The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5061 - 5080 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 7, 2015 - 08:59pm PT
I get what you both are saying, Chaz and Toker Villain. It reminds me of why I never sell anything privately.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 7, 2015 - 10:19pm PT
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/

And maybe I'm missing something, TE, in the new law you urged us to support, but I don't see the language I said was requisite to explicitly preclude the feds from using the universal background check to compile and maintain what amounts to a universal gun-ownership registry. What am I missing?

As the link above notes, statistics supporting universal background checks are often wildly skewed and misinterpreted (correlation =/= causality). But, you know, if it can do even some good....

The issue for me is that it must, absolutely must, do no harm! And a universal background check that amounts to a universal gun-ownership registry at the federal level is a non-starter for me.

Again, what am I missing?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 7, 2015 - 10:47pm PT
MB, what you are missing is that idiots write those laws. I've nothing against
the background check but how about some reality? I bought a piece last week.
I presented my current driver's license and then he asked me for a second
piece to prove my place of residence. I ran out to the truck and just grabbed
one of the many old registrations in there.

"Uh, can you produce the current one?"

"Uh, how does that prove what my current residence is? That thing is like
6 months old. All it proves is that the truck is registered. What if I have
a couple of houses? If a cop pulls me over does he need two pieces of ID?"

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.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 7, 2015 - 11:15pm PT
For convenience, I finally found a site carrying the full text of the bill (even the sponsors' sites carry only the summary), and here it is, so that we can contemplate the actual bill itself.

To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

SHORT TITLE
—This Act may be cited as the "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015".

I must say that I'm pretty disappointed with this, TE. I honestly had hopes that some background check law was going to be non-odious so that I could support it. This one is indeed a non-starter.

"individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm" Nope! Too vague, literally opening the door for the feds to have grounds to unilaterally specify who "should be" prohibited, which is NOT the same thing as saying even "are prohibited," and then....

"are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System" NO, NO, NO, and.... NOOOOOOOOOO!

This just is explicitly granting the feds the "universal" power to maintain an ever-growing and increasingly accurate (over time) gun-ownership registry. Have I said NO emphatically enough?

Why can't the feds quit power-grabbing and focus on the ISSUE rather than on the need/desire to have yet more insight into every American's personal, private life???

It is not too hard to craft universal-background-check language that would satisfy me. Here's a quick stab at a working draft:

SECTION 1: Every transfer of a firearm shall be subject to the background check of the recipient of the transfer through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If the potential recipient of the transfer is found to be prohibited from possessing a firearm by Federal law or by the laws of the State(s) in which the transfer would take place, then the transfer shall be prohibited.

SECTION 2: For the purposes of this statute, the current owner of the firearm proposed for transfer shall be herinafter referred to as "Owner," and the Owner shall be responsible to initiate the NICBCS process. If the transfer is not precluded by law, then the Owner may proceed with the transfer; however, the Owner shall retain a fully-completed Bill of Transfer and certificate of NICBCS process for a ten-year period following completion of the transfer. The Bill of Transfer shall include, at a minimum, a full and accurate description of the firearm and the manufacturer's serial number, if any.

SECTION 3: The penalty for violation of this statute shall be: Blah, blah, blah (I'm pretty open on this point).

SECTION 4: For the purposes of this statute, "transfer" shall mean every mechanism by which a firearm may be said to pass in ownership from one party to another, including but not limited to: sales, gifts, and bequests.

SECTION 5: The NICBCS shall be employed strictly to process incoming transfer verification applications in real time using point-in-time data from duly-recognized law-enforcement agencies. The NICBCS shall not store any record of the proposed transaction, the participants in the proposed transaction, or the results of the system's processing of any verification applications. Record-keeping of legally-allowed transfers shall be entirely the Owner's responsibility, and the Owner shall produce the transaction record in compliance with this statute when bound by warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. No transactional data processed by the NICBCS shall be stored in any form by any government agency.

Blah, blah, blah as necessary to fill in the holes.

This is an off-the-cuff working draft just to show the sort of language I would favor and could get behind. Again, this is off-the-cuff... about 10 minutes of thought. So, I'm sure that our lawmakers, who have nothing better to do with their time, could produce something MUCH better (while maintaining the requisite "no federal list" language).

Is this sort of thing really so hard to come up with???
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.

Messages 5061 - 5080 of total 5484 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