• rope
• hammers
• computers

After all violent felons and the insane use all of these things to kill.

If it saves one life...

 

[cmort666]

How so?

It is already illegal for the "wrong" people (felons, etc.) to keep and bear arms.
How would universal background checks "significantly restrict the ability of many people to keep and bear arms?" A universal background check provides the means to enforce that law.

And how will the authorities know that you DIDN'T run a background check for a face to face sale?

They WON'T... without REGISTRATION.

Registration has NO functions besides limiting current ownership and the facilitation of future confiscation. Anyone who's lived in Chicago in the last forty years can tell you that.

Either you support mandatory registration or you support a meaningless "requirement" for "universal" background checks.

Which is it you support?

An empty gesture or de facto bans and future confiscation?

 

[handejector]

I know some of you have addressed this, but I want to be perfectly clear on this point.

Because I'm not necessarily for any policy change as much as I am for addressing a clear and very present and very real problem; Let's start with the problem. More often than not guns are not stolen. Criminals legally obtain them. Let me reiterate that point. Criminals obtain guns legally. I think we can look at the data and agree, yes that is true.

However, there's a very real problem in this country that can be addressed. Criminals obtain guns legally.

I'll connect the dots for you...

A criminal can go to a private gun owner, and purchase a gun from him "legally"

That is to say that in most situations where criminals are using guns in crimes have used a legally way to purchase that gun.

You keep saying that.
Criminals?
What is a criminal? Is it a convicted felon?

A convicted felon cannot acquire, possess, own, or use a firearm.
Do I need to repeat that?
NO legal way.
They know that. They are well schooled on that.
NO way to do it LEGALLY.

That means that if my 13th cousin, Billyrayjoebob, that I grew up with and went to school with, is a convicted felon, I cannot even let him HANDLE a gun if he drops by my house. I know he is a felon, and I know he cannot possess a gun. If he asks what I did today, and I say I just got a new shotgun, he can't handle it. The moment I put it in his hand, he has committed ANOTHER felony. The moment I let go of it I have committed a felony because I'm aiding a person I know to be a convicted felon in possessing a firearm.
Period.
Words count.
The way you use them counts.

Once again, there is NO LEGAL way for a convicted felon to acquire or merely possess a gun.

Criminals?
So, we are back to defining a criminal.
The guy down on the corner allegedly selling dope may be a criminal, even a murderer, but he might pass a background check!
Remember, no convictions means he passes a background check.
How do we beat that?
Suspicions don't count. Rumors don't count. Heresay doesn't count. All rightly so. We don't ever want to reach the point where "suspicious activity" deprives us of any right. If we do, we will all be without rights shortly.

 

[PA Reb]

Wow, this thread lost me a long time ago! I need to ask one simple question. Here in PA. we have a mandatory background check when buying a handgun. There is no other legal way here in PA. to buy one. There's no such thing as a "face to face" sale, period. ALL sales must go through a person with an ATF license and a background check must take place. The cost of this check is I believe $5.00. This check was instituted years ago after the PA. State Police tried to create a registry. The courts told them a registry was against the law. This check, combined with all the info on the gun you are buying, is actually a backdoor to a registry - they created their registry anyway. Is it not like this in other states? Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun? Someone please set me straight on this once and for all.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun?

If the two people are from the same state the federal NICS check does not apply and it could be face to face if it complied with state law.

 

[cmort666]

Is it not like this in other states? Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun? Someone please set me straight on this once and for all.

There is no such requirement in Ohio, nor is there ever likely to be. We can see what happens with it in Pennsylvania. No thanks.

 

[M29since14]

Yes, it is legal here in Indiana with a few limitations. The buyer has to be a person that is not known to the seller to be excluded by law from buying a gun, has to be a resident of the State of Indiana, and must be 21-years or older. So I have been told. I have purchased a couple of revolvers from police officers and that is what they have told me. They usually ask to see my Indiana driver's license and my pistol permit. I always ask for a written bill of sale. Pretty simple. No involvement by Uncle Sam needed.

 

[redlevel]

Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun? Someone please set me straight on this once and for all.

I must have bought or sold or traded a dozen handguns face to face in the last three years in Georgia. It is perfectly legal as long as I have no reason to believe the person I am dealing with is not eligible to own a firearm. I usually show the person I am dealing with a GA DL and a GA Weapons License, and I like to see at least a GA DL, although it is not a necessity. The only papers required are the Benjamins to be exchanged for the gun.

 

[tyusclan]

This is cute.

Go back, re read what I posted. Tell me what it is I stand for according to my recent posts. I'll wait to hear from you on that.

I'm not claiming to be a gun owner. The fact that I own quite a few pistols, a revolver, shotguns and rifles; not all SWs, three now, - would all buy indicate that I am in fact an owner of guns. Or in your words "a gun owner"

And I hate to break it to you. But because it is illegal, doesn't change the fact that it happens. And it happens more often than it doesn't. That's right. Let me spell it out for you so you don't have to think for yourself. What I stand for, and what I have been asking about since this post started was simply this -

We as gun owners, responsible or not, have the god given right to life. We are also then afforded tht right to defend the which we have been given by our creator, and also by the document on which our document was founded.

So then I ask, as a responsible gun owner, what are we to do with those who are skirting the system, by using a very legal means to purchase that which should be illegal. I merely suggested that "maybe", no not definitively, that a more stringent background check procedure is a way to cut down on gun crimes where, again, guns are purchased through a legal means. Again... More than 55% of crimes where guns are used by criminals were purchased in a way where nothing could be done.

I as a responsible gun owner, with kids, a home and family I stand to defend, cannot look at that and say, "BFD there is no answer, and I'm ok with doing nothing"

I then followed up that sentiment up by saying, "I'm not saying bg checks are the way. It is a way that makes sense to me"

So before you get your Damned panties all wadded up, figure out what I'm actually standing for. You, among a vast amount of others attached to this thread, look like a complete and total bigot arguing a point that was never brought up in the first place.

Pull it together and keep your eye on the ball. It's a crucial part of any level of intelligent discussion.

The point all of us have been trying to make to you is that criminals do indeed buy guns illegally, and they do it everyday. Yes, they 'skirt the system' as you say. The problem with the (il)logic in your thinking is that if a universal background check system is put in place, they will still find a way to skirt the system. They will still purchase guns illegally.

Under current Florida law, if another Florida resident has a rifle, shotgun, or handgun for sale that I want to buy, I can meet that person face to face, pay him for the gun and take it home with me. No paperwork, no background check, and no problem. If you require a background check for even private gun sales, the criminal is still going to find a way to buy guns without it, and you're only going to make it more difficult for me and others like me, who want to follow the law, and aren't going to misuse the gun in the first place.

For the 137th time: Gun laws only restrict and hinder law-abiding people. They do nothing to hinder those who disregard the law already.

 

[handejector]

I must have bought or sold or traded a dozen handguns face to face in the last three years in Georgia. It is perfectly legal as long as I have no reason to believe the person I am dealing with is not eligible to own a firearm. I usually show the person I am dealing with a GA DL and a GA Weapons License, and I like to see at least a GA DL, although it is not a necessity. The only papers required are the Benjamins to be exchanged for the gun.

red,
Somebody who didn't know better might even call us a "freeman".

 

[bushmaster1313]

red,
Somebody who didn't know better might even call us a "freeman".

I am just shocked at all of this unabashed, unapologetic and downright enthusiastic exercise of liberty and freedom.

 

[tyusclan]

Are you telling me there are states where two people can actually just meet and buy / sell a handgun? Someone please set me straight on this once and for all.

No paperwork or background check is required for any private sale in Florida between two Florida residents. Rifle, shotgun, or handgun makes no difference. Two people meet, make the deal, shake hands, make the exchange, and go their merry ways. No muss, no fuss, and no problem.

 

[PA Reb]

There is no such requirement in Ohio, nor is there ever likely to be. We can see what happens with it in Pennsylvania. No thanks.

So, am I allowed to cross into Ohio, buy a gun under Ohio rules, and legally own that gun in PA? What happens if I decide to sell the gun off a year or so later here in PA? Once they do the background check (which like I said includes info on the gun) on the buyer and the serial number etc. goes in, does the gun show an owner who it was registered to at one time or another?

Another thing - we can't mail a gun to anyone. We have to take it to an FFL holder and they have to send it to another FFL holder. Is Ohio like that also?

 

[tyusclan]

red,
Somebody who didn't know better might even call us a "freeman".

And it seems to me that some have lived under tyranny for so long they think it's normal, and have forgotten what freedom smells like.

 

[PA Reb]

No paperwork or background check is required for any private sale in Florida between two Florida residents. Rifle, shotgun, or handgun makes no difference. Two people meet, make the deal, shake hands, make the exchange, and go their merry ways. No muss, no fuss, and no problem.

If the gun you sold is then used in the commission of a crime and the serial number run, who is the gun registered to?

 

[tyusclan]

So, am I allowed to cross into Ohio, buy a gun under Ohio rules, and legally own that gun in PA? What happens if I decide to sell the gun off a year or so later here in PA? Once they do the background check (which like I said includes info on the gun) on the buyer and the serial number etc. goes in, does the gun show an owner who it was registered to at one time or another?

Another thing - we can't mail a gun to anyone. We have to take it to an FFL holder and they have to send it to another FFL holder. Is Ohio like that also?

You can't do any face to face purchase across state lines.

Any handgun purchased in Ohio would have to be shipped to a PA FFL, who would do the background check and transfer it to you.

Depending on Ohio and Pennsylvania law, (and I don't know what it is) you may be able to purchase a long gun from a dealer in Ohio and take it back to Penn.