The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5041 - 5060 of total 5459 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 7, 2015 - 11:17pm PT
And don't get me started on the Firearm Safety Check test. All that tested was my patience at forking over $25. It was so mind-numbingly stoopid it wasn't funny. But as long as it makes the good legislators in Sacramento
sleep better then I'm happy.

I literally laughed out loud at that one. So true! So true!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Mar 8, 2015 - 08:27am PT
So when I want to sell a gun to somebody I don't know (never happened in 36 years), then I call up a number and (he pays) the fee.

Good so far.

But then the guy on the phone tells you he is a felon. Don't sell him the gun. Thank you good by. Click.

And you are left there standing with a shlt eating grin on your face.




Seems like this system might provoke some bad feelings,..

Oh my goodness! Good thing you brought a gun!!!

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Mar 8, 2015 - 08:29am PT
That's all that would need to be done. Seems pretty common sense, and relatively easy to implement. Can it be done without trying to bunch it without a lot of more emotionally-driven fluff?

No I don't. As to your continual reference to hissy fits (of others) and what have you, well, dude, you have a pronounced, over-sized hissy yourself so take a good look in the mirror.

DMT
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Mar 8, 2015 - 11:59am PT
Nowhere in this country is selling a firearm to a prohibited person legal in any way shape or form.

Ask Anderson. He sells guns all day long.

Ron is, or works for a licensed firearms dealer, the laws for dealers are totally different from the law for private sales. Ron in a personal capacity can sell any gun he owns to anyone. Unless Ron KNOWS or BELIEVES that person is a criminal, Ron has committed no crime. Ron can suspect whatever he likes, but unless he has some solid knowledge of the buyers history, there is no crime in selling a gun to a total stranger.

TE
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Mar 8, 2015 - 12:16pm PT
Is this sort of thing really so hard to come up with???

Why would this bill need to prohibit use of NICBCS records for a national gun registry when the original Brady Bill already does?

If receipt of a firearm would not violate section 922 (g)
or (n) or State law, the system shall—
‘‘(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
‘‘(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
‘‘(C)** destroy all records of the system with respect to the
call (other than the identifying number and the date the number
was assigned) and all records of the system relating to
the person or the transfer.**

(i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.—No department, agency,
officer, or employee of the United States may—
(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated
by the system established under this section be recorded at
or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by
the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof;
or
(2) use the system established under this section to establish
any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners,
or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect
to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

BTW, where did you find the text, I was looking for it?

TE

TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Mar 8, 2015 - 12:19pm PT
No offense meant Ron, Chaz claimed you couldn't legally sell a gun to a criminal and I was trying to explain that while you couldn't legally do it professionally you could legally do it in a private capacity.

TE
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Mar 8, 2015 - 01:20pm PT
from an honest gun owner?

With that criteria you've set up the answer.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 8, 2015 - 01:34pm PT
Why would this bill need to prohibit use of NICBCS records for a national gun registry when the original Brady Bill already does?

The reason has to do with "coupling" statutory clauses. In law, as in computer programming, the law of unintended side-effects reigns supreme.

So, a "bare" background-check statute goes into law, depending upon the Brady Bill to ensure no record-keeping. Then the Brady Bill expires, is overturned, is ultimately found unconstitutional, or for a host of other reasons goes away. Now the background-check statute is sitting there truly "bare." Perhaps it even takes awhile, but eventually (or suddenly), some legislator (or government agency) tumbles to the fact that the background-check statute has nothing in it precluding record-keeping. At the exact moment that fact is discovered, you can bet your bottom dollar that the system will become a record-keeping system. Probably the public will never tumble to the implications, and likely the public will never recognize that now the system IS a record-keeping system.

"Coupling" of statutory provisions is a critical aspect of good law. If you want the background-check system to NEVER be used as a record-keeping system, then you simply have to include such a clause in the background-check bill itself, so that as goes the authority for the system, so goes the explicit lack of authority to keep records.

Of course, any statute can be "broken up" over time by various other statutes. But at least then the move toward record-keeping has to be public and explicit, not just a back-door or unrecognized, unintended side-effect of some totally other law being changed or going away.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 8, 2015 - 02:08pm PT
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't include the link to the summary of the "full text" I posted. Somehow I totally forgot that step.

Here is where the full text (lengthy!) can be found.

It's sad that none of the sponsors provide the full text themselves. As you found, TE, it is not easy to unearth the full text anywhere!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 8, 2015 - 03:51pm PT
Ironically, it turns out that this "universal" background-check actually exempts from the checks all transfers made to "close" or "immediate" family members:

(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law;

Look, I don't know about you, but I have NO idea of the actual mental condition of my "first cousins," and could only take a guess regarding my various "nieces or nephews or their spouses" (emphasis supplied)!

Not having any particular reason to believe otherwise, I'm confident, however, that I can gift them firearms willy-nilly. It's all good.

My proposed statute would not even have allowed these sorts of exemptions, so mine would have been more "universal" than the one that's actually under consideration by Congress!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 8, 2015 - 04:00pm PT
It gets even better....

(c) PROHIBITION OF NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY —

Section 923 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: "(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the --
"(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by —
"(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
"(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
"(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity."

Show me in that text where a national gun registry is ACTUALLY prohibited by the statute! Even the single reference to the "Attorney General" leaves loopholes huge enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.

And the actual sections specifying WHO the Attorney General may not maintain records on is a small subset of the records that will pass through such a system.

This is no "prohibition" at all; it is the guise of a prohibition that will actually encourage the feds to keep all manner of records that will indeed amount to a national gun registry.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 8, 2015 - 06:37pm PT
Do like AZ and a drivers license IS your CCW permit. And make open carry legal. Vote in stand your ground laws and by all means practice at least once every two weeks shooting some targets.

I'm with you, Ron. I'm also willing to compromise on a background-check law, provided that it does not amount to yet another step down the road toward full federal tyranny. At the very least, it must not grant the feds the power to maintain a national gun registry. I personally think that yet another law will have little positive effect. But, if it makes some people feel more secure, while not granting the feds insights into our private lives they should not have, I'm okay with it.
jonnyrig

climber
Mar 9, 2015 - 03:43pm PT
funny, i just bought a few boxes of 223 at walmart yesterday. they sell DPMS 5.56 ar's starting at just over $600. plenty in stock.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 06:11pm PT
I like all the back and forth on this thread about gun ownership and why it's a good thing to so many people. Concerning the question about has any argument on SuperTopo ever changed your mind, this thread has changed mine. Good work in having a small L liberal Canadian understand a lot about guns and another nation's various cultural standpoints.

What I am baffled by, is the weak intelligence now made into law in some states that assumes the right to self defense is now equal to the "right" to not get your feelings hurt or your clothes roughed up. Enter the Stand Your Ground bromides. Please tell me why being humiliated or abused in public without fear of personal mortality is justifiable grounds for retaliatory homicide ?

Here's an example of someone who would be justified in standing their ground:



It's interesting that both sides either lie or take liberty with the truth. Ultimately, it's 3 against 1, whatever was said...

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 08:06pm PT
Please tell me why being humiliated or abused in public without fear of personal mortality is justifiable grounds for retaliatory homicide.

I don't know of a jurisdiction where it is. Can you tell us of one? I'm honestly curious!

I can't speak to the possible stupidity that might exist in other states, but Colorado has been a model of "stand your ground" laws for other states, and in CO you most certainly CANNOT initiate "retaliatory homicide" for "getting your feelings hurt!"

The standard of justifiable homicide in CO, in all contexts (including "stand your ground") is quite clear: Imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death, as perceived by a reasonable person.

All "stand your ground" means is that you don't have to first try to flee from a confrontation before you are legally allowed to defend yourself. But a jury of 12 will almost certainly review the situation to determine (regardless of "stand your ground") whether or not a "reasonable person" (namely: those 12 "reasonable persons") would have considered your situation to be indeed a threat of severe bodily injury or death.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 9, 2015 - 08:29pm PT
Pretty sure if the fake Seal did "stand his ground" and start shooting that would have been manslaughter/murder... Stand your ground laws or not. Getting slapped being clearly told to leave repeatedly (and not leaving) isn't justification for lethal force anywhere.

Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:04pm PT
Madbolter,

You have now offered confusion as logic.

"All 'stand your ground ' means is that you don't have to first try to flee from a confrontation before you are legally allowed to defend yourself"...

What patent bullshit spread around as justification. If an individual is able to avoid harm by fleeing a situation, that is the bottom test legally for self defence. If there is no escape from a threat, an individual is entitled to use only as much force as necessary to stop the situation from escalating to homicide.

Those defeated Brits and their common law based on the Magna Carta always get in the way of a good Clint Eastwood movie...
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:08pm PT
So Fear, If this fellow drunk outside of a bar was continually slapped around while being told to leave without being allowed to leave, what would you think ?

It's a funny state of mind for the loser on his back, regarding when it's going to stop and when to "stand your ground".
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:22pm PT
What patent bullshit spread around as justification. If an individual is able to avoid harm by fleeing a situation, that is the bottom test legally for self defence.

Don't complain to me. If you don't like it, complain to your legislators.

I'm only expressing what CO law actually says. In CO, as in other "stand your ground" states, you do NOT have to attempt to flee first before defending yourself.

The idea is that you should not have to spend your life running from bullies and other provocative threats, such as gang-bangers.

Again, if you don't like it, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just stating how it works in CO, which has been a model for other "stand your ground" states.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 09:32pm PT
You are being the messenger that shoots. Does freedom equal license ?

Allowing emotion (darned if that MF'r is going to make a monkey out of me) to enter into what is the logic of law and how it's enforced is what's discussed in elementary school.

The video I posted is exactly why sorting each other out at high noon is why mutual knuckleheads get a lesson in peace keeping by the authorities.
Messages 5041 - 5060 of total 5459 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews